5 ms·

This might be horrible to say, but could this be a solution to csam? From what I've seen most people who enjoy csam do genuinely feel bad for the children, but

This might be horrible to say, but could this be a solution to csam? From what I've seen most people who enjoy csam do genuinely feel bad for the children, but they're sick, and can't control themselves. Might they be willing to indulge in fake csam instead?

teddyh 4y ago
IIUC, fake CSAM is also illegal.
- intrasight 4y ago
  Correct. Differs from, for example, rules protecting cruelty to animals. You can fake such cruelty without consequence - as is done in movies regularly. More interesting question is this. Is it a crime if you generate CSAM just for ones own consumption?
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > Is it a crime if you generate CSAM just for ones own consumption? Yep. If it isn't obviously fake (i.e. a cartoon) the possession is illegal whether you produce it yourself or not. Though it's probably safe to say that you're unlikely to get caught if you're not sharing those images with other people.
    - intrasight 4y ago
      What if it's in the "uncanny valley"? My point is that the courts are going to have a hard time with this.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        Well, the US law says "[when it] appears virtually indistinguishable [from the real deal]" (insert appropriate legal terminology on either end, but the three quoted words are the relevant bit. I think we're in agreement that the advancement of the technology is going to make this topic come back up for legal debate. When the gulf between CGI and real photography was large, it was pretty straightforward. Not so much now.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    I think the hard part is there is close to no way to know its fake. But you could also that if its so easy to fake photo realistic content, why would you ever make real content.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I believe that as of 2003 it has to be a realistic fake, however. Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal. I imagine it'll get challenged again at some point on constitutional grounds. It is illegal right now on a moral basis, which is probably the weakest argument over the long term.
  - jwalton 4y ago
    > Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal. AFAIK they are still illegal in Canada.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  I'm aware that Japanese lolicon in anime, manga, video games, and other contexts, is at least ... problematic ... in numerous areas. Several online sites have banned it, and on Mastodon and the Fediverse, there are often peer-level blocks against sites in which lolicon is permitted. Then name itself is a portmanteau of Lolita complex, after the Nabokov novel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legality_and_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legality_and_censorshi...
- kingcharles 4y ago
  Depends on jurisdiction. Not a huge amount of places have outlawed fake CSAM yet, but it is growing.
hallway_monitor 4y ago
It seems more misguided than horrible. I'm not a psychologist, but indulging in pathological behaviors would seem to strengthen them. Heroin addicts need to quit, not use methadone forever.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  Is that true? Someone on HN once described it like "eventually you get tired of the addiction and want to quit" (if you live long enough, that is). No personal experience, but I have known a couple former addicts and this seems to reflect their reality. Maybe an effective approach would be to maximize harm reduction until the addiction has run its course? That seems to be the Portugal solution, and it seems to be successful.
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    I don't think it's accurate to equate pedohilia with drug addiction. It's a sexual orientation, not a chemical dependence. Do gay men eventually get tired of being homosexual and turn straight?
  - awillen 4y ago
    The truth is that addiction, like all mental illness, is complex and unique to each individual. Diagnosing mental illness generally consists of identifying some number of symptoms out of a possible list - often something like five out of eight possible. That means two people can be diagnosed with the same thing with only two overlapping symptoms. So basically, don't listen to the guy who starts with "I'm not a psychologist" and then decides to play armchair psychologist.
- Auracle 4y ago
  [dead]
- themisphile 4y ago
- danachow 4y ago
rootusrootus 4y ago
I don't think it's horrible, it just seems like a practical solution. It is such a taboo subject that nobody seems to really talk about the possibilities, but it's worth asking the question -- if someone so inclined can gratify their desires in private with fake imagery, will it prevent them from leaving their home and seeking out someone to hurt? Or will it strengthen their need for 'the real thing' as someone else suggested in a sibling comment? In any case, we still don't have a great answer for the legal question. Possession of realistic fake imagery is illegal, on the grounds that its very existence is a risk to children. There isn't any actual science behind that, it's just what the politicians have said to justify regulating what would otherwise be a constitutionally protected right. I imagine it will become a topic of discussion again (my quick research says the last major revision to US law in this regard was about 20 years ago).

teddyh 4y ago

IIUC, fake CSAM is also illegal.

intrasight 4y ago
Correct. Differs from, for example, rules protecting cruelty to animals. You can fake such cruelty without consequence - as is done in movies regularly. More interesting question is this. Is it a crime if you generate CSAM just for ones own consumption?
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > Is it a crime if you generate CSAM just for ones own consumption? Yep. If it isn't obviously fake (i.e. a cartoon) the possession is illegal whether you produce it yourself or not. Though it's probably safe to say that you're unlikely to get caught if you're not sharing those images with other people.
  - intrasight 4y ago
    What if it's in the "uncanny valley"? My point is that the courts are going to have a hard time with this.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Well, the US law says "[when it] appears virtually indistinguishable [from the real deal]" (insert appropriate legal terminology on either end, but the three quoted words are the relevant bit. I think we're in agreement that the advancement of the technology is going to make this topic come back up for legal debate. When the gulf between CGI and real photography was large, it was pretty straightforward. Not so much now.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  I think the hard part is there is close to no way to know its fake. But you could also that if its so easy to fake photo realistic content, why would you ever make real content.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I believe that as of 2003 it has to be a realistic fake, however. Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal. I imagine it'll get challenged again at some point on constitutional grounds. It is illegal right now on a moral basis, which is probably the weakest argument over the long term.
- jwalton 4y ago
  > Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal. AFAIK they are still illegal in Canada.
dredmorbius 4y ago
I'm aware that Japanese lolicon in anime, manga, video games, and other contexts, is at least ... problematic ... in numerous areas. Several online sites have banned it, and on Mastodon and the Fediverse, there are often peer-level blocks against sites in which lolicon is permitted. Then name itself is a portmanteau of Lolita complex, after the Nabokov novel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legality_and_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legality_and_censorshi...
kingcharles 4y ago
Depends on jurisdiction. Not a huge amount of places have outlawed fake CSAM yet, but it is growing.

hallway_monitor 4y ago

It seems more misguided than horrible. I'm not a psychologist, but indulging in pathological behaviors would seem to strengthen them. Heroin addicts need to quit, not use methadone forever.

stickfigure 4y ago
Is that true? Someone on HN once described it like "eventually you get tired of the addiction and want to quit" (if you live long enough, that is). No personal experience, but I have known a couple former addicts and this seems to reflect their reality. Maybe an effective approach would be to maximize harm reduction until the addiction has run its course? That seems to be the Portugal solution, and it seems to be successful.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  I don't think it's accurate to equate pedohilia with drug addiction. It's a sexual orientation, not a chemical dependence. Do gay men eventually get tired of being homosexual and turn straight?
- awillen 4y ago
  The truth is that addiction, like all mental illness, is complex and unique to each individual. Diagnosing mental illness generally consists of identifying some number of symptoms out of a possible list - often something like five out of eight possible. That means two people can be diagnosed with the same thing with only two overlapping symptoms. So basically, don't listen to the guy who starts with "I'm not a psychologist" and then decides to play armchair psychologist.
Auracle 4y ago
[dead]
themisphile 4y ago
danachow 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

I don't think it's horrible, it just seems like a practical solution. It is such a taboo subject that nobody seems to really talk about the possibilities, but it's worth asking the question -- if someone so inclined can gratify their desires in private with fake imagery, will it prevent them from leaving their home and seeking out someone to hurt? Or will it strengthen their need for 'the real thing' as someone else suggested in a sibling comment? In any case, we still don't have a great answer for the legal question. Possession of realistic fake imagery is illegal, on the grounds that its very existence is a risk to children. There isn't any actual science behind that, it's just what the politicians have said to justify regulating what would otherwise be a constitutionally protected right. I imagine it will become a topic of discussion again (my quick research says the last major revision to US law in this regard was about 20 years ago).