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?
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.