[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.