14 ms·
> Almost no one would disagree that removing all instances of CSAM from the internet would be a good thing, whether it's a "human problem" or not. That's not re
by eterps 3y ago
> Almost no one would disagree that removing all instances of CSAM from the internet would be a good thing, whether it's a "human problem" or not. That's not really the issue.
Would removing all instances of CSAM from the internet be a good thing if it would lead to an increase in CSA? After all the human problem still exists after removing CSAM.
- arp242 3y ago> Would removing all instances of CSAM from the internet be a good thing if it would lead to an increase in CSA? Yes. Even if CSAM would reduce actual abuse (which is a big "IF", last time I looked researched leaned weakly towards that it increased abuse), the argument is essentially a variant of the trolley problem: "we'll let one kid be abused to make the CSAM to save n others". I'm not comfterable with that, especially since alternatives such as cartoons, AI-generated, or just old-fashioned photoshop exist (but whether that's a good thing is debatable, and is rather off-topic here).
- eterps 3y ago> AI-generated, or just old-fashioned photoshop exist Aren't those considered CSAM as well? At least as far as the EU Chat Control proposal is concerned? BTW, you raise an interesting point about the argument being a variant of the trolley problem.
- arp242 3y agoI don't know what the EU chat law thinks of that, I'd have to read the law[1], but no child was abused so it's not CSAM under a "common sense" definition. [1]: The definition that the law uses is in Directive 2011/93. In a very quick check it probably would be considered CSAM, but I'd have to read the entire thing to be sure: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011L0093#d1e516-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
- pseudalopex 3y agoNo one uses a common sense definition of CSAM. No child was abused if 16 year olds send each other pictures of themselves. But it is child pornography even so. And groups pushing to say CSAM instead of child pornography push for fictional depictions to be criminal also.
- squigz 3y agoPerhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but are you saying that if the research said conclusively that banning CSAM absolutely leads to an increase in actual sexual assaults against children, it would still be a good idea to ban CSAM?
- 93po 3y agoThey’re saying the opposite. Use of CSAM material is linked to increased likelihood of real world abuse in some research. Which makes sense to me. The existence of a community encourages people to contribute and participate for basically any “activity”
- arp242 3y ago[flagged]
- eterps 3y agoThat's a false dichotomy. If research conclusively showed that banning CSAM leads to an increase in actual sexual assaults against children, it wouldn't mean we should permit CSAM. Rather, it would suggest that the strategy needs to be reconsidered. F.i. shifting focus to the root cause instead of focusing solely on the media distribution.
- arp242 3y agoI answered the asked question; I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we should focus solely on media distribution.
- pseudalopex 3y agoResearch leaned how the reader wanted last time I looked. And was confounded by requiring subjects to confess a crime.