• duxbellorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s an unpopular opinion, but crippling platforms due to CSAM is a lot more harmful than what would happen if we did not have such draconian laws around it. Do people think there would be some dramatic explosion of CSAM? I don’t buy that for a second and the act of producing such material has always and will always be illegal, so like everything else, it seems ridiculous to prosecute the particular crime of posession.

    Seize all funds received for distributing it, throw anyone involved in producing it in prison and throw away the key, and stop holding threat of social death over anybody’s head if some idiots throw a bunch of digital gunk at them.

    • On@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      it seems ridiculous to prosecute the particular crime of posession

      what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

      Do people think there would be some dramatic explosion of CSAM?

      Yes, this is not your local backwater town where you know there are a few visibly shitty & disgusting people and people tell their kids to stay away and everyone becomes safe. And if you think shit doesn’t explode on the internet, you might be living under a rock last 2 decades.

      That’s stupid on a whole new level and your made up scenario doesn’t make it any better. No one is threatened for having been sent some questionable content. The person who sent those however might be and the tech today makes it incredibly easy to prove where anything came from since everyone is being tracked.

      Seize all funds received for distributing it, throw anyone involved in producing it in prison and throw away the key,

      How about we prevent such things from happening by discouraging it in the firat place? Sure, they won’t be down to 0, but your solution starting after the distribution has already started is highly disturbing.

      • xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the problem that poster was trying to illustrate is that it is unpractical to shut down a site or force a site to spend a significant overhead just cause a user could post a certain sequence of bytes to the site. An analogy to the real world would be some guy paints some graffiti on the pavement and the response, every time, being the complete shutdown of the entire city for a month or complete surveillance on every cm2 of pavement plus cleaning crews standing by every 10m.

        Poster does not want his favourite site going down cause of some bad actor.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

        He’s just a dirty MAP apologist. Ignore him.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They claim it stands for Minor Attracted Person

            … and that’s better? There are already separate terms for those attracted to under age people vs prepubescence people. The latter is a serious mental condition that needs help. The former is something society has largely agreed upon being morally wrong. In what world is “MAP” sufficient cover? Weird.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You just don’t understand that they’re using the possession argument to get their foot in the door to convince you to accept pedophilia.

            It’s an incremental approach often taken by evil people and organizations and it’s been done before to great effect, e.g. everyone accepting government surveillance, to the point where we carry surveillance devices wherever we go, when back only 30 years ago it would have been considered unconscionable.

            The possession argument is their strongest one because the possibility of affecting non-pedos makes people feel more sympathetic toward actual pedos and convinces people to accept removing one of the most important social guardrails we have against them.

            The truth is that the possession argument is a nothingburger anyway because

            1. Feds are not stupid and know the difference between actual pedos and who is not, and will acknowledge their victims – of which websites like .world are in a serious way

            2. The possession problem can be got around through official CSAM filters that major corporations already use and can be built by the feds, who can create an open API for everyone to use. Meaning there’s no excuse for someone to just have CP on hand unless it’s obvious they’re being victimized with it like .world is

            3. The risk of some hapless website owner getting caught up in possession laws are worth the risk to ensure as close to an absolute ban on CP as we can get. CP is too dangerous and pedophilia is too harmful for humanity for everyone in society to not be willing to accept that.


            They, like all apologists, are banking on you taking their word on face value without thinking critically about what they’re saying or asking for. CP is like social nuclear waste; just being exposed to it at all extremely damages people. Don’t fall for their shit.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

        This means that current prosecution violates principles of criminal prosecution: namely requirement of intent.

    • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a CSA survivor, who had images taken of me while I was abused… Fuck you.

      People wanting to possess it is exactly what encourages people to produce the material. If you let people possess it with no consequences you will let the demand shoot up and basic economics should tell you what happens next with the supply part.

      That is disgusting. Seriously. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It seems I’m going into really wierd conversation.

        If you let people possess it

        I think you are missing the point or are a troll. Person above said that creating and/or buying is always be illigal anyway. Or you want to make easier for abusers to collect information about their future victims by destroying privacy?

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh look, another shithead pedo apologist.

          Creating and buying is exactly what they’re trying to get people to accept, incrementally, by attacking possession first. Exploiting the warped way Americans have been taught to think about morality to do it. And your sorry ass is helping him. You doing so is not acceptable AT ALL and neither is any notion of getting rid of CP possession bans.

          You will not make pedophilia socially acceptable and you will not lie to me and say that you aren’t, and then go back to doing it like I know you’re gonna do.

          You’re evil.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Dear Faust, another one. It is so much easier to call opponent Hitler/pedophile/terrorist than counter-argue.

            This is discussion about ISP’s surveillance. This is not just attacking posession. This is attacking computer that relayed data stream. Technically it is message sequence, but the fact we have discussion speaks that you doesn’t care. Should postman go to jail if delivered letter contained child pornography? You say that postman should open and read every letter.

            Your only option to not look like complete troll is to somehow define posession in a way that excludes postman(ISP) reading every single letter(spying).

            Here’s my take on your manipulation:

            You will not make espionage socially acceptable and you will not lie to me and say that you aren’t, and then go back to doing so like I know you’re gonna do.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              No. You’re a pedo apologist. No one owes you a counter argument and you’re not going to get the legitimacy you seek from a debate. Fuck off.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Fuck off, you’re just a pedo.

      Edit: I angered at least 6 pedos!

      Edit 2: We’re up to 8 angry pedos now!