zlacker

As someone who loves abstract thinking and debate for debate's sake (in pursuit of truth and nuance). All i can comment is that this topic is so far out of the overton window that it's not possible to find any truth about the topic. In the US/Canada anything but full support for "Think of the children" will result in all out ad hominem.

People cannot be honest about how they feel, sexually, because it's thought crime.

People cannot get help because others must report it to the police.

Researchers cannot study it (or release results contrary to the status quo) because it would be career ending.

Reporters cannot tackle the subject because it would make them unemployable or ruin their publication.

Politicians must bow to it, and leverage it, because of the populist view.

Inmates cannot get rehabilitation because they're societally hated, and other inmates will kill them or commit deplorable acts against them. (This is socially acceptable behavior, even encouraged)

>>throwi+(OP)
> In the US/Canada anything but full support for "Think of the children" will result in all out ad hominem.

The other side of this is, "What's an acceptable number of crimes against children?" Implicitly, there's a choice, "This remedy is projected to reduce crimes against children by X%, but we're not going to do it because Y." The projected marginal reduction is justified using the consequences of Y.

I'm perfectly ok with this calculus. If someone wants to say that right to privacy is more important than a projected reduction in crimes against children, more power to them.

What I'm asking for is honesty regarding this calculus. For some reason it short circuits peoples' brains and the consequences of taking whichever action end up making them unable to say, "Yes, the [projected] marginal reduction is the what I'm willing to spend by not doing Y." Just say it.

>>kelsey+E3
The issue is that there's little research being conducted on the topic. There's just multiple factors that make research extremely difficult, making progress in understanding the issues harder, thus undermining any policymaking.

>>ranyum+Yh
That's a good point; it's not a very scientific field. The baserate for "trying something no one has tried before," is definitionally zero.

Any thoughts on the use of prediction markets, especially ones where predictor performance is tracked, in order to make better predictions on the results of legislative action?

>>kelsey+6t
I find it an interesting idea. In my humble opinion I'd just add a consideration: the returns/results of legislative action might not be objective, even for well-defined issues. It might not be as objective as money because the results (data) have to be interpreted by participants.