• Amju Wolf@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean you could also go with a more sane model that still represses the idea while allowing some controlled environment for people whom it can really help.

    You could start by not prosecuting posession, only distribution. So it would still be effectively "blocked" everywhere like it's (attempted to be) now, but distributing models for generation would be fine.

    Or you could create "known safe" (AI generated) 'datasets' to distribute to people, while knowing it was ethically created.

    is used as both a currency within those circles to incentivize additional distribution, which means there is a demand for ongoing and new actual abuse of victims

    A huge part of the idea is that if you create a surplus of supply it cannot work as a currency and actual abuse material will be drowned out and not wort it to create for the vast majority of people - too risky and irrelevant if you have a good enough alternative.

    You're definitely right though that there would have to be more considerations.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You seem to think it's some kind of human right and people are entitled to have fapping material provided for them. No one is hurt if people don't have fapping material.

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is an argument to be made that allowing people with unhealthy desires a safe and harmless outlet, they will be less compelled to go with the harmful option.

        And, actually, I kinda want to disagree with the premise too. Even if it was provably true that noone gets hurt if there wasn't porn, you can flip the question; why should it be banned if it doesn't hurt anyone? Do you want to live in a world where anything that's perceived as bad is just outright banned without much thought?

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are already making assumptions about whether or not producing artificial CP is harmful. But in truth nobody knows. And studies have shown that media indeed does influence us. It's quite naive to assume that somehow just porn doesn't.

          • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Artificial or not, this isn't really a new idea. A similar argument can be made for existing CSAM and providing it under controlled conditions.

            And yeah, "nobody knows", in huge part because doing such a study would be highly illegal under current CSAM laws in most parts of the world. So, paradoxically, you can't even legally study how to help those people, even if they actively want to be helped and want to help you do research on it.

            Edit: Also, I'm not really making any assumptions; I literally said "there is an argument to be made". I'm not making that argument because I don't actually know enough. Just saying that it's an option that should be explored.