Meh. There’s a strong argument to be made that AI CSAM could reduce harm to actual children. The science isn’t in favour of what we’d think is the common sense option.
Edit: To be clear - I’m not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I’m saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
I’ve heard this is an assumption. I’ve never heard it backed by anything. The argument was made to me 25 years ago in reference to anime/drawings of CSAM, suggesting that paedophiles would “settle” for the fake and not harm children.
I assume — I have no proof either way — it would just normalise their behaviour and they would continue to offend. I feel like you could give them access to everything that’s already been made (even the real stuff, for the sake of the argument) and they would still want to harm actual children. I don’t think fuelling their fantasies is going to make them stop trying to fulfill them.
While one could make the argument that because pedophiles have different brain chemistry that they would not be as affected as the general population, there’s no actual evidence of this. Additionally is the curious fact that most child sex offenders are not pedophiles, so there would be a limited reduction in actual crimes against children while allowing obscene material that could harm the general public.
Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.
To be clear - I’m not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I’m saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.
To be clear - I’m not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I’m saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
I think this topic is really a bit much for me right now, but I do want to say that your use of the term “MAP” has me questioning your motives. I associate it with people making pride flags and trying to legitimize child abuse. I do have sympathy for people afflicted with pedophilia, however, and I would like for stigma surrounding the disorder to decrease so that sufferers can seek help and set boundaries more freely. Could you please defend use of the term? I don’t want to be close-minded about it.
To my understanding, people with this issue use the term to differentiate themselves (i.e. attracted to minors, but haven’t acted on those impulses) from those who have acted on said impulses (pedophiles). Given the huge stigma connected to the label, I can perfectly understand why they’d want to make that distinction very clear.
Oh, so theft is bad now? Drug dealing too I bet? But only if its convicted, so if my last name were savkler it would be fine, but if it were Ross it wouldn’t?
IIRC the increase of deepfake images has made investigations significantly harder if that can be used as a legal excuse. In the UK it doesn’t matter if it’s real or fake, it’s still a crime.
Yes, the legal issues would be a huge can of worms. I’m not advocating for free use of AI CSAM, I’d just like some actual research to be done instead of going with the ‘think of the children’ kneejerk reaction.
Meh. There’s a strong argument to be made that AI CSAM could reduce harm to actual children. The science isn’t in favour of what we’d think is the common sense option.
Edit: To be clear - I’m not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I’m saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
I’ve heard this is an assumption. I’ve never heard it backed by anything. The argument was made to me 25 years ago in reference to anime/drawings of CSAM, suggesting that paedophiles would “settle” for the fake and not harm children.
I assume — I have no proof either way — it would just normalise their behaviour and they would continue to offend. I feel like you could give them access to everything that’s already been made (even the real stuff, for the sake of the argument) and they would still want to harm actual children. I don’t think fuelling their fantasies is going to make them stop trying to fulfill them.
The argument is based on the relationship between legal porn and prevalence of sex crimes against adults; as pornography becomes easier to access, sex crimes go down.
Also supported by the negative correlation between violent video games and real world violence.
This is also supported by the negative correlation of violent media in general and violent crimes.
While one could make the argument that because pedophiles have different brain chemistry that they would not be as affected as the general population, there’s no actual evidence of this. Additionally is the curious fact that most child sex offenders are not pedophiles, so there would be a limited reduction in actual crimes against children while allowing obscene material that could harm the general public.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49644341_Pornography_and_Sex_Crimes_in_the_Czech_Republic
https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-csam-pedophilia/
https://virped.or/ g/vpp20240204/ (Feedback from actual MAPs)
To be clear - I’m not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I’m saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
But then how will we know who to put in charge and listen to about Jesus?
Is there?
Show us some references to the science.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49644341_Pornography_and_Sex_Crimes_in_the_Czech_Republic
https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-csam-pedophilia/
https://virped.or/ g/vpp20240204/ (Feedback from actual MAPs)
To be clear - I’m not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I’m saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
I think this topic is really a bit much for me right now, but I do want to say that your use of the term “MAP” has me questioning your motives. I associate it with people making pride flags and trying to legitimize child abuse. I do have sympathy for people afflicted with pedophilia, however, and I would like for stigma surrounding the disorder to decrease so that sufferers can seek help and set boundaries more freely. Could you please defend use of the term? I don’t want to be close-minded about it.
To my understanding, people with this issue use the term to differentiate themselves (i.e. attracted to minors, but haven’t acted on those impulses) from those who have acted on said impulses (pedophiles). Given the huge stigma connected to the label, I can perfectly understand why they’d want to make that distinction very clear.
This is the “euphemism treadmill”. Pedophiles are attracted, and child abusers act on their impulses.
Yes. Regardless, can you really blame them for not wanting to be labelled pedos?
What’s really important is that no pedophiles be allowed near positions of power.
No argument there.
deleted by creator
Yeah. Nobody the police dislike should ever be in charge of stuff.
deleted by creator
Oh, so theft is bad now? Drug dealing too I bet? But only if its convicted, so if my last name were savkler it would be fine, but if it were Ross it wouldn’t?
deleted by creator
So what’s the actual problem you’re getting at? It clearly isn’t ‘criminals’, though does overlap somewhat.
wanting a better future for your children being against fascism etc
are all crimes
hiding jews freeing slaves etc used to be crimes
almost certainly trolling… but i’ll bite.
any criminal ?
There shouldn’t be criminals in positions of power is that person’s point.
You do realize that states are essentially just large scale criminal organizations right?
The US government allows cartels to smuggle drugs past the border. We only know about this thanks to the internet.
I wasn’t the person who commented that point, I was just clarifying it. I wasn’t condoning or agreeing.
What’s a criminal?
so no revolution can take place?
wdym?
all revolutionaries are criminals to the current government
I was clarifying the point, not siding with it.
And as I said, any criminal?
The answer lacks specificity to the point that it’s useless. Which is why im assuming intentional trolling.
IIRC the increase of deepfake images has made investigations significantly harder if that can be used as a legal excuse. In the UK it doesn’t matter if it’s real or fake, it’s still a crime.
Yes, the legal issues would be a huge can of worms. I’m not advocating for free use of AI CSAM, I’d just like some actual research to be done instead of going with the ‘think of the children’ kneejerk reaction.
In this case, thinking of the children is a good thing and should be the primary thought.
deleted by creator