• testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    That argument could be expanded to any tool though.

    People run people over with cars or drive drunk. Ban cars?

    People use computers to distribute CP. Ban computers?

    People use baseball bats to bludgeon people to death. Ban baseball?

    The question of if a tool should be banned is driven by if its utility is outweighed by the negative externalities of use by bad actors.

    The answer is wildly more nuanced than “if it can hurt someone it must be banned.”

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The utility of these tools does not outweigh their misuse.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        That is what we’re debating, yes.

        If it could be conclusively proven that a system like this has saved a child’s life, would that benefit outweigh the misuse?

        If not, how many children’s lives would it need to save for it to outweigh the misuse?