3 ms·

It is irrelevant whether what other countries believe. Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM

It is irrelevant whether what other countries believe. Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM) does not make your argument stronger, and indeed will just lead most people to distance themselves from you. They aren't providing material aid to terrorists, nor did they engage in those acts themselves. They're reporting on it (and in some cases reveling in it)....... but that is not illegal, nor should it be. People really should stop trying to be the mutaween of the internet. It's getting tiresome.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
> Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM) The reason the world has moved on from calling it "child porn" is - because the world has generally moved on from thinking consensual pornography is always morally indefensible - because consensual pornography is generally legal - and so because "porn" doesn't truly describe what is happening It's not a euphemism. It's a clarification. A minority of pornography with adults involves abuse. But _all_ of the material you think should not be "euphemistically" called CSAM intrinsically involves abuse.
- EarlKing 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Nursie 3y ago
    Calling it Child Sexual Abuse Material is doing exactly that. That is what is depicted, that is what has taken place to produce the material. It puts front and centre that this is abuse, categorically and by definition, not 'porn'.
    - didntcheck 3y ago
      Why would that not be "porn"? I would define that as "material intended to sexually arouse the particular audience". Merriam-Webster appears to largely agree The material being harmful and produced via abuse doesn't remove it from that definition, in the same way that rape isn't removed from the definition of "sex"
      - Nursie 3y ago
        ‘Porn’ these days generally implies legal and consensual. Reflect as you will on what that means about society and the pervasiveness of porn as compared to a few decades back. Regardless, calling it CSAM puts the abuse aspect front and centre, and puts it in a separate category to that, it avoids euphemism rather than adding to it.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    > Moving away from that term has as its object attempting to reframe certain obvious acts of child abuse as not abuse but "art". This is a nonsensical interpretation.
- didntcheck 3y ago
  "The world", being random individuals, still overwhelmingly calls it child porn. Organizations in the field call it CSAM It's just like "ISIS". Every organization had an opinion on whether to call it "ISIL" or "the so-called Islamic State" or "Daesh", but the fact is everyone not making a press release just called it "ISIS". Nobody thought that that name was endorsing their self-claimed statehood, and nobody thinks "child porn" somehow justifies it. But using constantly-changing ("CSAI", "CSEM") jargon just confuses anyone not in the know and makes the topic harder to search _All_ revenge porn involves abuse, but that's still the common term. It's still porn, in the same way that rape is still sex
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > _All_ revenge porn involves abuse, but that's still the common term. Because it was normal porn when it was made, and the abuse is external to the actual content.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    > in the same way that rape is still sex Oh dear. This is appallingly misinformed.
- Hamuko 3y ago
  I don't like the term CSAM because I've seen it lead to such tortured and misleading terms as "CG-CSAM" (computer-generated child sexual abuse material), suggesting that an AI model generating images of naked children is committing sexual abuse. The already-existing concept of "simulated child pornography" actually describes it better.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    That material is illegal in many jurisdictions for the reason that it encourages and is often found coincident with real CSAM. This is common sense. CG-CSAM also covers photoshop editing, I think.
    - Hamuko 3y ago
      Do you have sources to back up the fact that "it encourages and is often found coincident with real CSAM"? You can't just claim that it's common sense that an AI-generated image of a child is encouraging real child abuse. Generative AI hasn't even been around for long enough to be part of common knowledge.
      - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
        Again: it's you that has put the specific "AI" projection onto "CG". As I say, this term appears to be used in the past broadly to include the kind of 3D animations that appear in conventional porn adverts, and also to face-swap and other Photoshop-type edits. All I can say is that prosecutions in the UK for example have often mentioned such material alongside conventionally shared material. I don't think I've read about any prosecutions where fake material was the only material justifying prosecution. But I could have missed that. I have absolutely no interest in getting into the rest of the argument, which is tedious and IMO kind of obvious on many grounds.
ncallaway 3y ago
To say “child sexual abuse material” is a euphemism for “child porn” is to misunderstand the meaning of the word “euphemism”. Which is more mild? “Sexual abuse material”, or “pornography”? Anyway, the point of bringing up CSAM or child pornography is to point out that you don’t think it’s bad idea to allow “the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user information about anyone who so much as discussed it” in every context. In some cases you (or if not you, then at least the vast majority of society) thinks it’s appropriate. So, now we know that there is line, and it’s a matter of discussing as a society where that line should be. I happen to agree that we should keep the government very far away from regulating speech, as much as possible, but I don’t view your argument as the best way of getting there.
- EarlKing 3y ago
  > In some cases you (or if not you, then at least the vast majority of society) thinks it’s appropriate. Children cannot defend themselves. Adults can. No one is particularly interested if this fine line escapes you. The line exists, no one is interested in changing it (other than pedophiles, of course), and the proletariat would quite like it if the bourgeoisie could leave us the hell alone, thank you very much. Also, allow me to clarify one point: I don't have an argument. I have a class interest. I am not interested in convincing you one way or another. If arguments actually worked to protect our rights then we wouldn't have to go through this merry-go-round of nonsense every few years. I am stating quite simply that the proletariat has certain rights and attempting to infringe upon the same as the bourgeoisie has done for the last decade is a sure-fire way to result in the same being subject to boycott and ruin... and if you don't think that is the case then ask Budweiser how they're doing at their next quarterly earnings report. My only message is for bourgeoisie who may be reading: If you value your profits then maybe you should consider leaving your customers the hell alone, because the incident with Budweiser shows that customers incensed with your manipulations can and will stop doing business with you. No one is exempt from this fact, including ISPs, NSPs, payment processors, or other intermediaries who perhaps justifiably think that they are untouchable. Lest there be any room for doubt: KiwiFarms has been under assault for the better part of a year and change... and now we're talking about it on Hacker News. This story is being talked about here and now because some people have had enough of this nonsense. Maybe everyone should take a break... pause, reflect... and ask whether trying to manipulate their customers to their own financial ruin is really something they want to pursue to the bitter end.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago

> Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM) The reason the world has moved on from calling it "child porn" is - because the world has generally moved on from thinking consensual pornography is always morally indefensible - because consensual pornography is generally legal - and so because "porn" doesn't truly describe what is happening It's not a euphemism. It's a clarification. A minority of pornography with adults involves abuse. But _all_ of the material you think should not be "euphemistically" called CSAM intrinsically involves abuse.

EarlKing 3y ago
[flagged]
- Nursie 3y ago
  Calling it Child Sexual Abuse Material is doing exactly that. That is what is depicted, that is what has taken place to produce the material. It puts front and centre that this is abuse, categorically and by definition, not 'porn'.
  - didntcheck 3y ago
    Why would that not be "porn"? I would define that as "material intended to sexually arouse the particular audience". Merriam-Webster appears to largely agree The material being harmful and produced via abuse doesn't remove it from that definition, in the same way that rape isn't removed from the definition of "sex"
    - Nursie 3y ago
      ‘Porn’ these days generally implies legal and consensual. Reflect as you will on what that means about society and the pervasiveness of porn as compared to a few decades back. Regardless, calling it CSAM puts the abuse aspect front and centre, and puts it in a separate category to that, it avoids euphemism rather than adding to it.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  > Moving away from that term has as its object attempting to reframe certain obvious acts of child abuse as not abuse but "art". This is a nonsensical interpretation.
didntcheck 3y ago
"The world", being random individuals, still overwhelmingly calls it child porn. Organizations in the field call it CSAM It's just like "ISIS". Every organization had an opinion on whether to call it "ISIL" or "the so-called Islamic State" or "Daesh", but the fact is everyone not making a press release just called it "ISIS". Nobody thought that that name was endorsing their self-claimed statehood, and nobody thinks "child porn" somehow justifies it. But using constantly-changing ("CSAI", "CSEM") jargon just confuses anyone not in the know and makes the topic harder to search _All_ revenge porn involves abuse, but that's still the common term. It's still porn, in the same way that rape is still sex
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > _All_ revenge porn involves abuse, but that's still the common term. Because it was normal porn when it was made, and the abuse is external to the actual content.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  > in the same way that rape is still sex Oh dear. This is appallingly misinformed.
Hamuko 3y ago
I don't like the term CSAM because I've seen it lead to such tortured and misleading terms as "CG-CSAM" (computer-generated child sexual abuse material), suggesting that an AI model generating images of naked children is committing sexual abuse. The already-existing concept of "simulated child pornography" actually describes it better.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  That material is illegal in many jurisdictions for the reason that it encourages and is often found coincident with real CSAM. This is common sense. CG-CSAM also covers photoshop editing, I think.
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    Do you have sources to back up the fact that "it encourages and is often found coincident with real CSAM"? You can't just claim that it's common sense that an AI-generated image of a child is encouraging real child abuse. Generative AI hasn't even been around for long enough to be part of common knowledge.
    - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
      Again: it's you that has put the specific "AI" projection onto "CG". As I say, this term appears to be used in the past broadly to include the kind of 3D animations that appear in conventional porn adverts, and also to face-swap and other Photoshop-type edits. All I can say is that prosecutions in the UK for example have often mentioned such material alongside conventionally shared material. I don't think I've read about any prosecutions where fake material was the only material justifying prosecution. But I could have missed that. I have absolutely no interest in getting into the rest of the argument, which is tedious and IMO kind of obvious on many grounds.

ncallaway 3y ago

To say “child sexual abuse material” is a euphemism for “child porn” is to misunderstand the meaning of the word “euphemism”. Which is more mild? “Sexual abuse material”, or “pornography”? Anyway, the point of bringing up CSAM or child pornography is to point out that you don’t think it’s bad idea to allow “the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user information about anyone who so much as discussed it” in every context. In some cases you (or if not you, then at least the vast majority of society) thinks it’s appropriate. So, now we know that there is line, and it’s a matter of discussing as a society where that line should be. I happen to agree that we should keep the government very far away from regulating speech, as much as possible, but I don’t view your argument as the best way of getting there.

EarlKing 3y ago
> In some cases you (or if not you, then at least the vast majority of society) thinks it’s appropriate. Children cannot defend themselves. Adults can. No one is particularly interested if this fine line escapes you. The line exists, no one is interested in changing it (other than pedophiles, of course), and the proletariat would quite like it if the bourgeoisie could leave us the hell alone, thank you very much. Also, allow me to clarify one point: I don't have an argument. I have a class interest. I am not interested in convincing you one way or another. If arguments actually worked to protect our rights then we wouldn't have to go through this merry-go-round of nonsense every few years. I am stating quite simply that the proletariat has certain rights and attempting to infringe upon the same as the bourgeoisie has done for the last decade is a sure-fire way to result in the same being subject to boycott and ruin... and if you don't think that is the case then ask Budweiser how they're doing at their next quarterly earnings report. My only message is for bourgeoisie who may be reading: If you value your profits then maybe you should consider leaving your customers the hell alone, because the incident with Budweiser shows that customers incensed with your manipulations can and will stop doing business with you. No one is exempt from this fact, including ISPs, NSPs, payment processors, or other intermediaries who perhaps justifiably think that they are untouchable. Lest there be any room for doubt: KiwiFarms has been under assault for the better part of a year and change... and now we're talking about it on Hacker News. This story is being talked about here and now because some people have had enough of this nonsense. Maybe everyone should take a break... pause, reflect... and ask whether trying to manipulate their customers to their own financial ruin is really something they want to pursue to the bitter end.