Hacker News Reader

>>I'd expect you to be "cool" if you violate a new, hitherto-unseen kid, or violate one in a new and creative way.

Simple posession of videos of rape and murder is not illegal(in most places) and yet it would be hard to imagine anyone making an argument that it should be illegal because someone might get internet fame for producing them. Or rather - we know that people produce this kind of thing "on order" and we still don't think that banning the posession of this material is going to stop the actual crimes behind them being commited. Why is this any different?

I think you may be reading into my position on a separate, but related question: what exactly should be illegal with respect to CSAM possession?

You've pointed out exactly the kind of incoherences in law that I was hoping to bring to mind. Agreed, on the surface there is little difference between possession of snuff vs CSAM. I'm not sure what to do with that observation, though, because I have trouble assessing:

1. Is surface-level analysis is correct? Or is there something bigger at play?

2. What is the appropriate level of punishment vs rehabilitation?

To the first question, there are obvious differences between child abuse and murder, but I can't think of an example in which one of those differences would also lead to a different conclusion about the nature of the recording. Similarly, I don't think the act of recording the crime is significantly changed by any of the differences between child abuse and murder.

With that in mind, what do we do? Do we consider video-taping murder as bad as video-taping child abuse? My own gut-check reveals that I rationally think murder is worse than rape, but then again, rape somehow seems more taboo. If I consider the taboo element, I reach the opposite conclusion: that rape is worse than murder. Adding in the "child" element, I observe a main effect of making everything worse, but the interaction of "rape" getting disproportionately worse than "murder".

Again, this is just me, but I would like to understand where these conflicting feelings come from. My sense is that rape triggers us on a symbolic level... something about Man betraying Woman. I'm old-fashioned enough to think archetypes matter, so I'd like to get a bead on this before formulating any policy opinions.

> but I also have a hard time believing that circulating CSAM has no detrimental effect whatsoever

Some studies have shown that availability of animated CSAM reduced recidivism among child molesters. That we treat these two categories of CSAM the same, along with the assumption that it encourages more harm, are some of those conversations that need to happen.

That's fair, but if you'd gander a look at another comment of mine in this thread (the long one), I'm not sure what to do with that. This is a very utilitarian argument, and I suppose I need convincing that the benefits really do outweigh the cost, because we're about to gamble with child rape victims.

I am aware of the purported benefits of decriminalizing certain kinds of CSAM, but utilitarian arguments are suspiciously silent on the subject of costs.

Have you thought of any dangers in this approach, and how they can be avoided?

I mean this in the gentlest way possible. I'm really trying to think this through, and would appreciate your input.

> I suppose I need convincing that the benefits really do outweigh the cost

I suppose that the government needs to do the actual research first, and only then introduce new surveillance measures and prohibitions, not vice versa.

that the benefits really do outweigh the cost

So let's start by enumerating the cost of cartoons and comics depicting CSA (e.g. some hentai, which is usually ambiguous about age). Other than the cost of production and distribution which is the same as any other form of comics, I'm drawing a blank here.

Why are you focusing on cartoons instead of what’s actually troubling?

> I am aware of the purported benefits of decriminalizing certain kinds of CSAM, but utilitarian arguments are suspiciously silent on the subject of costs.

The reason they're suspiciously silent is because there is little to no evidence for the existence of such costs. The harms of CSAM with real children is clear as the victim is on camera, but who is victimized by animated CSAM? The allegation is that exposure to porn encourages deviant thoughts that eventually culminate in molestation. This is contradicted by lots of sex research in ordinary people and porn, and the small studies of child molesters suggests that it reduces recidivism too, like I said.

So the situation we're in is that the government has banned something with little to no evidence of actual harm. It's the obscenity laws against porn all over again. Shouldn't the government ideally have to demonstrate actual harm before regulating behaviours?

I understand the impulse to the precautionary principle, but it doesn't seem warranted here.

Meh, if you're not able to list even a single risk, then you clearly haven't thought of this very much.

Surely you can imagine the harm of sharing the video of someone's rape? Don't you think we should try to avoid this for the sake of those who have already suffered?

> Surely you can imagine the harm of sharing the video of someone's rape?

Clearly you didn't read my comment very carefully:

> The harms of CSAM with real children is clear as the victim is on camera, but who is victimized by animated CSAM?

I’m not taking about animated CSAM. It’s odd that you’d focus on that.

If you're not talking about animated CSAM, why did you reply to a post talking specifically about animated CSAM without indicating you were changing the topic?

Any citations?

Wikipedia has an OK review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_por...

Basically, the evidence is very weak for the association between CSM and molestation.

I wish I could find the study that was actually interventionist. Couldn't find it after a quick search and don't have time for a deep dive into this stuff again.

Rhetorical, but relevent, question: Will new measures help catch people with good opsec capabilities?

I have doubts, that new measures will move the needle much.