He invented the stupid take he’s fighting against. Nobody equated “ink on paper” with “actual rape against children”.
The bar to cross to be filtered out of the federation isn’t rape. Lolicon is already above the threshold, it’s embarrassing that he doesn’t realize that.
I don’t think the OP ever said the bar was rape, the OP said the article and the person they responded to are treating drawn depictions of imaginary children the same as depictions of actual children. Those are not the same thing at all, yet many people seem to combine them (apparently including US law as of the Protect Act of 2003).
Some areas make a distinction (e.g. Japan and Germany), whereas others don’t. Regardless of the legal status in your area, the two should be treated separately, even if that means both are banned.
“treating them the same” => The threshold for being refused entry into mainstream instances is just already crossed at the lolicon level.
From the perspective of the fediverse, pictures of child rape and lolicon should just both get you thrown out. That doesn’t mean you’re “treating them the same”. You’re just a social network. There’s nothing you can do above defederating.
No, more like “treating them the same” => how the data is reported in the study. Whether they’re both against the TOS of the instance you’re on is a separate issue entirely, the problem is the data doesn’t separate the two categories.
Look elsewhere ITT about that exact perspective. Even the US law (Protect Act of 2003) treats them largely the same (i.e. in the same sentence), and includes other taboo topics like bestiality, even if no actual animals are involved.
It’s completely fine for neither to be allowed on a social network, what isn’t okay is for research to conflate the two. An instance inconsistently removing lolicon is a very different thing from an instance inconsistently removing actual CP, yet the article combines the two, likely to make it seem like a much worse problem than it is.
That’s an arbitrary decision to make and doesn’t really need to be debated
The study is pretty transparent about what “CSAM” is under their definition and they even provide pictures, from a science communication point of view they’re in the clear
And their definition kind of sucks. They’re basically saying it’s anything that SafeSearch or PhotoDNA flags, or something that has hashtag hits.
That said, there’s absolutely some terrible things on Mastodon, including grooming and trading. I’m interested to know what the numbers look like for lolicon and similar vs actual CP, which would give me a much better understanding of how bad the problem is. As in, are the things included in the report outliers, or typical of their sample set?
I guess I’m looking for a bit more granularity in the report.
We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.
This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.
Who places the bar for “exclusion from a social network” at felonies? Any kind child porn has no place on the fediverse, simulated or otherwise. That doesn’t mean they’re equal offenses, you’re just not responsible for carrying out anything other than cleaning out your porch.
We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.
Do you speak English?
The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.
I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.
And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.
They’re studying the prevalence of CSAM under the definition of the country they’re in. It’d be arbitrary to separate the two and make two different conclusions.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.
Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.
edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.
(a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings, no matter who writes it. That’s not what those words mean.
Drawings… aren’t children. It is literally that simple.
And if you think any of this is identically illegal to actual photos of child abuse - one, there’s a whole network of shamelessly public US-hosted sites for you to turn in and be a national hero, and two, you might be wholly incapable of remembering what you’re arguing. Whether you think these things are equivalent oscillates between letters.
It’s pretty funny having you state, re-state and re-re-state the exact same obvious things that everyone understands while not seeing that everyone gets that, that you’re missing the point, and that you’re yelling in a hole
Why do you keep going?
Are you that painfully unconvincing in real life like cmon
He invented the stupid take he’s fighting against. Nobody equated “ink on paper” with “actual rape against children”.
The bar to cross to be filtered out of the federation isn’t rape. Lolicon is already above the threshold, it’s embarrassing that he doesn’t realize that.
I don’t think the OP ever said the bar was rape, the OP said the article and the person they responded to are treating drawn depictions of imaginary children the same as depictions of actual children. Those are not the same thing at all, yet many people seem to combine them (apparently including US law as of the Protect Act of 2003).
Some areas make a distinction (e.g. Japan and Germany), whereas others don’t. Regardless of the legal status in your area, the two should be treated separately, even if that means both are banned.
“treating them the same” => The threshold for being refused entry into mainstream instances is just already crossed at the lolicon level.
From the perspective of the fediverse, pictures of child rape and lolicon should just both get you thrown out. That doesn’t mean you’re “treating them the same”. You’re just a social network. There’s nothing you can do above defederating.
No, more like “treating them the same” => how the data is reported in the study. Whether they’re both against the TOS of the instance you’re on is a separate issue entirely, the problem is the data doesn’t separate the two categories.
Look elsewhere ITT about that exact perspective. Even the US law (Protect Act of 2003) treats them largely the same (i.e. in the same sentence), and includes other taboo topics like bestiality, even if no actual animals are involved.
It’s completely fine for neither to be allowed on a social network, what isn’t okay is for research to conflate the two. An instance inconsistently removing lolicon is a very different thing from an instance inconsistently removing actual CP, yet the article combines the two, likely to make it seem like a much worse problem than it is.
That’s an arbitrary decision to make and doesn’t really need to be debated
The study is pretty transparent about what “CSAM” is under their definition and they even provide pictures, from a science communication point of view they’re in the clear
And their definition kind of sucks. They’re basically saying it’s anything that SafeSearch or PhotoDNA flags, or something that has hashtag hits.
That said, there’s absolutely some terrible things on Mastodon, including grooming and trading. I’m interested to know what the numbers look like for lolicon and similar vs actual CP, which would give me a much better understanding of how bad the problem is. As in, are the things included in the report outliers, or typical of their sample set?
I guess I’m looking for a bit more granularity in the report.
We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.
This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.
Who places the bar for “exclusion from a social network” at felonies? Any kind child porn has no place on the fediverse, simulated or otherwise. That doesn’t mean they’re equal offenses, you’re just not responsible for carrying out anything other than cleaning out your porch.
We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.
Do you speak English?
The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.
I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.
And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.
They’re studying the prevalence of CSAM under the definition of the country they’re in. It’d be arbitrary to separate the two and make two different conclusions.
Also you seriously need to take a chill pill
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.
Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.
edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
(a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that— (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings, no matter who writes it. That’s not what those words mean.
Drawings… aren’t children. It is literally that simple.
And if you think any of this is identically illegal to actual photos of child abuse - one, there’s a whole network of shamelessly public US-hosted sites for you to turn in and be a national hero, and two, you might be wholly incapable of remembering what you’re arguing. Whether you think these things are equivalent oscillates between letters.
Step up the reading comprehension please :)
It’s pretty funny having you state, re-state and re-re-state the exact same obvious things that everyone understands while not seeing that everyone gets that, that you’re missing the point, and that you’re yelling in a hole
Why do you keep going?
Are you that painfully unconvincing in real life like cmon
Step it up