4 ms·

Let me make it clearer then: Children are the ultimate victims of sexualizing children.

by hudon 3y ago

SenAnder 3y ago
Wow, an even broader category! First it was putting raping children and filming it, and generating fake pixels, in the same bucket, and now you put both of those, and countless other things, under the vague description of "sexualizing children". Why is this bad? Well, let's look at how one might fight child abuse: find lots of CSAM online, put it through facial recognition and other digital forensics, try to find the children involved, or see if the IPs sharing it are plausibly involved with children, or use sting operations where police pretend to be children online. Then use regular policework to follow up. In the end you may end up saving a child from a very bad situation. Now how do you fight "sexualizing children"? I don't know, awareness campaigns? Go after porn artists drawing young characters? Make a classification office, such as in New Zealand, to decide which media gets censored... maybe eventually you'll catch someone actually abusing children, but your target is so vague, your efforts so unfocused, most of your manpower is wasted. To give an analogy: In a campaign to ban dumping toxic waste into rivers, you are the person saying "actually this is the fault of capitalism, we should fight that instead".
- hudon 3y ago
  of course the category of victims of watching the sexual abuse children (ai generated or otherwise) is broad. It's a terrible thing. You definitely do not fight sexualizing children by normalizing the production of child sexual abuse material. Come on now.
  - skullone 3y ago
    I question the motives of people who wax philosophic about this subject matter. Of all the gray areas of the law - one thing any normal person would find revolting is someone's attraction to minors. Now I've opened the door to people who will say "it's ok in X country because minors are 8 and younger" or some shit. Only on HN would this be controversial, what is it about this? Not the first time this debate has happened here with a similar refrain "but no actual children were harmed!". Ok, if you ignore how this source material is generated, predatory behaviors these people exhibit otherwise. It's a severe for of antisocial deviant depraved behavior - normalized here on HN.

Let me make it clearer then: Children are the ultimate victims of sexualizing children.

by hudon 3y ago

Let me make it clearer then: Children are the ultimate victims of sexualizing children.

Wow, an even broader category! First it was putting raping children and filming it, and generating fake pixels, in the same bucket, and now you put both of those, and countless other things, under the vague description of "sexualizing children". Why is this bad? Well, let's look at how one might fight child abuse: find lots of CSAM online, put it through facial recognition and other digital forensics, try to find the children involved, or see if the IPs sharing it are plausibly involved with children, or use sting operations where police pretend to be children online. Then use regular policework to follow up. In the end you may end up saving a child from a very bad situation. Now how do you fight "sexualizing children"? I don't know, awareness campaigns? Go after porn artists drawing young characters? Make a classification office, such as in New Zealand, to decide which media gets censored... maybe eventually you'll catch someone actually abusing children, but your target is so vague, your efforts so unfocused, most of your manpower is wasted. To give an analogy: In a campaign to ban dumping toxic waste into rivers, you are the person saying "actually this is the fault of capitalism, we should fight that instead".

hudon 3y ago
of course the category of victims of watching the sexual abuse children (ai generated or otherwise) is broad. It's a terrible thing. You definitely do not fight sexualizing children by normalizing the production of child sexual abuse material. Come on now.
- skullone 3y ago
  I question the motives of people who wax philosophic about this subject matter. Of all the gray areas of the law - one thing any normal person would find revolting is someone's attraction to minors. Now I've opened the door to people who will say "it's ok in X country because minors are 8 and younger" or some shit. Only on HN would this be controversial, what is it about this? Not the first time this debate has happened here with a similar refrain "but no actual children were harmed!". Ok, if you ignore how this source material is generated, predatory behaviors these people exhibit otherwise. It's a severe for of antisocial deviant depraved behavior - normalized here on HN.