cley_faye@cley_faye@lemmy.world

Replying to @⁨Saledovil@sh.itjust.works⁩

This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.

Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.

It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.

Jason@Jason@feddit.uk

Replying to @⁨cley_faye@lemmy.world⁩

And where do you draw the line?

For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?

If you think that is not okay, would it make a difference to you if those in the material were not “realistic” (but still underage)?

I don’t think people are suggesting it should be illegal because they personally don’t want to see it, but rather because they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole.

teslekova@teslekova@lemmy.ml

Replying to @⁨Saledovil@sh.itjust.works⁩

The morality is actually a little greyer there. There is research showing that consuming cartoon or otherwise artificially drawn CSAM does in fact raise the likelihood of the person who consumes it actually committing an act of abuse against a child, instead of being an effective substitute to prevent such acts.

Therefore, it may be a good idea to ban such images even though their production is harmless.

It’s a difficult area of research, which is why it’s a shame that we need more data on the issue to inform our laws on banning or not banning artificially produced CSAM.