The Australian guy has pivoted to pointing to a flawed survey (reviewed by content mods) from two years ago to justify a Chat Stasi (honestly an improvement in rhetoric).

It looked at a small sub-sample of people "looking for help" and asked them whether they spoke to minors after viewing actual child porn (or "violent content", ugh).

He attempted to directly conflate "talking to a minor" with "abusing a minor".

He also failed to account for other possible factors, such as impulsivity increasing the probability in engaging in both activities, and / or limited opportunities to engage in this activity.

Another possible theory, and one inspired by Dr. Seto, is that negative mental health states, such as depressive or anxious states are linked to *both activities*. Perhaps, partially as some kind of coping mechanism.

This isn't to argue that simply being depressed, anxious, or impulsive will make someone do it. Also, whether someone is depressed or not, I have no less disdain for any person who abuses someone.

All things considered though, he doesn't think very hard before quickly coming to a conclusion. Also, what is "violent content"?

This was also conducted by a group which was only founded a year prior and by individuals who don't appear to have a long background. They, along with him, appear aggressive in lobbying for a Chat Stasi (while I'm not against fighting real child porn, I kind of like privacy...)

A cursory review of their website shows them misrepresenting the efficacy of a prevention program which only surveyed individuals who got to the end (vanishingly few).

https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
https://qoto.org/@olives/110445384736437393
While the content is problematic (well, not "violent content"), it's not problematic in the way he suggests it to be.