I am going to be an absolute crank about this:
CSAM means photographic evidence of child rape.
If that event did not happen, say something else.
The entire point of this term is to distinguish the go-to-jail imagery stemming from unambiguous crimes, versus any form of made-up nonsense. Bart Simpson is not eligible. Bart Simpson does not exist. Photorealistic depictions of real children can be hyper illegal, but unless they are real, they’re not CSAM. Say something else. Otherwise we’ll have to invent some even less ambiguous term for evidence of child abuse, and the fuckers downvoting this comment will also misappropriate that, to talk about shit that does not qualify.
Strange hill to die on, man.
What, taking child abuse seriously?
Isn’t it abuse if i take a picture of a girl, let grok remove the clothes and post this online?
It’s a crime, but it’s not the same crime as taking the actual clothes off the actual girl. She was not physically abused. She was not even involved.
She will be, if some asshat sees the pic and takes it for real and thinks she is OK with bring raped because the loses naked (there are enough asshats that have that mindset)
Congratulations on the worst take in a competitive field.
Just… what the fuck? What is it about this distinction that makes people lose all sense? ‘Hey bearing in mind we’re still talking about criminal creeping on children, it’s important to remember that actual touching is worse than doodling over images, so let’s not dilute a term specifically f–’ ‘There is no difference between fiction and reality because what if a crazy person couldn’t tell fiction from reality?!’
Get help.
When all her friends and family see that image, she is definitely involved. And it’s definitely abuse.
Does a depiction of her corpse mean she’s dead?
False equivalence.
‘I take child abuse seriously but also think it’s fine to generate nude pictures of real life children.’
Idk man. It’s a weird fuckin thing to admit to.
Show me where anyone said that. Circle it in red.
From the article:
The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN) defines child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as “evidence of child sexual abuse” that “includes both real and synthetic content, such as images created with artificial intelligence tools.”
They’re wrong.
As evidenced by what those words mean.
IMO commenters here discussing the definition of CSAM are missing the point. Definitions are working tools; it’s fine to change them as you need. The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.
Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted, because it violates the person’s rights over their own body — including its image. Plus it’s ripe material for harassment.
This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated, and the sexual acts being depicted did not happen. Like the sort of thing Grok is able to generate. This is what Timothy Sweeney (as usual, completely detached from reality) is missing.
And it applies to children and adults. The only difference is that adults can still consent to have their image shared as porn; children cannot. As such, porn depicting children will be always non-consensual, thus always victimising the children in question.
Now, someone else mentioned Bart’s dick appears in the Simpsons movie. The key difference is that Bart is not a child, it is not even a person to begin with, it is a fictional character. There’s no victim.
EDIT: I’m going to abridge what I said above, in a way that even my dog would understand:
What Grok is doing is harmful, there are victims of that, regardless of some “ackshyually this is not CSAM lol lmao”. And yet you guys keep babbling about definitions?
Everything else I said here was contextualising and detailing the above.
Is this clear now? Or will I get yet another lying piece of shit (like @Atomic@sh.itjust.works) going out of their way to misinterpret what I said?
(I don’t even have a dog.)
Maybe if it was for comedy purposes, but grown men should not have any CP whatsoever. Or you know, non-grown men either.
inb4 “In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that AI-generated CSAM is constitutionally protected speech”
There is no such thing as generated CSAM, because the term exists specifically to distinguish anything made-up from photographic evidence of child rape. This term was already developed to stop people from lumping together Simpsons rule 34 with the kind of images you report to the FBI. Please do not make us choose yet another label, which you would also dilute.
Generating images of a minor can certainly fulfill the definition of CSAM. It’s a child, It’s sexual, It’s abusive, It’s material. It’s CSAM dude.
These are the images you report to the FBI. Your narrow definition is not the definition. We don’t need to make a separate term because it still impacts the minor even if it’s fake. I say this as a somewhat annoying prescriptivist pedant.
There cannot be material from the sexual abuse of a child if that sexual abuse did not fucking happen. The term does not mean ‘shit what looks like it could be from the abuse of some child I guess.’ It means, state’s evidence of actual crimes.
CSAM is abusive material of a sexual nature of a child. Generated or real, both fit this definition.
CSAM is material… from the sexual abuse… of a child.
Fiction does not count.
You’re the only one using that definition. There is no stipulation that it’s from something that happened.
Where is your definition coming from?
My definition is from what words mean.
We need a term to specifically refer to actual photographs of actual child abuse. What the fuck are we supposed to call that, such that schmucks won’t use the same label to refer to drawings?
It is sexual abuse even by your definition if photos of real children get sexualised by AI and land on xitter. And afaik know that is what’s happened. These kids did not consent to have their likeness sexualised.
Nothing done to your likeness is a thing that happened to you.
Do you people not understand reality is different from fiction?
Deepfakes are illegal. You’re defending deepfake cp now?
Threats are a crime, but they’re a different crime than the act itself.
Everyone piling on understands that it’s kinda fuckin’ important to distinguish this crime, specifically, because it’s the worst thing imaginable. They just also want to use the same word for shit that did not happen. Both things can be super fucking illegal - but they will never be the same thing.
My likeness posted for the world to see in a way i did not consent to is a thing done to me
Your likeness depicted on the moon does not mean you went to the moon.
Please send me pictures of your mom so that I may draw her naked and post it on the internet.
Do you understand that’s a different thing than telling me you’ve fucked her?
Dude, just stop jerking off to kids whether they’re cartoons or not.
‘If you care about child abuse please stop conflating it with cartoons.’
‘Pedo.’
Fuck off.
Someone needs to check your harddrive mate. You’re way, way too invested in splitting this particular hair.
