"AI CSAM getting more extreme"

See, the thing about "AI generated" images is that it doesn't really matter how "severe" the depicted abuse is... Unlike actual photographs where it might correspond to a different form of abuse to someone.

It's clearly someone trying to pull at someone's emotions.

It is also coming from a very unreliable "source" which is known to mislead people... Including by selectively reporting things. In fact, it is probably coming from something the same "source" said around about... 16 months ago but which gets repackaged as if it's new every single month.

It is also not "CSAM". Hell, the reason grifters like using that term here is that it collapses the context in discussions by framing it as an extension of some other amorphous phenomena. Perhaps, by framing it as being a matter of potentially shadowy people on the so-called "dark web" (a very rare phenomena, all signs would indicate).

There are *far better* terms which better reflect whatever it is that is going on. No need to lump everything in the "CSAM" box as if it is one amorphous thing (that is something I noticed happens *a lot*).

How about "deepfake"? The term has been around for seven years. It seems to be less prone to misuse, maybe someone still misuses it, I dunno. Or talk about consent? So, suppose someone disapproves of something that depicts them?

It feels like someone is deliberately trying to use ambiguous language, and they insist on doing so despite being repeatedly told that it is confusing and ambiguous. Oftentimes, they try to push some other agenda.

These are the same grifters who might argue that no one has ever been harmed by government censorship, including since the 1970s, even though many people have clearly been harmed by some sort of government censorship.

These are the same grifters who misrepresent statistics about presumably actual photography, even though the vast majority of these are duplicate.

In fact, these grifts might even be something which someone could ignore, if they didn't keep coming up with bad ideas.

These are also probably the same people who were against educating someone about respecting someone's boundaries and other such things not too long ago... At best, they seem to conveniently forget that is even a thing. If they do come up with something, they point to some fringe faith-based crap (which has no credible record of being effective). Not helping, folks.

Or they might be someone who sells a product, which uses dubious means, which purports to fight an "amorphous phenomena"?