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.
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?
I already did the “what words mean” thing earlier.
-involves a child
-is sexual
-is abusive (here’s your Simpsons exclusion, btw)
-is material
That’s literally every word of CSAM, and it fits.
We need a term to specifically refer to actual photographs of actual child abuse
Why? You’ve made a whole lot of claims it should be your way but you’ve provided no sources nor any justification as to why we need to delineate between real and AI.
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.
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.
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
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
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.
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.
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.
How do you think a child would feel after having a pornographic image generated of them and then published on the internet?
Looks like sexual abuse to me.
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?
I already did the “what words mean” thing earlier.
-involves a child
-is sexual
-is abusive (here’s your Simpsons exclusion, btw)
-is material
That’s literally every word of CSAM, and it fits.
Why? You’ve made a whole lot of claims it should be your way but you’ve provided no sources nor any justification as to why we need to delineate between real and AI.
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.
Your likebess modified naked being fucked, printed out and stapled to a tree in your neighborhood is ok then?
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?