[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.