• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    But, I’m still torn on the first scenario…

    To me it comes down to a single question:

    “Does exposure and availability to CSAM for pedophiles correlate with increased or decreased likelihood of harming a child?”

    If there’s a reduction effect by providing an outlet for arousal that isn’t actually harming anyone - that sounds like a pretty big win.

    If there’s a force multiplier effect where exposure and availability means it’s even more of an obsession and focus such that there’s increased likelihood to harm children, then society should make the AI generated version illegal too.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 month ago

        How they’ve done it in the past is by tracking the criminal history of people caught with csam, arrested for abuse, or some combination thereof, or by tracking the outcomes of people seeking therapy for pedophilia.

        It’s not perfect due to the sample biases, but the results are also quite inconsistent, even amongst similar populations.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think the general consensus is that availability of CSAM is bad, because it desensitizes and makes harming of actual children more likely. But I must admit that I only remember reading about that and don’t have a scientific source.