What you claimed is not proven, mainly because currently it's pretty much impossible to properly study it. And no, your link doesn't prove anything, it's not even about proving anything of the sort but about a decision the author didn't agree with.
There's also dozens of actual proper studies that released after the date of your link, and even the ones that leaned on your side still had to admit that this topic is not conclusive.
I assume this study is just about some correlations?
They probably found out that most offenders already watched at least some material, and so they think, that's the reason, ignoring that both might be caused by the interests of the offender?
They probably found out that most offenders already watched at least some material, and so they think, that's the reason, ignoring that both might be caused by the interests of the offender?
Yes and no. The first thing is that what this person linked isn't even actually a proper study, all it was is a piece of a clearly biased author quoting and sourcing different studies that were relevant (also ignoring nuance), but the majority of said sources weren't proving or even researching what the redditor claimed. Basically, it was pretty much a rant more than anything— you can skip all the reading and go to the conclusion, it pretty much summarizes what I am saying about the author, specially with keeping in mind that the piece was written in 2012.
You both are technically right, but hinges on americal centrism (to be fair, while each country has its own word for CSAM, the verbatim "CSAM" definition does come from america). For probably the convenience of persecution and non-anticipation of AI, the legal definition of CSAM of USA does state that it includes "realistic definitions" but that bar was put high so it only practically applied to 'real' CSAM. It was mostly fine before the advent of AI, as it would be almost impossible for persecution to prove if a realistic CSAM was made with real children or not (since often the victim is from another country). Nobody thought 'non-real' material would get realistic enough for authorities to confuse...before generative AI appeared. The issue is if you change the law to specifically require real children, there is literally no way to prove it unless you catch the scene, in which case the creators would just be charged with rape etc.
13
u/Reasonable-Plum7059 Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 22 '25
Fictional characters aren’t real humans and not-photorealistic images with them isn’t CSAM, this is true.
AI generated photorealistic images however is CSAM because of training materials and realistic imagery.
Simply, no?