Are you honestly asking me why child molestation is worse than rendering an image? This term was already developed to distinguish evidence of criminal events. I should fucking hope everyone here understands why preventing or punishing such events is a leading goal, but apparently that's asking too much, if y'all really do not believe there's a difference between pasting someone's head onto a magazine centerfold... versus sexually assaulting them. I am fucking bewildered by this lack of consensus on the topic of *child rape.* Really thought it was a gimme, for everyone to go, yeah, this thing over here is bad, but obviously it's not as bad as *child rape.* Didn't expect to fire up the computer and have Lemmings sincerely ask me, why are crimes that happened worse than crimes that didn't?

Man, your reading comprehension is really shit. You could have just stopped after the first question. Yet again you’re making an assumption about the purpose of the term.

They are al such vile people

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 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.

Drawings are one conversation I won't get into. GenAI is vastly different though. Those are known to sometimes regurgitate people or things from their dataset, (mostly) unaltered. Like how you can get Copilot to spit out valid secrets that people accidentally committed by typing `NPM_KEY=`. You can't have any guarantee that if you ask it to generate a picture of a person, that person does not actually exist.

> I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime I'm sorry to break it to you, but this has been illegal for a long time and it doesn't need to have anything to do with CSAM. For instance, drawing certain copyrighted material in certain contexts can be illegal. To go even further, numbers and maths can be illegal in the right circumstances. For instance, it may be illegal where you live to break the encryption of a certain file, depending on the file and encryption in question (e.g. DRM on copyrighted material). "Breaking the encryption of a file" essentially translates to "doing maths on a number" when you boil it down. That's how you can end up with the concept of [illegal numbers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number).

Supporting CSAM should be treated like making CSAM. Down into the forgetting hole with them!

Did Covid-19 make everyone lose their minds? This isn't even about being cruel or egotistical. This is just a stupid thing to say. Has the world lost the concept of PR??? Genuinely defending 𝕏 in the year 2026... for Deepfake porn including of minors!!???? From the Fortnite company guy???

*sigh* I'll get my boycotting tools.

I'm no fan of banning this or that particular platform (it's like trying to get rid of cheeseburgers by banning McDonalds; the burgers are still available from all the other burger chains and all the people who use the one will just switch to others) but this is a hilariously wrong way to get to the right answer.

Not that there's an awful lot to boycott. I'm trying to think what the last majorly popular title they released was that wasn't aimed at kids. Public gears of War about a decade ago. At this point I don't think I'm boycotting them as much as forgetting they exist.

Who else just did a search on the Epstein files for "Tim Sweeney"? I didn't find anything on [jmail](https://www.jmail.world/), but there's still a lot that haven't been released, and a lot of stuff is still redacted.

I'm making an explicit argument about the purpose of the term, as a necessary component of dealing with some of the worst crimes imaginable. I didn't figure I'd ever have to explain to someone why *abusing a human child* is fundamentally different from and worse than drawing on top of a fuckin' JPEG. If y'all manage to stomp the meaning out of "CSAM," the same way y'did for "CP," we're gonna be right back here, where there's some bespoke term for the visual evidence of actual assault that physically occurred, yet people insist that a fictional rendering is-too VEOAATPO. Diluting the impact of these terms is antithetical to protecting children. That stupid Horses game had people lobbing the term "CSAM" at it... for a game you can buy on GOG. If you can casually say "I bought some CSAM at Walmart the other day," then the term's not doing its fucking job, describing the kind of imagery you go straight to jail for.

Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite since you above, reiterated >The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim. Which has never been an issue. It has never mattered in CSAM if it's fictional or not. It's the depiction that is illegal.

I wish I was as composed as you. You're still calmly explaining things to that dumb fuck, while they move the goalposts back and forth: * first [they lie I was saying there were no victims](https://sh.itjust.works/post/53258921/23148352); * then they backpedal and say ["It doesn’t matter if there’s a victim or not. It’s the depiction of CSA that is illegal."](https://sh.itjust.works/post/53258921/23154046); * then they backpedal *again* and say what boils down to ["talking about morals bad! Also I'll talk about MY morals. I don't see moral difference when people are harmed and when they're not"](https://sh.itjust.works/post/53258921/23159319) (inb4 I'm abridging it) All of that while they're still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called ["never play defence"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&index=3): make dumb claim, waste someone else's time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.

Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else. There's no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You've already failed. But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don't think there's a moral difference between depicting "victimless" CSAM and CSAM containing a real person. I think they're both, morally, equally awful. But you said there's a major moral difference? For you maybe.

Nobody here is supporting CSAM. Learn to read, dammit.