Okay yeah no the fact that you defend owning CSAM is crazy and disrespectful to its victims. Fuck off

I mean that it often does in action. Yes, theoretically, an AI could be successful at generating CSAM, but since in practice, it is nigh impossible to remove all instances of CSAM from scrapped data just by trying to filter it out, you cannot decouple the fact that it does use actual abuse material.

I was talking under the hypothetical that you proposed. That CP would be drawn. CP is a synonym for CSAM, although CSAM is more respectful. This is just semantics.

Groomers often use that as a tactic. It happens on the Internet as well. Porn can be shown, but unlike porn, CSAM is necessarily SA material. I’m saying that if it’s something ONLY used for that, then its harm is undeniable. Just having a legal blanket over the fact that showing a child porn is illegal is not the point. It’s what use case of the materials are actually valid. For example, consumming CSAM is invalid, since the children cannot consent. The second use case is grooming, which is also invalid. Since AI CSAM in practice has shown to be produced by agents that CAN’T filter out all CSAM from their data set (because it is impossible), then, for the respect of the victims, it should be illegal.

I’m not just bringing up things that are already illegal, but that if it’s used by predators to get off of material that is most likely made off of existing CSAM, and that it can harm children by the same means, then there isn’t any good that can come off of allowing its possession either. We’re talking about children who were exploited being reexploited again.

And what would stop a predator from saying that a footage or picture of CSAM was AI generated and get away with it? It purpousfully mudies the water.

CSAM, computer generated or drawn, can and has used references of other CSAM materials in order to be drawn. It’s existence can rely on the existence of previous materials, and it often does.

It makes it harder for kids to understand what’s wrong with the behaviour, and even grow up themselves to be offenders later on. Candy can’t do that.

The rate might be higher in Japan specificaly because it’s normalised. If the victims themselves don’t see any wrong with what happened to them and bystanders too, then it’s way less likely to be repported.

SA cases have been seen to be heavily underepported in Japan. Upskirts were normalized too, for reference, and they had to force the cameras to make shutter sounds when taking pictures to try to solve the issue. Still, people mod their phones to circumvent it, and the demand for such content is still high, hence encouraging the practice more.

It’s because CSAM can be used to groom kids and has to be produced. It’s existance also leads to harm to the victims, who couldn’t consent to the act.

It won’t because it normalises it. Groomers often use media like this to encourage pedophilia and convince their victims that it’s normal. Litteraly how the pedo side of the fediverse opperates.

Also, the CSAM has to be produced. I know people say AI can just approximate how a child would look doing sexual acts, but that’s half the truth. Oftentimes, predators will use victims’ names to generate it, and pictures/videos similar to the ones in their CSAM would appear. So now, according to this ruling, the produced media would be legal. That, and how sometimes loli/shota artist use CSAM for reference, the AI will most likely use existing CSAM as a reference as well simply because of the tags used in a prompt.