• On@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    it seems ridiculous to prosecute the particular crime of posession

    what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

    Do people think there would be some dramatic explosion of CSAM?

    Yes, this is not your local backwater town where you know there are a few visibly shitty & disgusting people and people tell their kids to stay away and everyone becomes safe. And if you think shit doesn’t explode on the internet, you might be living under a rock last 2 decades.

    That’s stupid on a whole new level and your made up scenario doesn’t make it any better. No one is threatened for having been sent some questionable content. The person who sent those however might be and the tech today makes it incredibly easy to prove where anything came from since everyone is being tracked.

    Seize all funds received for distributing it, throw anyone involved in producing it in prison and throw away the key,

    How about we prevent such things from happening by discouraging it in the firat place? Sure, they won’t be down to 0, but your solution starting after the distribution has already started is highly disturbing.

    • xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think the problem that poster was trying to illustrate is that it is unpractical to shut down a site or force a site to spend a significant overhead just cause a user could post a certain sequence of bytes to the site. An analogy to the real world would be some guy paints some graffiti on the pavement and the response, every time, being the complete shutdown of the entire city for a month or complete surveillance on every cm2 of pavement plus cleaning crews standing by every 10m.

      Poster does not want his favourite site going down cause of some bad actor.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

      He’s just a dirty MAP apologist. Ignore him.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They claim it stands for Minor Attracted Person

          … and that’s better? There are already separate terms for those attracted to under age people vs prepubescence people. The latter is a serious mental condition that needs help. The former is something society has largely agreed upon being morally wrong. In what world is “MAP” sufficient cover? Weird.

      • hoodatninja@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t know man. The reason I haven’t set up an instance, which I am perfectly capable of doing, is because I don’t want people posting child porn on my drives/servers and having to deal with it (notice that an instance just had this happen). I am absolutely legally accountable for that and I can’t spend every day rolling around my instance and digging through files to see if anyone is pulling that crap. Nor do I want to. If I am putting in a reasonable effort to keep that stuff out, that should be enough.

        At least that’s how I am reading the above. I don’t see him saying anything about hoarding it/having it on purpose. I think he’s talking about being liable because others are pushing it through to/on you. We have seen plenty of accounts of people spamming people with child porn to get them in trouble. A cursory Google search will show you that.

        If he’s actually defending people who collect it but don’t distribute it, then yeah that’s gross. But that is definitely not how I read it. Mostly because the last sentence he wrote.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You just don’t understand that they’re using the possession argument to get their foot in the door to convince you to accept pedophilia.

          It’s an incremental approach often taken by evil people and organizations and it’s been done before to great effect, e.g. everyone accepting government surveillance, to the point where we carry surveillance devices wherever we go, when back only 30 years ago it would have been considered unconscionable.

          The possession argument is their strongest one because the possibility of affecting non-pedos makes people feel more sympathetic toward actual pedos and convinces people to accept removing one of the most important social guardrails we have against them.

          The truth is that the possession argument is a nothingburger anyway because

          1. Feds are not stupid and know the difference between actual pedos and who is not, and will acknowledge their victims – of which websites like .world are in a serious way

          2. The possession problem can be got around through official CSAM filters that major corporations already use and can be built by the feds, who can create an open API for everyone to use. Meaning there’s no excuse for someone to just have CP on hand unless it’s obvious they’re being victimized with it like .world is

          3. The risk of some hapless website owner getting caught up in possession laws are worth the risk to ensure as close to an absolute ban on CP as we can get. CP is too dangerous and pedophilia is too harmful for humanity for everyone in society to not be willing to accept that.


          They, like all apologists, are banking on you taking their word on face value without thinking critically about what they’re saying or asking for. CP is like social nuclear waste; just being exposed to it at all extremely damages people. Don’t fall for their shit.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

      This means that current prosecution violates principles of criminal prosecution: namely requirement of intent.