[9rx]

> people that are already committed to CSAM are going to CSAM.

Does its prevention even help anyway? The adult porn industry is regularly criticized for seeing people choose it over real sexual relationships. Conceivably the same could hold true for CSAM. As in, if you can't access it, you're going to go get the real thing instead.

The narrative that it prevents child abuse sounds good in theory, but what does the data actually tell us?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Even if it were true (and it might be) that these people would commit less-or-none abuse if they can continue to have access to the csam, the existence of the csam itself necessitates abuse. It seems akin to child sacrifice. Whose kid must be tormented so that other kids can go unmolested?

That said, not sure that draconian, ubiquitous surveillance is the correct (or even effective) solution to the problem.

[9rx]

> the existence of the csam itself necessitates abuse.

Just as the existence of America as we know it necessitates the pillaging and raping of native tribes. But we're not going to watch over your shoulder to make sure you don't participate in American society and send you to jail if you do. As unfortunate as past damage is, life moves on.

Of course, that it incentivizes production of more CSAM is the logic behind the laws, and that is a pretty compelling reason. However, according to the continuous stream of news reports, a tremendous amount of content has already been produced. How much more content would need to be produced? If the adult porn industry stopped producing new content, nobody would ever really notice. Algorithms do incentivize production of more and more adult porn even as 90% of will never been seen by anyone, for sure, but the law could still take a harder stance on those algorithms if that is the better solution.

[10298373]

> Just as the existence of America as we know it necessitates the pillaging and raping of native tribes. But we're not going to watch over your shoulder to make sure you don't participate in American society and send you to jail if you do. As unfortunate as past damage is, life moves on.

There is a significant difference in that you can choose not to consume CSAM. Most Americans don't get to choose not to participate in American society.

> Algorithms do incentivize production of more and more adult porn even as 90% of will never been seen by anyone, for sure, but the law could still take a harder stance on those algorithms if that is the better solution.

I would argue that the better solution is to keep the CSAM laws we have—maybe make them harsher, even—and keep letting adults make consensual porn with other adults if they so desire.

[9rx]

> Most Americans don't get to choose not to participate in American society.

Most Americans don't participate in American society, other than maybe voting, and even then a significant number of them still don't.

> I would argue that the better solution is to keep the CSAM laws we have—maybe make them harsher, even

And I would be trillionaire, but I guess won't bother... The original comment asked for that argument. If you don't want to provide, I get it. You are under no obligation to do so. But what is the point of saying you would do it without actually doing it? If you don't want to provide why make up a fake story when you can just as easily be honest about it or say nothing at all?

[10298373]

> Most Americans don't participate in American society, other than maybe voting, and even then a significant number of them still don't.

Paying taxes doesn't count as participating in "American society"? The same taxes that, say, have funded America's controversial military operations in the past?

> And I would be trillionaire, but I guess won't bother... The original comment asked for that argument. If you don't want to provide, I get it. You are under no obligation to do so. But what is the point of saying you would do it without actually doing it? If you don't want to provide why make up a fake story when you can just as easily be honest about it or say nothing at all?

I'm happy enough with maintaining the status quo. I'm not the one trying to demolish Chesterton's Fence here.

[9rx]

> Paying taxes doesn't count as participating in "American society"?

In the same way a child participates in CSAM production, sure. You haven't made yourself clear, but are you struggling to suggest that the children featured in CSAM should also be prosecuted? Is that the harsher law argument you keep telling us about? I mean, I suppose you are right that if they weren't involved it wouldn't be able to be created. You may not have completely thought that through, though.

> I'm happy enough with maintaining the status quo.

And you are welcome to your arbitrary feelings. But we are talking about your supposed argument.

[gjsman-1000]

> as we know it necessitates the pillaging and raping of native tribes

Believe me, any historian will tell you, that tribes pillaging and raping other tribes was completely common before the European settlement. While this does not justify the European settlement by itself, we were the winners who beat the previous winners. Our atrocities are just better documented.

[Cartoxy]

I think that actually access does beget creep and indulge.

Not always but often. You think the amount of Pea Dough would go up with abolition. Doubts from me.

[10298373]

The data tells us that many child abusers are caught with CSAM as well, so it does jack shit to keep them from abusing kids,

Take your CSAM apologia somewhere else.

[9rx]

> The data tells us that many child abusers are caught with CSAM as well

How much CSAM? A PornHub's worth of content, or a couple of pictures? The data suggests that in the adult porn world, people aren't satisfied by a single Playboy magazine. Which, too, is the logic behind CSAM laws — that the insatiable search for more content incentives production of more content. But at some point there will be more content that can be consumed, and given how often CSAM producers are caught (not even counting those who never are) we've no doubt far exceeded that threshold. And with the way AI is going...

> Take your CSAM apologia somewhere else.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

[10298373]

> But at some point there will be more content that can be consumed, and given how often CSAM producers are caught (not even counting those who never are) we've no doubt far exceeded that threshold

No, we haven't "no doubt far exceeded that threshold". Some CSAM producers getting caught does not make it so. I could say it's unlikely that CSAM production even approaches 1% of the magnitude of adult pornography production—but I too would be pulling numbers out of my ass. Without hard data on this, all we have is meaningless assumptions—and I'm not sure this sort of data is available to anyone.

> Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Logical fallacies apply only to arguments.

[9rx]

> No, we haven't "no doubt far exceeded that threshold". Some CSAM producers getting caught does not make it so.

Okay. Exactly how much CSAM data has been produced over the years? And what is the threshold where there is enough?

> Logical fallacies apply only to arguments.

Logical fallacies are most commonly associated with arguments, but are not limited to them. However, "Take your CSAM apologia somewhere else.", as poorly thought out as it is, would be considered an argument if you stay within the bounds of how the term is normally used, of course, so what you say here doesn't even hold anyway.

[gjsman-1000]

> what does the data actually tell us?

The anecdotal evidence is that most child abusers started with CSAM and continued escalation from there; not that they would have been abusers except for CSAM.

While it has never been proven to be a casual link, Ted Bundy, Brian Mitchell, Mark Bridger, Jeffrey Dahmer, and now Bryan Kohberger all accessed violent pornography before taking their actions. Dahmer stated it was his ritual - consume violent pornography before finding the next victim. Bundy meanwhile stated it was the tipping point for him psychologically, more than any other known factor, even describing it as his "fuel."

[Cartoxy]

Some promote the honeypot web to catch the tech illiterate perps. Given your position Would you condone?.

I think I would, if your at the point of seeking. But some would say it's causatory.

[9rx]

However, the anecdotal evidence around the regular adult porn industry is that users go in the opposite direction. The data is abundantly clear that people, especially young people, are having less sex, all while porn consumption has increased substantially. Likewise, causality hasn't been proven, but it is likely the most compelling answer.

Why it is it different?

At what rate have child abuses declined?

[gjsman-1000]

It's hard to know because while less sex is occurring; anecdotally (look around on TikTok), people are bringing violent and dangerous behaviors into the bedroom like never before.

Sexual choking has gone from a fringe behavior, into something that a study (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02937-y) found over 50% of young Australians had tried; even though almost anyone with a medical background finds that extremely dangerous. This is a behavior that compounds, with women who went through it four times "safely" having brain damage markers in their blood (https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/c6zbv_v1). This is also why the UK (not sure if they did it yet) was even talking about banning all depictions, after an independent study said it was popularly perceived as "safe and common" among Gen Z.

[Workaccount2]

The anti-porn lobby has been going crazy with this study since its release.

I guess when you are desperate for any grain of data backing your totally failed "porn is bad" hypothesis (porn has been a click away for hundred of millions going on 30 years now), you'll latch on to anything.

Ironically if you read the study, it's basically "People enjoyed the act and consented to it, but it's bad because not breathing can be fatal and it's also illegal in Australia". It's also a singular study (rather than a long term trend meta-study) with an online survey data collection method, so about as low of a rigor as you can get.

Of course though, it's gone around heavily marketed as "Record levels of boys are watching porn and going around violently choking out young women because of it".

[10298373]

> Likewise, causality hasn't been proven, but it is likely the most compelling answer.

That's a massive stretch—there are many things that have been declining along with the rate at which people have been having sex. Porn is in no way "the most compelling answer". It certainly could be a factor, sure, but by no means the only one.

[9rx]

> Porn is in no way "the most compelling answer".

What are you seeing people finding more compelling? There was that whole "the chemicals are turning frogs gay and now you too" or whatever it was, but that wasn't compelling. Tell that to the average Joe and he will simply wonder what kind of drugs you are on. Tell the average Joe that "increased porn consumption is diminishing partnered sexual activity" and you'll at least get, "Huh. Maybe."

> It certainly could be a factor, sure, but by no means the only one.

Case in point. But it seems you're confusing a compelling explanation with a scientific explanation. Whether or not porn is actually a factor is entirely immaterial. It might have absolutely nothing to do with it. It can still be compelling even if that is the case.