The implication isn't that the allegations are false. The implication is that the problem is imaginary. Facebook can easily be the largest site of an imaginary problem.

> If we stick the debate around the truthiness of the allegations, it only takes a few bad examples to lose that argument.

That is true, but the argument here is over why people stopped appealing to terrorism to support their policy preferences.

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!