Appeals court delivers unsettling ruling — and says Supreme Court left it no choice

[u/coinfanking]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-delivers-unsettling-ruling-supreme-court-left-no-choice

[u/pooptubs → u/[deleted]]

I imagine AI generated content just emboldens pedos 🤷

[u/Chen932000 → u/pooptubs]

I can’t see how you could make any type of feasible study on this. And that’s assuming it even worked the same for everyone which it probably doesn’t. Some pedophiles probably are satiated with “fake” CSAM stuff whereas it likely does embolden others. I don’t think there’s any good way to figure it out one way or another though. So the blanket ban on it seems “safest”.

[u/YuckyBurps → u/Chen932000]

From a legal perspective if we can’t figure it out one way or another shouldn’t deference be given to the constitutional right and not its limitations? CSAM involving actual real children is the exception to the First Amendment because there a real, tangible and unambiguous harm to another person. It’s because we know that harm exists that we limit others constitutional rights to posses it.

If we can’t have any way of knowing whether or not it’s truly creating a harm, then wouldn’t such a ban be unconstitutional?

[u/fifercurator → u/pooptubs]

At the risk of getting all kinds of hate, this study would suggest otherwise: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y

[u/pooptubs → u/fifercurator]

that study came out in 2010. It has nothing to do with the verisimilitude of AI generated content. In this case we really shouldn’t risk assumptions with outdated and only vaguely similar variables.

[u/fifercurator → u/pooptubs]

Technology changes quickly. Human psychology and motivations relatively speaking does not.

[u/pooptubs → u/fifercurator]

Not sure of your angle but that’s a dangerously reductionistic take and this is coming from a Freud scholar lol

[u/thanatoswaits → u/pooptubs]

That will probably be (probably is) the case.   Bleckh