Yep, that's what I was getting at. Whenever I mention censorship-resistant file sharing tools on here, somebody comes along and says, "bah, those are useless, they're full of nazis and child molesters". It's an endless catch-22: if really bad people can't evade surveillance, neither can you. And if you can, then they can, too. When most people hit that realization, they say, "yeah, ok, whatever, 24/7 surveillance is fine as long as it catches bad people too."

> When most people hit that realization, they say ...

I have to say this is not my experience at all. In fact I can say I've probably never met anybody who came to that conclusion.

In my experience, most people recognize that, yes, bad people should be caught, but also that widespread surveillance and erosion of privacy is both bad for them and society. The problem arises with the fact that people often have more pressing matters to them - such as feeding their family - so they don't have time or energy to worry about fighting the myriad systemic issues that is needed to fix things on the necessary societal level.

I do not blame people for this, and nor should you; all that does is antagonize people and increases their reticence about politics in general.

> they say, "yeah, ok, whatever, 24/7 surveillance is fine as long as it catches bad people too."

So you should continue the discussion like this: those bad people after 24/7 surveillance have no other option to infiltrate the surveillance caste. That's where things will get really hellish.

And yet we let the churches and cults roam free and hide the abuses of their leadership.

Widespread Internet surveillance isn't going to solve this when it's being done below board, without the use of devices, etc.

Sure, it might catch some instances, but at the expense of everyone's privacy?

I... what... are you even talking about?

Why people want more censorship and surveillance.

No, this is why govs (and gov-controlled media) tell us we need more censorship.

You think people want more censorship and surveillance because they're worried about pedophiles?

It comes back to the argument: "Why are you opposed to this? Do you have something to hide?" It's easy to paint this as an easy way to catch pedophiles. It doesn't matter if this is actually true or if these arguments really hold up, by they are easy quips that can be thrown out that aren't easily dismissed with an as easy to reply quip.

Basically, the position comes down to: do you want to stop pedophiles, or do you want to make it easier for them to hide?

And yes, you can rationalize all day long about how that's not accurate and this and that, but then your arguing that most people are willing to sift through al the data instead of just going with something that at first glance seems reasonable.

Children's safety online has been an excuse for excessive surveillance for a long time. Not so long ago Apple was going to scan every file on your device for this reason.

Think of the children has been a rallying cry for this since the 90s.