While I generally don't dive into this, I saw a few bad faith remarks which are so outrageous that I feel compelled to respond.
First off, when talking of abuse, can we not conflate fantasy (i.e. non-existent people) with reality? This is not only defamatory (someone was sued over something similar in 2021, as it turns out, if you flat out lie about someone like that, that can lead to legal trouble), it's a recipe for disseminating misleading information, wrong, impinges on fundamental rights (freedom of expression, privacy, due process, and maybe more), and wastes resources / money in the worst possible way.
Those who push this tend to be very bad faith actors. The worst is when someone is scared of a "written story"(1) or a "cartoon"(2). These are fairly common and mundane things. This just shows how extreme someone's position really is.
I think it's time to grow up, adapt to the world, and not cosplay as a Karen from the 90s who'd get offended about everything. It also has nothing to do with crime (3,4).
Then, there're cases where someone thinks that because something involves some novel technology, such as "AI" or "VR", they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and advocate for someone to have zero rights.
So, let's talk about this too.
I've commented on VR safety before (5), now my ideas here might not be the best. Still, it's likely better than demanding someone to magically "fix something", to rattle the drum, and to demonize random people incoherently. Not a high bar, huh.
I'm also seeing terms like "VR CSAM". One of the problems with using exploitative language like "CSAM" (the term "CSAM" itself appears to originate from Australia) here is that we literally have no clue what the hell someone is talking about, especially if they talk like that to talk about someone who doesn't exist in the same breath (and we know they do this).
This is a very big problem, among a few bad actors, who appear to do this very deliberately. Is it that someone has found some creative way to get child porn (18 U.S.C. 2251) in, as unlikely as that is? Or is it something fictional, which we've known about, and we know is not that uncommon?
Intuitively, this doesn't seem like it'd be a particularly good medium for this. Someone could project it onto a plane, however, this would be of particularly low quality, in comparison to viewing something on a regular monitor.
Considering every violation of 2251 is a potential risk to someone, what is the motivation for someone to take on this particular risk? Why risk being dragged up on a scary law for something which provides little additional value? For the sake of being evil?
While depicting someone as a cartoon villain might be appealing as a tool to serve a political end (6), cartoon villains tend to be beings which exist within the world of cartoons, not the real world.
Even supposing someone did do that, few would likely do it, and I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to punish them for this specifically. More crucially, a problematic person would be distinct from non-problematic people, just as someone who watches murder flicks is distinct from actual murderers (though, this might not be the best example to use here).
Also, like black markets in relation to drugs (7,8), it doesn't feel like pushing things underground here could possibly do any good.
There are a few other potential points, however, in interest of not repeating myself, I will point out that the points I have already made here are also applicable to them. This likely doesn't apply to just the preceding portion.
Onto the next one, "AI", I initially treated this one (9) in the same fashion as with (2), although I later changed my approach as it was insufficient for dealing with this.
First, I had to address the issue of potential pseudo-photographs *(10), a phenomena which is vanishingly rare (11), and distinct from other communities (11,12), though mentioned examples of pseudo-photographs tend to be anecdotal with a sensationalistic leaning, and tends to conflate possession with distribution.
Among other things, these factors made arguments along these lines pretty moot and inherently disproportionate. Also, whenever the State gets involved, it is usually a recipe for trouble, the State is generally not going to help (13).
* This term is used inconsistently on here.
Also, it's not as if this itself isn't exaggerated.
One concern trolling argument, originating from the early 90s (and occasionally dusted off for dramatic effect, despite it's lack of substance), appeals to the possibility that it might be "inconvenient" for cops. This ignores though that in around thirty years, this has never really been a problem. We also shouldn't be architecting society for the convenience of cops.
It also ignores the police have never had more tech (which they use and expand) than they do now to investigate leads (they're drowning in them), only focusing on "inconvenient" hypotheticals. Even more problematically, it's a "War on Drugs" kind argument (14,15), and they already have tools to deal with it in pertinent cases (no, they don't need an obscenity law to do this, good grief).
Quite a few arguments don't actually make sense, especially when they try to conflate them with things which aren't even close to looking like pseudo-photographs. This makes clear such arguments are not intended to go after that. They're just pretexts for censorship.
There is also a bit of conflation between "sexually harassing a minor" and "generative content". It's important to point out the former conduct seems to be illegal. It's also not a protected expression. Also, what does an evil thing someone does have to do with anyone else (quintessential "guilt by association"). Also, it's a sensationalistic anecdote and it doesn't require this.
There is also a bit of appeal to the stigmatizing and pseudo-scientific concept of "deviance". It's a lazy approach where someone tries to conflate a bunch of random sexual phenomena in a vain attempt to try to demonize it all. It's an attempt to remove nuance (16,17,18,19,20,21) from complex discussions.
"deviance" itself has it's roots in traditional religious morality, where any form of sexuality which differs from the "norm" (which isn't a real thing) is "deviant", "warranting suspicion", or "malevolent". This is why this concept is inherently problematic. It seems to either spread from extreme religious figures, or individuals who spend a lot of time in their company.
"deviance" also lends itself to someone picking out sensationalistic anecdotes (which are otherwise quite irrelevant), simply because these might be more salient to them, or because they think it might serve their argument. Like this though, someone could literally make anything, even drinking water, look bad. In fact, though this is unrelated to this, there was a parody where someone spoke about "water" with spooky and ominous sounding language and asked to ban it (22).
Strangely enough, people seem to feel better, and may even engage in the activities these religious people don't like less, when they accept themselves, a key component of ACT (30,31,32).
Nonetheless, trying to police what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, when they're not bothering anyone else, purely on moral whims is surely something to move past. Who is anyone else to tell someone what they can and cannot do based on an antiquated form of morality?
As for chatbots generating fantastical scenarios, I rebuked someone for virtue signalling and pretending this is "exploitation" (33). It's not. It's someone playing with a chatbot to create some absurd and ridiculous scenario. It's a mundane recreational activity although, it can have therapeutic benefits.
One of the main reasons I rebuked them, is because they played dumb, played stupid, when some company engaged in censorship, and it triggered a not small scandal, and for the very *reason* of therapeutic benefits to a few customers. You can't cover something and completely ignore something so relevant to the subject matter like that.
I'll also deduct points from the person who believes that moving your eyes back and forth is a "miracle cure."
When I say that debunking things takes time and resources, I really do mean that, as can be evidenced by this very post. Frankly, I'm of the opinion these people tend to be bad faith actors, and know damn well they're talking crap. People should stop letting them get away with it.
1 https://qoto.org/@olives/111145583758663294
2 https://qoto.org/@olives/111150762678131671
3 https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082
4 https://qoto.org/@olives/111164674886858482
5 https://qoto.org/@olives/111016637636133512
7 https://qoto.org/@olives/110388712350966675
8 https://qoto.org/@olives/111179349829778300
9 https://qoto.org/@olives/110616056242888138
10 https://qoto.org/@olives/110740274413433043
11 https://nichegamer.com/attorney-general-united-states-consider-ai-art-ban-child-imagery/
12 https://jere.my/generative-ai-and-children-prioritizing-harm-prevention/
13 https://qoto.org/@olives/111052013744894283
14 https://qoto.org/@olives/111131027174340804
15 https://qoto.org/@olives/111139125304774810
16 https://qoto.org/@olives/111134500696068626
18 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202003/why-are-rape-fantasies-so-common
19 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/201911/our-7-most-common-sexual-fantasies
20 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-of-sex/202212/why-animated-porn-is-so-popular
21 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/talking-apes/202207/who-likes-violent-porn-new-research-upends-expectations Though, someone pointed out that 90% is cherry-picked from a study from 20 years ago, and it wasn't a representative sample, to start with. Also, extreme religious figures are capable of using / parroting secular sounding arguments.
22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody
30 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789410000043
Part 2 (updated as of December):
It is remarkable how obsessive someone can be about this content, that content, and the maybe, could be, type rhetoric, with arguments put forward thinner than a piece of paper.
In regards to (11), the rarity seems common knowledge in some circles, and those aren't the only possible examples (given sensitivities, I've avoided entirely going into that too much as it doesn't add much, we're not having a contest here). I've also seen no compelling evidence to the contrary. It's mainly advocates of censorship with vague "fear points". And once again, what they're typically gunning for is very broad censorship.
As a rule of thumb, people who just focus on apparent "fear points" are muddying the water, poisoning the well of useful discourse, giving bad actors an air of legitimacy, and undermining fundamental rights. Don't be that person.
There are a few who make vague non-particularized arguments. These can be low quality (and likely dealt with by an already answered point, even if not someone's preferred direction to solve that argument). These are more like mantras or slogans than actual arguments and aren't worth wasting a breath on. And at the end of the day, mantras have roots, and therein lies already made points.
One mantra appears inspired by QAnon type theories. Yet again, this returns to the deviancy theory (and some degree of othering rhetoric), nuance, and complex matters being over-simplified in a manner which is very discriminative and harmful. As well as trying to tap into perceived moral decay (35). That's not really how the world works, and it's not helpful to approach things that way.
One seemed to have a rather rigid mentality (34), though I suspect it is more deliberately motivated "nit-picking". Honestly, this one probably falls under deviancy theory, that's why I didn't cover it here. It's the pseudo-scientific deviancy theory which conjures up the "oohing and aahing" at small mundane things.
In one case, someone seemed absolutely fascinated by a *local troll*, from whom there is really nothing to gather. Would that happen elsewhere?
In one case, someone made stronger claims in more public facing areas, and in more obscured areas, offered up far more dubious language, even seeming to neutralize their own points. Strong claims were seemingly supported by one-off opinions from randoms with no expertise, or a decent reference point. Cherry picking still seemed prevalent.
In one case, someone tried to appeal to this tired trope, simply because they "don't like AI", due to some unrelated pet peeve of theirs with it, even though this is objectively harmful.
There also seemed to be a certain amount of conflation between SFW and NSFW, or even between some degree of "nudity" and it being "sexual" (whatever this means. For instance, quite a few images appear to not be provocative, yet they got censored by a few platforms (and again, this was not an actual person). I've even seen that happen myself on *Twitter* without even trying to look for it.
