The funny (not at all funny) thing is that it's not even window dressing about protecting children, it's window dressing about punishing offenders.

Ironically, the "child protection" part has already failed once punishment is required.

All of it, however, is a facade built in front of the real work of continued normalisation of increasingly intrusive, increasingly ubiquitous surveillance.

The drug war we have been experiencing for the last 50+ years was to protect the children. Many of the children we were protecting over the last 50 years have been in jail with felony charges and are unable to live a normal life; not because of drug use (although some are afflicted with that), but because of our protection.

I was one of the children they are protecting, but I managed to escape unscathed, luckily. Some of my friends were not so lucky.

Given that many times we have children hurt by the same laws meant to protect them, I have begun to wonder if the blanket desire to protect children is actually based on a desire to protect children, or to fit in with current culture where anyone without that desire is seen as an extreme outsider who is to be punished. Was this road to hell paved by people with good intentions or was it paved by people whose primary motivating factor was appearing as if they had good intentions.

For example, look at how anti-CSAM laws have been used to harm teens sexting in far worse ways than the harm that is risked by engaging in such action.

Everyone supports protecting children. That's why it's such a good marketing phrase for any bill.