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 from *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.

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.

Nothing made-up is CSAM. That is the entire point of the term "CSAM." It's like calling a horror movie murder.

Generating images of a minor can certainly fulfill the definition 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.

It's too hard to tell real CSAM from AI-generated CSAM. Safest to treat it all as CSAM.

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.

You can insist every frame of Bart Simspon's dick in The Simpsons Movie should be *as illegal as* photographic evidence of child rape, but that does not make them the same thing. The *entire point* of the term CSAM is that it's the actual real evidence of child rape. It is nonsensical to use the term for any other purpose.

You can insist every frame of Bart Simspon's dick in The Simpsons Movie should be *as illegal as* photographic evidence of child rape, but that does not make them the same thing. The *entire point* of the term CSAM is that it's the actual real evidence of child rape. It is nonsensical to use the term for any other purpose.

You can insist every frame of Bart Simspon's dick in The Simpsons Movie should be *as illegal as* photographic evidence of child rape, but that does not make them the same thing. The *entire point* of the term CSAM is that it's the actual real evidence of child rape. It is nonsensical to use the term for any other purpose.

> Child pornography (CP), also known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and by more informal terms such as kiddie porn, is erotic material that involves or **depicts** persons under the designated age of majority. [...] > Laws regarding child pornography generally include sexual images involving prepubescents, pubescent, or post-pubescent minors and **computer-generated images** that appear to involve them. (Emphasis mine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

>The \*entire point\* of the term CSAM is that it's the actual real evidence of child rape. You are completely wrong. https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abuse-material/what-is-csam/ “Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is not “child pornography.” It’s evidence of child sexual abuse—and it’s a crime to create, distribute, or possess. CSAM includes both real and synthetic content, such as images created with artificial intelligence tools.”

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 from *evidence of child abuse,* and the fuckers downvoting this comment will also misappropriate that, to talk about shit that does not qualify.

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."

RAINN has completely lost the plot by conflating the explicit term for Literal Photographic Evidence Of An Event Where A Child Was Raped with made-up bullshit.

CSAM is abusive material of a sexual nature of a child. Generated or real, both fit this definition.

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.

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.