• SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting article though I would not expect a technology company to have all of the answers. The police are doing the actual work and need to be held accountable.

    • kitonthenet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      yes, but thorn is lobbying for changes to EU law that would require tech companies there to, among other things, purchase thorn’s product to scan user’s data

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      And saving kids is great! The problem is basically the epitome of the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

      On the surface, a false positive identification isn’t that bad. Validate the data and move on. Case closed, right? Not exactly.

      It probably takes time to filter through false positive alerts and maybe some additional investigations are started. The biggest problem is that society naturally follows “guilty until proven innocent”. If someone is caught up in a trafficking case, and they are actually innocent, their career and association with their existing social circles are basically done. That is regardless if they are innocent and that is horrible.

      Also there is persistence of data. Once a person gets associated in these datasets, is probably near impossible to have that data removed. This could look really bad if it is found as part of an unrelated investigation and exposed. I won’t even go into the invasion of privacy issues.

      While it is great to catch actual bad people, possibly destroying the life of another is also bad. I really wish I could say that is a person is actually innocent they have nothing to worry about. That simply doesn’t apply here.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again, if what are you are writing about was the content of the article and how the article was presented, it would it be a good article.

        Instead, it’s some coy vulture shaking their head and demanding everyone stare at the pop culture dunce of the day who has removed himself from spotlight because he knew the vultures were descending.

        You’ve written more relevant content in your post and presented said content more genuinely than this article has done with thousands of words.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This bandwagon you’re scrabbling to catch hold of is actually for media gossip, not so much about corruption of authority, but your hyperbolic and irrelevant comment will be tacked on late though it is, to everybody else’s.

    • Pratai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, we live in a time there people want to be shocked/offended/angered by everything. And if it doesn’t fall into of these reactions- it’s not worth talking about.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is the article about how spotlight doesn’t save children? No. Because it does.

        Is it about the apparently genuine campaign to make some impact on a horrific reality? No.

        Is Kutcher implicated in anything other than a good-faith effort to aid in identifying and fighting against sex trafficking? No.

        He resigned immediately after making a culturally insensitive sentence to avoid vultures, and a vulture is swooping after him to capitalize on his poor judgment.

        • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          He resigned immediately after making a culturally insensitive sentence to avoid vultures, and a vulture is swooping after him to capitalize on his poor judgment.

          Okay, let’s not pretend it was a single misinterpreted sentence, and now poor Ashton is unfairly hounded.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please, refocus on what’s important to all of you: the immaterial details of celebrity gossip.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    79
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh for the love of god. When did we get to the point where EVERYTHING is a sinister plot hook.

    Fucking lighten up.

        • taanegl@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The app is being used by police to persecute sex workers and marks, not to find children who are victims of child sex trafficking - because child sex traffickers are not stupid enough to give their “product” to anyone who would instantly put their faces on the internet for anyone to find.

          Sex trafficking is a serious issue, but Kutcher nor his company has done their due diligence and are actually helping to persecute sex workers.

          I’m not saying that it was intentional, but it does make the whole supposed effort seem like it’s more about optics and marketing.

          • Pratai@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And this illustrates that I’m a mark how exactly?

            See, all I did was point out how everyone is so smugly up their own asses that they feel they can persecute anyone and anything to the point that no one should be bothered to try and do anything even remotely helpful- lest they be publicly shamed for not doing enough, or not doing it as the hive-mind thinks they should….

            … and somehow, this makes me a mark?

            Fucking hilarious.

            • b0rlax@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Defending a famous, rich, rape apologist whose organization is doing more for hurting legal sex work than helping solve illegal sex trafficking is kind of mark behavior.

              To me, when a person shows their true colors, I automatically need to assume their past actions had ulterior motives.

            • taanegl@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I just tried to explain what I thought the commenter was saying. He was being glib, and a little derisive. In any case, you play the same game and I can read your frustrations clearly. You justifiably tried to defend your position, but chose the wrong way of doing it.

              I recommend taking a break a few days from comment section, even social media. Just get it out of your head for a while, try to find balance again. Social media can be very provocative and even infuriating at times. But it doesn’t help you to fight passive aggressive statements with aggressive statements.

              In any case, I hope you take care of yourself and that you are well.