The alarms are valid.

The images are harmful.

But I am deeply concerned that in our rush to condemn the new technology, we are misdiagnosing the cause.

The problem is not the tool.

The problem is the user.

1. Decentralized

2. Anonymous

3. Trustworthy

4. Immune (from bad actors)

History has shown that these values are incompatible. Not a little incompatible - completely incompatible. We only have three decks of cards open to us:

1. Open and anonymous (and hopelessly corrupted by bad actors to the point of uselessness - phase 1 - Google only got popular in the first place because people couldn't dig through the manure)

2. Closed (held hostage by Big Tech curation - you are here - phase 2 - but corruption causes government intervention)

3. Open and accountable (identities tied to the real world, with real world accountability - incoming phase - but at least you don’t need to worry about DDoS as much)

There is no other option that works, any more than 1 + 1 + 1 = 4, no matter how badly we wish it existed.

Zero people are harmed by this. The idea that this is more worthy of attention, than e.g. the creation of humiliating or pornographic images of real people is absurd.

I get that this is "whataboutism", but to be honest this seems to be such a petty and minor complaint that it feels absurd to even consider this a real problem.

And on a final note. These images are used to invoke a sense of guilt in prospective donors, so that people donate to charities. I agree that these images are distasteful and should not be shown, real or fake.