> On the flip side, "think of the children" does not necessarily mean the argument is without merit. There are countless debates in which it is a valid point. For example, climate change is a big "think of the children" issue because the impact will be felt greater by children than by the people who are currently in power.
It's funny you wrote this because you actually committed a straw man fallacy in your line of reasoning above. An argument of "Think of the children" generally means restricting something from dissemination, discussion, or presentation because it's availability or the process by which it is made available would be a negative children as they aren't fully grown and responsible adults. Restricting porn, or discussion or drugs or sexuality, or child porn laws all fit this. It does not literally mean doing anything positive because it will benefit a child.
Saying that any argument that benefits children is a "think of the children" argument is a strawman fallacy. [1]
> An argument of "Think of the children" generally means restricting something from dissemination, discussion, or presentation because it's availability or the process by which it is made available would be a negative children as they aren't fully grown and responsible adults. Restricting porn, or discussion or drugs or sexuality, or child porn laws all fit this. It does not literally mean doing anything positive because it will benefit a child.
Says who? And the argument in question is actually more "if we don't do this, there might not be an liveable earth for our descendants" - you don't have to agree, but from their point of view its far from "doing anything positive because it will benefit a child".
We do lots of things with the state "to protect children". With one MAJOR exception: actually taking decent care of children dependent on the state. Which, to me, really calls into question all these efforts. The number of efforts attempting to "catch" various problem situations for kids, only to throw the kids found into state care, which is horribly bad.
And whilst I understand that some home situations are indeed beyond horrible and kids need rescuing from them, if you actually go look at the stories of kids in state care, actual abuse is pretty rare. Actual abuse is much more commonly found in youth prisons than it is found in child services institutions. Poverty, mental problems and substance abuse by parents at home are the biggest problems (yes, each bigger than the stereotypical criminal reasons. And even the relatively small group of criminal kids outnumber actually physically abused kids 10-to-1. Kids abandoned by their parents, also a tiny group, far outnumber actually abused kids)
It seems to me the whole "protecting kids" is just a 1000 major efforts to catch people in bad situations ... and punish them (situations often not their fault, especially poverty, or certainly not fully their fault). Then, because the kids involved are an annoying detail left behind when parents are punished like, they are ... well, first of all, deeply hidden, far from view. Needless to say, once hidden they are not taken care of very well at all.
This is done so a thousand efforts, and the police and child services itself can continue focusing on the frontend and catching yet-another-new-kind-of-child-abuse to satisfy various interest groups. From the LGBTQ lobby (fortunately these days in the right direction: making sure kids are allowed to be LGBTQ, rather than as little as 10 years ago, punishing them for it) to saving money and/or trouble in schools (such as expensive adaptation of school buildings to handicaps), to helping courts enforce divorce settlements (when parents refuse to abide visitation rights for instance).
But even with very serious child abuse you have to wonder: the child protection system is saturated with violence, drugs and even prostitution. That means the system is not capable of protecting children from violence, drugs or prostitution. But nobody seems to care about that.
It seems clear that if the rule is introduced that the situation of the child must improve as a result of child protection or child protection must leave the child alone after 6 months or so, that it will shrink 90%+ in short order. Such a rule would have the enormous benefit that it would force child protection efforts to improve children's situations directly, rather than finding problems and throwing the kids found into an abyss.
So no these efforts, from CSAM to ... are just to punish people for not abiding by mostly cultural standards. They are not about protecting kids at all. The most generous thing you can say is that they sometimes make it difficult to profit from abusing kids.
Not commenting on any specific emerging technical measures, I believe in general detecting & reporting CSAM possession, while not without side-effects, is probably one of the very few ways to reduce child abuse (including that at home) without large-scale intrusive monitoring of family affairs. (Other ways could be commercials encouraging abused children to complain, presumably of limited effectiveness.)
That said, addressing the underlying causes of abuse (which could probably only be done very indirectly, such as by improving general well-being and working on mental health issues among the population) as the proper long-term solution shouldn’t be ignored.
I'm trying to make the point that the state itself abuses "protected" kids. The living conditions of "protected" kids are horrible, abusive and destructive. Watch a movie like:
Conditions for kids in state care are little better than a trailer camp. Education in "juvie" is often better than that offered to victims of child abuse (which, yes, causes some kids to commit a serious crime to get some education. Why? It's the only way they can guarantee a placement, or a new placement (because some places in youth services are horrible, EVEN by the very low standards of youth services), or the opposite: guarantee a stop to constant changes in placement). The kids are kept there by force regardless of whether it's juvie or not (which is just one more reason violence is a constant in the life of these kids).
I find it absurd that the government, abusing kids in their care, have the slightest interest in using CSAM detection to protect kids. I don't want to say it, not for all, but for the vast majority of abuse, a kid is better off abused at home. Not because that's good for them. Because youth services and state abuse is far worse than the worst they face at home.
Detection of CSAM forcibly brings more kids into this system and, frankly, it's almost always better to leave them in an abusive family (esp. because most cases are about possession of CSAM, not about abuse of their own kids. Is this ideal? Of course not! Is it better than youth services? Absolutely)
Without an extreme rise in the minimum standards of care for kids in state care, I am entirely opposed to any and all attempts to detect child abuse. It makes things far worse for more kids instead of better.
And, frankly, I question the intent of people doing the detection. Because every effort just comes down to being one more "trap" for these kids to fall into. Do X (or have it done to you), and you get thrown into the hell that is youth services.
You want to help kids? Care well for specific kids. Adopt them. Make some kids yourself with a partner. DO NOT interfere in the lives of other children unless you're willing to make the full commitment: have the kid living with you, whatever stunts they pull, whatever beliefs they have, whether they accept you or not, for AT LEAST 10 years (ie. until 25 or so).
If you're not willing to do that, there is no form of help those kids need or want from you. Go and help kids with homework in your local school. Help out at a hospital. Whatever.
It's funny you wrote this because you actually committed a straw man fallacy in your line of reasoning above. An argument of "Think of the children" generally means restricting something from dissemination, discussion, or presentation because it's availability or the process by which it is made available would be a negative children as they aren't fully grown and responsible adults. Restricting porn, or discussion or drugs or sexuality, or child porn laws all fit this. It does not literally mean doing anything positive because it will benefit a child.
Saying that any argument that benefits children is a "think of the children" argument is a strawman fallacy. [1]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man