"Explicit computer-generated images of kids are popping up online, and no one knows how to stop them"
Some more bad takes:
1) Someone was posting them to piss the admin off on one specific tiny site.
2) It's bad because it's bad.
3) Facebook is upset that it adds to their moderation workload.
These takes are so lazy and so boring that they're not even wasting energy on. Just putting them out as examples of bad takes.
It still feels like someone is desperately trying to scrounge up anecdotes, weak and vague opinions from various talking heads, and playing up a problem which isn't really much of a thing. It's a weird obsession when there are far bigger fish to fry.
One of the talking heads is a "start-up" trying to sell moderation services and trying to work hard to show that they have meaning. It really makes you wonder how much of this is driven by a few companies looking to make a quick buck off it.
"with 66 percent of it “highly photorealistic.”"
Also, while this number seems "impressive", it suffers from significant selection bias. You go to a place where you know the proportion will be higher and go "oh look, the proportion is high".