“If it can be done and it is done, for example, for crimes such as child pornography, for intellectual property, which is stealing, they should have to do it too.” - LaLiga chief Javier Tebas
Ah yes, two equivalent crimes: CSAM and… um… watching sports without paying
And people say slippery slope is a fallacy. I guess hopefully it is in this case.
The slippery slope is a fallacy only because there’s no proof things will go one way or the other. You can use slippery slope to say ridiculous things. E.g “if we let gays marry, it’ll be pedos next” is a good example of the fallacy whereas “if we let private corporations spy on us for a good reason, they’ll expand their powers to extract even more profit” is not, but either way, you need to know the context (which is that corporations serve to extract maximum possible wealth and have no morals).
The problem is that slippery slopes are often real, and citing it as a fallacy is normally done to dismiss the idea that it could be real, without making an argument. As you say, whether one thing will lead to another depends on circumstances. But a fallacy is supposed to be an argument that is wrong because of faulty logic. A claim that one thing will lead to another can be wrong, but I would say that it’s almost always wrong because the underlying premise is wrong, not because there is a claim of an existence of a slippery slope. For example the “gay marriage -> child abuse” rhetoric is coming from religious conservatives who likely believe that strict adherence to their religious rules and practice is the main thing keeping society from “degeneracy” and general bad behavior. Given the premise, the conclusion isn’t illogical, the problem is that the premise is wrong. Instead of calling it a fallacy, it would be a better argument to have the premise clarified, and make an argument against its merits.
In the case of the OP situation, I would say that when a company is actively using tools to examine and control the contents of a user’s device, that makes it more plausible for demands that they expand what they do this for will be followed. I’m sure plenty of people would try to dismiss that as a fallacy, but really it’s a claim about how things work.
They fucking finally said the quiet part loud! Make a dystopian filtering system with CSAM as an excuse, then use it for filtering piracy, unauthorized gambling sites (but just because they’re not paying the taxes, not because actually caring about the citizens mental health), and so on
The UK just passed this exact law. They say it’s to protect children, but it requires all companies to build a backdoor into their end to end encryption specifically so they can spy on users for “inappropriate material that is harmful to children.”
These assholes used to spy on people - their app used to keep users’ microphones open, so that together with location, they could detect whether bars were airing football matches, and try to find unlicenced ones.
I really hope they don’t get away with deleting apps from people’s phones.
It is humiliating how much damage has been done to digital rights, in the name of sportsball and old movies.
How can it do that?
And won’t people just use piracy websites?
And Google already scans users phones and deletes apps?
it’s an emergency function that google silently introduced in all phones years ago. Theoretically it should be used if an app is widespread malware
the only workaround is to install a custom ROM without google play and google services
