souplesse

Is your argument that the ends justify the means?

Are you saying that the current generation of Hollywood stars are generally nepo babies? I’m not saying it’s not true, but Tom Holland and Timothee Chalamet are not good examples for that.

Have you created much intellectual property?

While this might seem pedantic, is it actually illegal not to have a home?

I think that's exactly the point the parent comment was making: that, as with driving, an individual who is unable to take the wellbeing of others around them into account can/should have their privilege of individual autonomy restricted.

Obviously there's a difference between defecating on the sidewalk and recklessly injuring someone with a car, so the question becomes how we define harm.

"Telco bootlicking" feels pretty strong for the seemingly reasonable view that a customer doesn't own a phone they haven't paid for.

There are absolutely worthwhile discussions to be had about the ethics of dealing with abusive or greedy corporations, or about whether rent-to-own contracts are predatory.

But just because the community doesn't immediately jump to say "telcos suck so stealing your phone is a moral imperative" doesn't mean commenters are groveling at the feet of T-Mobile.

Ah, I think you're confused by the way the preceding paragraph ends ("Apple told WIRED that it also plans to continue working with child safety experts [...]").

The paragraph you're quoting ("'Technology that detects...scope of the problem.'") is entirely commentary from Erin Earp at RAINN, and is what was added by WIRED with the edit.

And, sorry to nitpick, but "Countering CSAM is a complicated and nuanced endeavor [...]" has always been the last paragraph (both before and after the edit).

The last paragraph of the story is a concluding statement by the author on the difficulty of countering CSAM, and it says no such thing.

The announced opt-in feature for iCloud family accounts (Communication Safety for Messages) will scan content that is sent and received by the Messages app, and alert the associated parent or caregiver directly, without informing Apple.

Can you give examples of some of the times Apple has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Otherwise it seems like a bit of a false equivalence.

Sincere question: what new steps would you recommend they take?

The iOS location request prompt uses very clear language while allowing for granular access, and the granted permissions are easily reviewed in Settings.

The App Store requires data usage disclosures, which are presented about as succinctly as possible.

They could mandate that apps share absolutely no location data with any third party, but that would break all sorts of things (external mapping APIs, for example), and it’d basically be impossible to police.

Are there mitigations they could provide that I’m missing?

Wouldn’t that make it mostly interesting history with a little bit of an ad?

I think you missed the point.

There’s nothing wrong with Outside sharing nice places with world, but it’s ironic that they would also publish an article decrying the very popularization that they themselves often cause.

Good thing that isn't what the parent comment is arguing then.