Yes, that’s it on the nose.

The number of things which have been laundered under “prevent child porn” is absurd. No, it is not a problem which warrants a global panopticon state.

As for drug sales, I’m not sure what to say if you think that’s the pitch that’s gonna land here.

Yes.

Giving up civil rights for the perennial boogiemen like terrorism or CSAM never results in less terrorism or CSAM, but does erode the rights of individuals.

The goal is to establish an undemocratic method of control over and coercion of individuals and the means of communication. This has been borne out time and time again.

Lots of antivaxxers that were born in a world without smallpox in HN

What do you mean “could be”? Those are both examples of censorship, not non-censorship things thar can be acheived by tools that can also be used for censorship.

But, no, some censorship is acceptable and necessary. But we have to be aware of—and appropriately guard against—the other kind, and sometimes that means having less capacity for the kind that would be acceptable than you would want if there was downside attached to it.

The key is what mechanisms.

Dropping 1,000 nukes that would destroy humanity would be a mechanism to stop drugs and pornography. But it would be the wrong tool.

I’d rather have a free Internet than a restricted one to a small number of individuals using it for unethical behavior. It’s a small price to pay for freedom.

Requiring a government run cellmodem camera in every residence's home and bathroom would presumably help combat child abuse-- probably vastly better than DNS blocking as well. Am I correct in assuming you'd be all for it?