"virtual child porn"
The 90s called and they want their antiquated terms back.

For some reason, there are a few people, primarily online, who seem to think it's a valid term. It's a term from the 90s pertaining to one particular lawsuit (from over twenty years ago!) around a law with overly broad language (drafted by overly lazy politicians). While a few used it in commentary *around that lawsuit*, and a few even parroted it, it doesn't make it any more valid, and it hasn't been used in a very long time.

Most recent usages were from a far right QAnon conspiracy theorist cosplaying as an intellectual who wrote a conspiratorial rant about sub-humans five years ago and a Dutch scholar who didn't appear to be familiar with the subject area. It's archaic, it's confusing, and it was never intended to be used as a standalone term.

It also diminishes the seriousness of abuse by comparing mundane everyday harmless content to it by twisting and contorting language.