I'm sorry. I don't see the difference between a problem being imaginary and allegations of a problem being false. If you allege a problem exists, and it's imaginary, then your allegation is false.

So, I'm just saying we can oppose the policy preference regardless of why they stopped appealing to a problem, and regardless of that problem's "realness"

> I'm sorry. I don't see the difference between a problem being imaginary and allegations of a problem being false. If you allege a problem exists, and it's imaginary, then your allegation is false.

The allegation here, as seen in the headline, isn't that there's enough pedophile activity on Facebook to rise to the level of being a problem somewhere.

It's just that there's more on Facebook than there is in most other places.

And regardless of that being true or false, we should preserve E2E encryption.

That's all I'm saying. Somehow was that lost? I think we may be having what a former mentor called a "Conflicting agreement" or "Violent agreement" :D

Well, sure, I agree with your position.

But I think that the point I made is important, different from your point, and topical in the place where I posted it.

Good old "handshake after 10 comments". Classic HN. Cheers!