Comment by mindbleach@lemmy.world on Stanford researchers find Mastodon has a massive child abuse material problem

Not a good look for Mastodon - what can be done to automate the removal of CSAM?

4.1 Illustrated and Computer-Generated CSAM

Stopped reading.

Child abuse laws “exclude anime” for the same reason animal cruelty laws “exclude lettuce.” Drawings are not children.

Drawings are not real.

Half the goddamn point of saying CSAM instead of CP is to make clear that Bart Simpson doesn’t count. Bart Simpson is not real. It is fundamentally impossible to violate Bart Simpson’s rights, because he doesn’t fucking exist. There is nothing to protect him from. He cannot be harmed. He is imaginary.

This cannot be a controversial statement. Anyone who can’t distinguish fiction from real life has brain problems.

You can’t rape someone in MS Paint. Songs about murder don’t leave a body. If you write about robbing Fort Knox, the gold is still there. We’re not about to arrest Mads Mikkelsen for eating people. It did not happen. It was not real.

If you still want to get mad at people for jerking off to the wrong fantasies, that is an entirely different problem from photographs of child rape.

Oh, wait, Japanese in the other comment, now I get it. This conversation is a about AI Loli porn.

Pfft, of course, that’s why no one is saying the words they mean, because it suddenly becomes much harder to take the stance since hatred towards Loli Porn is not universal.

I mean, I think it’s disgusting, but I don’t think it should be illegal. I feel the same way about cigarettes, 2 girls 1 cup, and profane language. It’s absolutely not for me, but that shouldn’t make it illegal.

As long as there’s no victim, knock yourself out with whatever disgusting, weird stuff you’re into.

You should keep reading then, because they cover that later.

What does that even mean?

There’s nothing to “cover.” They’re talking about illustrations of bad things, alongside actual photographic evidence of actual bad things actually happening. Nothing can excuse that.

No shit they are also discussing actual CSAM alongside… drawings. That is the problem. That’s what they did wrong.

Okay, thanks for the clarification

Everyone except you still very much includes drawn & AI pornographic depictions of children within the basket of problematic content that should get filtered out of federated instances so thank you very much but I’m not sure your point changed anything.

They are not saying it shouldn’t be defederated, they are saying reporting this to authorities is pointless and that considering CSAM is harmful.

Everybody understands there’s no real kid involved. I still don’t see an issue reporting it to authorities and all the definitions of CSAM make a point of including simulated and illustrated forms of child porn.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

Definitions of CSAM definitely do not include illustrated and simulated forms. They do not have a victim and therefore cannot be abuse. I agree that it should not be allowed on public platforms, hence why all instances hosting it should be defederated. Despite this, it is not illegal, so reporting it to authorities is a waste of time for you and the authorities who are trying to remove and prevent actual CSAM.

CSAM definitions absolutely include illustrated and simulated forms. Just check the sources on the wikipedia link and climb your way up, you’ll see “cartoons, paintings, sculptures, …” in the wording of the protect act

They don’t actually need a victim to be defined as such

That Wikipedia broader is about CP, a broader topic. Practically zero authorities will include illustrated and simualated forms of CP in their definitions of CSAM

What’s the point of reporting it to authorities? It’s not illegal, nor should it be because there’s no victim, so all reporting it does is take up valuable time that could be spent tracking down actual abuse.

It’s illegal in a lot of places including where I live.

In the US you have the protect act of 2003

(a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that— (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Linked to the obscenity doctrine

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

Wow, that’s absolutely ridiculous, thanks for sharing! That would be a very unpopular bill to get overturned…

I guess it fits with the rest of the stupidly named bills. It doesn’t protect anything, it just prosecutes undesirable behaviors.

If you don’t think images of actual child abuse, against actual children, is infinitely worse than some ink on paper, I don’t care about your opinion of anything.

You can be against both. Don’t ever pretend they’re the same.

Step up the reading comprehension please

I understand what you’re saying and I’m calling you a liar.

You mean to say I’m wrong or you actually mean liar?

‘Everyone but you agrees with me!’ Bullshit.

‘Nobody wants this stuff that whole servers exist for.’ Self-defeating bullshit.

‘You just don’t understand.’ Not an argument.

Hey, just because someone has a stupid take on one subject doesn’t mean they have a stupid take on all subjects. Attack the argument, not the person.

Some confused arguments reveal confused people. Some terrible arguments reveal terrible people. For example: I don’t give two fucks what Nazis think. Life’s too short to wonder which subjects they’re not facile bastards about.

If someone’s motivation for making certain JPEGs hyper-illegal is “they’re icky” - they’ve lost benefit of the doubt. Because of their decisions, I no longer grant them that courtesy.

Demanding pointless censorship earns my dislike.

Equating art with violence earns my distrust.

Perhaps. But pretty much everyone has a stupid take on something.

There’s obviously a limit there, but most people can be reasoned with. So instead of jumping to a conclusion, attempt a dialogue first until they prove that they can’t be reasoned with. This is especially true on SM where, even if you can’t convince the person you’re talking with, you may just convince the next person to come along.

Telling someone why they’re a stupid bastard for the sake of other people is not exactly a contradiction. You know what doesn’t do observers any good? “Debating” complete garbage, in a way that lends it respect and legitimacy. Sometimes you just need to call bullshit.

Some bullshit is so blatant that it’s a black mark against the bullshitter.

He invented the stupid take he’s fighting against. Nobody equated “ink on paper” with “actual rape against children”.

The bar to cross to be filtered out of the federation isn’t rape. Lolicon is already above the threshold, it’s embarrassing that he doesn’t realize that.

I don’t think the OP ever said the bar was rape, the OP said the article and the person they responded to are treating drawn depictions of imaginary children the same as depictions of actual children. Those are not the same thing at all, yet many people seem to combine them (apparently including US law as of the Protect Act of 2003).

Some areas make a distinction (e.g. Japan and Germany), whereas others don’t. Regardless of the legal status in your area, the two should be treated separately, even if that means both are banned.

“treating them the same” => The threshold for being refused entry into mainstream instances is just already crossed at the lolicon level.

From the perspective of the fediverse, pictures of child rape and lolicon should just both get you thrown out. That doesn’t mean you’re “treating them the same”. You’re just a social network. There’s nothing you can do above defederating.

We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.

This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.

Who places the bar for “exclusion from a social network” at felonies? Any kind child porn has no place on the fediverse

Oh no, what you describe is definitely illegal here in Canada. CSAM includes depictions here. Child sex dolls are illegal. And it should be that way because that stuff is disgusting.

CSAM includes depictions here.

Literally impossible.

Child rape cannot include drawings. You can’t sexually assault a fictional character. Not “you musn’t.” You can’t.

If you think the problem with child rape amounts to ‘ew, gross,’ fuck you. Your moral scale is broken, if there’s not a vast gulf between those two bad things.

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

Stanford researchers find Mastodon has a massive child abuse material problem(www.theverge.com)

Technology

!technology@lemmy.ml

Community stats

Community moderators