Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?

I know, right ?

If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.

Absolutely, and if you’d asked for proof of their accusation you’d be correct in this instance.

They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.

They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn’t.

You provided your own accusation:

You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?

And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.

You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.

Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:

You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.

I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.

It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of “does this field, on it’s own, constitute age verification”.

The point most people are trying to make is that it’s a part of a larger context.

No, they don’t.

You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.

edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.

Ah yes, the two genders, completely sane “piles of guns” owner and raging psychopath.

Nuance doesn’t exist, accidents don’t happen and a mostly overlooked societal mental health crisis is woke DEI propaganda.

Ah, this is probably my fault.

I’m not the person you were replying to so i wasn’t really arguing any of these points, i just a saw the request and knew of an example, so i provided it.

Just in case this was for me specifically I’ll answer:

Yea I have zero issue with the fact that accounts with pictures of children’s genitals on them should be referred to the the authorities.

Pictures of children’s genitals aren’t inherently CSAM, there are plenty of parents and family members with entirely innocent pictures of their kids on their phones.

There are examples of this in the reported cases of false positives leading to bad outcomes, this is easily searchable.

I’m not saying to not do anything, I’m saying blanket reporting is an ineffective brute-force approach.

If people want privacy, host the pictures locally.

In theory yes, in practice, not so much.

on-device scanning exists and is in use/has been in use on phones, examples of this are also easily searchable.

When you’re storing images with a cloud provider. They become responsible for the images that they store. If it’s a photo of a child’s genitals and that’s illegal for them to have those images on their servers and they need to protect themselves.

The need for legal protection is valid, scanning cloud uploaded photo’s is a user privacy nightmare, but expected.

End to end encryption (where only the users device can decrypt and see the photo) would probably stand up legally but then they wouldn’t be able to use the cloud photo’s to make money.

The problem comes with the recognition of illegal and the way it’s handled.

Yes, but also it’s the 4th result on that page.

Seems like reading 4 entries is a problem so here is a direct link

Here

That’s just it, it’s not.

It’s a whole economy based on the threat of neverending warfare.

An actual war, where they aren’t just stomping on something from a great height, that is short term benefit compared to selling them the re-up every cycle, “just in case”

Military keeping up with the Joneses.