Have to ask...is "artificial child pornography" demonstrably a bad thing, if it a) isn't generated based on images/descriptions of real, individual children b) can't be shown to increase the likelihood of consumers of such generated imagery/text going on to consume the "real thing", or worse, actively carry out pedophiliac behaviour? What if there was good reason to believe that artificial pornography had the opposite effect (e.g. it somehow more than satisfied whatever twisted desires such consumers had)?
And is it obviously worse than other artificial pornography that portrays clearly morally/ethically egregious acts (just not of children)?