4 ms·

There is a good reason why possession and creation of artificially created abuse material is punishable. Perpetrators often have a history of ever escalating o

There is a good reason why possession and creation of artificially created abuse material is punishable. Perpetrators often have a history of ever escalating offences. Consuming material usually precedes actively harming another person. From a cognitive behavioural therapy angle, that makes sense: Repetitive envisioning an action can reduce inhibitions. Hence we outlaw those material, to prevent people from training themselves to be abusive.

Dylan16807 2y ago
That logic would ban a lot lot lot more things. Including good old violent video games.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Which it probably should at a certain level of realism. It doesn’t seem obvious to me why we can’t/won’t eventually make 100% completely convincing video games and then how our brain will handle that differently than experiences that really do distort people’s psychology like war, domestic violence, etc.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It's a lot harder to get PTSD when you have a pause button and nothing can actually harm you.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      probably, but for example a horror movie is successful to the extent that it induces actual fear in people. I don’t see why we can’t or won’t produce thoroughly convincing games that can actually produce those feelings. As another data point, it is absolutely possible to actually traumatize yourself with a hallucinogenic drug despite the complete absence of “actual danger”.
- dumbfounder 2y ago
  The difference is that there is evidence of one and not of the other. https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-4-internet-facilitated-sexual-offending https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-4-internet-facilitated-...
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Can you be more specific? That's a big document and I couldn't find such a comparison quickly reading through. Though this is interesting in the introduction: "The increase in internet sexual offending has been paralleled by a decrease in the number of reported child sexual abuse cases, and a decrease in violent crime more broadly"
eastbound 2y ago
> usually precedes Do you remember your source? I’m suspicious of generalizations. I’d especially like to check whether most people who acted upon it have been previously caught or whether there is an overlap between people who acted upon it and people who consumed; and I’d like to check what is the loss rate between consumers and the next step, because surely it is not 100%.
NikolaNovak 2y ago
Right, but we have to acknowledge that while some of us watched Minority Report as a cautionary tale, others clearly see it as a blueprint :) We can have a meaningful discussion of CBT and which way exposure leans; but I'll put in my vote for us to be a society that punishes actions that harm others, not the thoughts and preferences that may or may not one day lead to any actual actions that may harm others. It is easy to point out just... an enormous library of movies and video games that use some form of violence. I have a 5 year old kid and already have to explain to him that even the cartoon violence he's inevitably exposed to does not mean that violence is OK in real life. But while I may as a parent try hard to guide and even limit what he's exposed to when, I am nowhere near the point where I lobby to illegilize such violence... LET ALONE JAIL SOMEBODY FOR WATCHING A SCHWARZENEGGER MOVIE! I will absolutely be seemingly unfair and ask - if we feel strongly that watching CSAM will lead to action, what about violent movies, and present a duality of options - is the next step criminalizing violent movies, or are we in a double-standard guided by something other than seemingly scientific studies of exposure? (gawd, I hate to even appear to be in a place to even seems to be anywhere near condoning even AI generated CP; I cannot underline enough how much that's not my kink! but I am also genuinely terrified by the seemingly rational-presenting suggestions that "bad thoughts lead to bad actions so we need to outlaw bad thoughts" - there's just too much gnarly catholic dogma disguised in 'cognitive therapy angle' in there for my level of comfort :O )
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  The State relies on that cycle to consolidate power. These problems circle back to what people think the role of the State should be, and all these Wars on X (like crime). There was a time you would have to bring a criminal action to court, there was no bs "The People of the State of X" charging. Also, mere possession of things being criminal is a very recent invention.
throwaway290 2y ago
Do you think GTA and such should be illegal? You don't only watch you literally practice crime including much worse stuff (running people over, mass murder with assault rifles etc) Certain films come to mind too
Frost1x 2y ago
We’re talking about “thought crime” and punishing crimes that haven’t been committed here and as usual, we’re using “think of the kids” arguments to justify it. I’m not a fan.
RetroTechie 2y ago
Sounds reasonable at 1st glance. But is no different than thought police. Say that a person has an immense crush on some celebrity, fantasizes about doing <unspeakable things> to said celeb, but never acts on it. Would that deserve punishment? Imho, not. And CP material is essentially no different. Now as for people actually abusing children, or doing so to produce such material: go ahead & do <unspeakable things> to them. A -much- stronger argument is when someone is preparing to commit crimes: buying supplies, terrorists making bombs, someone preparing a basement as a prison cell for yet-to-be-grabbed victim, etc. Or when sharing fake images cause actual harm to those depicted. Yeah the 'sliding slope' argument counts. But so does the distinction between fantasizing about X, vs. actually doing it.

Dylan16807 2y ago

That logic would ban a lot lot lot more things. Including good old violent video games.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Which it probably should at a certain level of realism. It doesn’t seem obvious to me why we can’t/won’t eventually make 100% completely convincing video games and then how our brain will handle that differently than experiences that really do distort people’s psychology like war, domestic violence, etc.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It's a lot harder to get PTSD when you have a pause button and nothing can actually harm you.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    probably, but for example a horror movie is successful to the extent that it induces actual fear in people. I don’t see why we can’t or won’t produce thoroughly convincing games that can actually produce those feelings. As another data point, it is absolutely possible to actually traumatize yourself with a hallucinogenic drug despite the complete absence of “actual danger”.
dumbfounder 2y ago
The difference is that there is evidence of one and not of the other. https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-4-internet-facilitated-sexual-offending https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-4-internet-facilitated-...
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Can you be more specific? That's a big document and I couldn't find such a comparison quickly reading through. Though this is interesting in the introduction: "The increase in internet sexual offending has been paralleled by a decrease in the number of reported child sexual abuse cases, and a decrease in violent crime more broadly"

eastbound 2y ago

> usually precedes Do you remember your source? I’m suspicious of generalizations. I’d especially like to check whether most people who acted upon it have been previously caught or whether there is an overlap between people who acted upon it and people who consumed; and I’d like to check what is the loss rate between consumers and the next step, because surely it is not 100%.

NikolaNovak 2y ago

Right, but we have to acknowledge that while some of us watched Minority Report as a cautionary tale, others clearly see it as a blueprint :) We can have a meaningful discussion of CBT and which way exposure leans; but I'll put in my vote for us to be a society that punishes actions that harm others, not the thoughts and preferences that may or may not one day lead to any actual actions that may harm others. It is easy to point out just... an enormous library of movies and video games that use some form of violence. I have a 5 year old kid and already have to explain to him that even the cartoon violence he's inevitably exposed to does not mean that violence is OK in real life. But while I may as a parent try hard to guide and even limit what he's exposed to when, I am nowhere near the point where I lobby to illegilize such violence... LET ALONE JAIL SOMEBODY FOR WATCHING A SCHWARZENEGGER MOVIE! I will absolutely be seemingly unfair and ask - if we feel strongly that watching CSAM will lead to action, what about violent movies, and present a duality of options - is the next step criminalizing violent movies, or are we in a double-standard guided by something other than seemingly scientific studies of exposure? (gawd, I hate to even appear to be in a place to even seems to be anywhere near condoning even AI generated CP; I cannot underline enough how much that's not my kink! but I am also genuinely terrified by the seemingly rational-presenting suggestions that "bad thoughts lead to bad actions so we need to outlaw bad thoughts" - there's just too much gnarly catholic dogma disguised in 'cognitive therapy angle' in there for my level of comfort :O )

rustcleaner 2y ago
The State relies on that cycle to consolidate power. These problems circle back to what people think the role of the State should be, and all these Wars on X (like crime). There was a time you would have to bring a criminal action to court, there was no bs "The People of the State of X" charging. Also, mere possession of things being criminal is a very recent invention.

throwaway290 2y ago

Do you think GTA and such should be illegal? You don't only watch you literally practice crime including much worse stuff (running people over, mass murder with assault rifles etc) Certain films come to mind too

Frost1x 2y ago

We’re talking about “thought crime” and punishing crimes that haven’t been committed here and as usual, we’re using “think of the kids” arguments to justify it. I’m not a fan.

RetroTechie 2y ago

Sounds reasonable at 1st glance. But is no different than thought police. Say that a person has an immense crush on some celebrity, fantasizes about doing <unspeakable things> to said celeb, but never acts on it. Would that deserve punishment? Imho, not. And CP material is essentially no different. Now as for people actually abusing children, or doing so to produce such material: go ahead & do <unspeakable things> to them. A -much- stronger argument is when someone is preparing to commit crimes: buying supplies, terrorists making bombs, someone preparing a basement as a prison cell for yet-to-be-grabbed victim, etc. Or when sharing fake images cause actual harm to those depicted. Yeah the 'sliding slope' argument counts. But so does the distinction between fantasizing about X, vs. actually doing it.