Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 10298373's commentslogin

> Just as the existence of America as we know it necessitates the pillaging and raping of native tribes. But we're not going to watch over your shoulder to make sure you don't participate in American society and send you to jail if you do. As unfortunate as past damage is, life moves on.

There is a significant difference in that you can choose not to consume CSAM. Most Americans don't get to choose not to participate in American society.

> Algorithms do incentivize production of more and more adult porn even as 90% of will never been seen by anyone, for sure, but the law could still take a harder stance on those algorithms if that is the better solution.

I would argue that the better solution is to keep the CSAM laws we have—maybe make them harsher, even—and keep letting adults make consensual porn with other adults if they so desire.


> Most Americans don't get to choose not to participate in American society.

Most Americans don't participate in American society, other than maybe voting, and even then a significant number of them still don't.

> I would argue that the better solution is to keep the CSAM laws we have—maybe make them harsher, even

And I would be trillionaire, but I guess won't bother... The original comment asked for that argument. If you don't want to provide, I get it. You are under no obligation to do so. But what is the point of saying you would do it without actually doing it? If you don't want to provide why make up a fake story when you can just as easily be honest about it or say nothing at all?


> Most Americans don't participate in American society, other than maybe voting, and even then a significant number of them still don't.

Paying taxes doesn't count as participating in "American society"? The same taxes that, say, have funded America's controversial military operations in the past?

> And I would be trillionaire, but I guess won't bother... The original comment asked for that argument. If you don't want to provide, I get it. You are under no obligation to do so. But what is the point of saying you would do it without actually doing it? If you don't want to provide why make up a fake story when you can just as easily be honest about it or say nothing at all?

I'm happy enough with maintaining the status quo. I'm not the one trying to demolish Chesterton's Fence here.


> Paying taxes doesn't count as participating in "American society"?

In the same way a child participates in CSAM production, sure. You haven't made yourself clear, but are you struggling to suggest that the children featured in CSAM should also be prosecuted? Is that the harsher law argument you keep telling us about? I mean, I suppose you are right that if they weren't involved it wouldn't be able to be created. You may not have completely thought that through, though.

> I'm happy enough with maintaining the status quo.

And you are welcome to your arbitrary feelings. But we are talking about your supposed argument.


> Likewise, causality hasn't been proven, but it is likely the most compelling answer.

That's a massive stretch—there are many things that have been declining along with the rate at which people have been having sex. Porn is in no way "the most compelling answer". It certainly could be a factor, sure, but by no means the only one.


> Porn is in no way "the most compelling answer".

What are you seeing people finding more compelling? There was that whole "the chemicals are turning frogs gay and now you too" or whatever it was, but that wasn't compelling. Tell that to the average Joe and he will simply wonder what kind of drugs you are on. Tell the average Joe that "increased porn consumption is diminishing partnered sexual activity" and you'll at least get, "Huh. Maybe."

> It certainly could be a factor, sure, but by no means the only one.

Case in point. But it seems you're confusing a compelling explanation with a scientific explanation. Whether or not porn is actually a factor is entirely immaterial. It might have absolutely nothing to do with it. It can still be compelling even if that is the case.


The data tells us that many child abusers are caught with CSAM as well, so it does jack shit to keep them from abusing kids,

Take your CSAM apologia somewhere else.


> The data tells us that many child abusers are caught with CSAM as well

How much CSAM? A PornHub's worth of content, or a couple of pictures? The data suggests that in the adult porn world, people aren't satisfied by a single Playboy magazine. Which, too, is the logic behind CSAM laws — that the insatiable search for more content incentives production of more content. But at some point there will be more content that can be consumed, and given how often CSAM producers are caught (not even counting those who never are) we've no doubt far exceeded that threshold. And with the way AI is going...

> Take your CSAM apologia somewhere else.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.


> But at some point there will be more content that can be consumed, and given how often CSAM producers are caught (not even counting those who never are) we've no doubt far exceeded that threshold

No, we haven't "no doubt far exceeded that threshold". Some CSAM producers getting caught does not make it so. I could say it's unlikely that CSAM production even approaches 1% of the magnitude of adult pornography production—but I too would be pulling numbers out of my ass. Without hard data on this, all we have is meaningless assumptions—and I'm not sure this sort of data is available to anyone.

> Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Logical fallacies apply only to arguments.


> No, we haven't "no doubt far exceeded that threshold". Some CSAM producers getting caught does not make it so.

Okay. Exactly how much CSAM data has been produced over the years? And what is the threshold where there is enough?

> Logical fallacies apply only to arguments.

Logical fallacies are most commonly associated with arguments, but are not limited to them. However, "Take your CSAM apologia somewhere else.", as poorly thought out as it is, would be considered an argument if you stay within the bounds of how the term is normally used, of course, so what you say here doesn't even hold anyway.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: