5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.