• Norgur@kbin.social
          2·
          1 year ago

          That’s a rather useless contribution to the discussion. The initial argument was a line of reasoning why artificial csam might be a benefit so people can vent their otherwise harmful behavior without harming actual people. You just flat out responded “it is enabling and doesn’t stop distribution”. So you just responded with “no, u wrong”. Care to tell us you reasons behind your stance?

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying it’s better alternative, I’m saying it might not make sense to talk about it “involving minors”.

            • Norgur@kbin.social
              1·
              1 year ago

              That’s not picky about wording.
              While I agree that stuff like that should not exist at all in no way whatsoever, there is a vast difference between it existing because someone abused a child, recorded that and thus scarred the child for life, or if someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting.

              • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting

                I like that take. It lends itself to comparison: The Saw movies were well-received (at first), even though most people would abhor hurting others in this way.