Not a good look for Mastodon - what can be done to automate the removal of CSAM?

  • priapus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are not saying it shouldn’t be defederated, they are saying reporting this to authorities is pointless and that considering CSAM is harmful.

      • priapus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Definitions of CSAM definitely do not include illustrated and simulated forms. They do not have a victim and therefore cannot be abuse. I agree that it should not be allowed on public platforms, hence why all instances hosting it should be defederated. Despite this, it is not illegal, so reporting it to authorities is a waste of time for you and the authorities who are trying to remove and prevent actual CSAM.

        • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          CSAM definitions absolutely include illustrated and simulated forms. Just check the sources on the wikipedia link and climb your way up, you’ll see “cartoons, paintings, sculptures, …” in the wording of the protect act

          They don’t actually need a victim to be defined as such

          • priapus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That Wikipedia broader is about CP, a broader topic. Practically zero authorities will include illustrated and simualated forms of CP in their definitions of CSAM

            • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I assumed it was the same thing, but if you’re placing the bar of acceptable content below child porn, I don’t know what to tell you.

              • priapus@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not what I was debating. I was debating whether or not it should be reported to authorities. I made it clear in my previous comment that it is disturbing and should always be defederated.

                • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah. It depends on the jurisdiction the instance is in

                  Mastodon has a lot of lolicon shit in japan-hosted instances for that reason

                  Lolicon is illegal under US protect act of 2003 and in plenty of countries

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s the point of reporting it to authorities? It’s not illegal, nor should it be because there’s no victim, so all reporting it does is take up valuable time that could be spent tracking down actual abuse.

        • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s illegal in a lot of places including where I live.

          In the US you have the protect act of 2003

          (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.

          Linked to the obscenity doctrine

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Wow, that’s absolutely ridiculous, thanks for sharing! That would be a very unpopular bill to get overturned…

            I guess it fits with the rest of the stupidly named bills. It doesn’t protect anything, it just prosecutes undesirable behaviors.

                • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There’s no definite conclusion on whether consuming and distributing lolicon content could lead some individuals to seek out or create explicit content involving real children

                  If they rule that out entirely through the scientific method one day, then I’ll join your side

                  Weebs usually respond to that “Well that’s like saying video games cause violence!” so I’ll jump ahead of you, that would be like saying we should forbid Lolicon videogames in a society that already has lolicon books, lolicon movies, lolicon cartoons and where history classes mostly cover instances of countries showing lolicon to each other. That’s not the situation we’re in, and even if it was, it’s still not necessarily comparable. Sexual urges have properties that violence doesn’t share.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah, I’d definitely like more research on the topic. I imagine it’s a correlative relationship, but not causal (as in, pedos disproportionately also like loli, but enjoying loli won’t likely make you a pedo), but I don’t have much to go on there.

                    What I do know is that most reports of “gateway” behaviors end up being false. For example, smoking weed isn’t going to push you toward harder drugs, but people who may be interested in harder drugs will likely start with weed. The same goes for violent video games, gambling, prostitution, etc. Each of those things can be used in a healthy way, so imo they should not be illegal.

                    But I don’t have a high quality study to back it up. I’m completely willing to concede if the science shows otherwise.