Ugh, it’s helping kids. Yuck, what an insincere article.
Iunno, if someone I knew was involved in trafficking-victim advocacy efforts, then turned around and penned a letter in defense of a rapist who caught 30 to life, I’d suddenly be second-guessing said advocate’s bonafides, and double-checking them too. That’s too rowdy a lapse of judgment for me personally to let slide; and all the parasocial weirdos suddenly jumping to Kutcher’s aid when it’s well known he was a 20 year old with a tongue down a 14 year old’s throat on primetime television is equally as sketchy.
"‘Just trust Ashton Kutcher’ is terrible public policy.”
I love how you completely disregard the people who actually work there and the people who actually run Thorn.
I don’t address techbro wastemen; and I haven’t been given any reason to believe any of them are worth addressing if they’re still schlepping facial recognition routines that still routinely misidentify Black and brown faces. I love how you completely disregard the weirdos in the room to peddle your wagon-circling crap.
they’re selling a tech product that they hope to make mandatory by law, it’s not some charity lol
You think giving surveillance tools to cops helps kids? You think they don’t abuse it? You didn’t read the article so clearly not, but these tools are being used by cops to presecute sex workers and innocent people.
Prediction: It’ll be helping police arrest consensual sex workers at a higher rate than it helps abused children. In jurisdictions where police are paid off by organized crime, it will help organized pimps (who actually do sex trafficking) thwart competition from the consensual market.
I’m sure it will. The problem is that instead focusing on that issue, the article is mostly melodramatic bandwagon bullshit.
The article contains less journalism than it does pearl-clutching and veiled tsks about actors.
Again, insincere.
If the article is about the threat of illegitimate police use of a legitimate and useful law enforcement tool saving children, make the article about that, rather than title it with a facetious question tied to the latest media punching bag irrelevant to any meat in the story.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
