One thing I have to ask for those that say pedos should seek psychological/psychiatric treatment: do you even know a professional that won’t immediately call the cops if you say “i have sexual desires for kids”?
I wholly agree that this is something that should receive some form of treatment, but first the ones afflicted would have to know that they won’t be judged, labeled and exposed when they do so.
If the man did not distribute the pictures, how did the government find out? Did a cloud service rat him out? Or spyware?
He was found extorting little girls with nude pics he generated of them.Edit: So I guess he just generated them. In that case, how’d they become public? I guess this is the problem if you don’t read the article.
Why the fuck isn’t that the headline? Jesus, that’s really awful and changes everything.
Because that was another case. Extortion and blackmail (and in this case would count as production of cp as would be the case if you would draw after a real child) are already illegal. On this case we simply dont have enough information.
Some interesting information on the impact of targeted mental health therapy and the recidivism rates of sexual assault offenders:
“Despite their concerns about methodological limitations, the authors summarize several studies attempting to examine the effects of treatment on recidivism. A 1980 study of 260 mentally disordered sex offenders treated in a California maximum security hospital and compared with a group of untreated sex offenders released from prisons showed 15% recidivism for the treatment group compared with 25% for the untreated group. The greatest difference was for child molesters offending against boys (15% for treated and 38% for untreated). For child molesters offending against girls, the difference was not statistically significant (20% for treated and 18% for untreated). The follow-up period was five years and recidivism was measured by reconviction.”
https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr/htm/97-R-1451.htm
"It is worth noting that some of the subgroup analyses performed in the California Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project study did find a treatment effect. Specifically, high-risk offenders who participated in treatment and demonstrated they "got it " — meaning that they derived benefit from the program, or basically met specified treatment goals — recidivated at a significantly lower rate than offenders who "did not get it.“10 Only 10 percent of the high-risk treated offenders who “got it” recidivated, compared to 50 percent of the high-risk subjects who “did not get it.” While this finding was based on a small sample — only 38 high-risk study subjects were part of the analysis ― a similar finding was observed for treated child molesters who “got it” based on a larger sample of 126 subjects. Individuals with child victims who “got it” recidivated at a significantly lower rate than similar offenders who “did not get it” — 9.3 percent compared to 31.3 percent”
https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-7-effectiveness-treatment-adult-sex-offenders
I would also implore everyone to learn about restorative justice as well as (P OCD)
Pedos gonna pedo…
So this does bring up an interesting point that I haven’t thought about - is it the depiction that matters, or is it the actual potential for victims that matters?
Consider the Catholic schoolgirl trope - if someone of legal age is depicted as being much younger, should that be treated in the same way as this case? This case is arguing that the depiction is what matters, instead of who is actually harmed.
How I see it: creating fake child porn makes it harder for authorities to find the real ones.
Considering every other aspect of this is being argued in this thread to exhaustion, I just want to say it’s wild they caught him since it says he didn’t distribute it.
He probably just used a cloud service that wasn’t private.
And by the way, kudos to fediverse instances, you do a crazy job. That’s the only good thing of this AI techno, detecting such crap and obliterate it. I don’t care about false positive. if there’s a false positive, OP could still try to defend their case if necessary.
I’m very conflicted on this one.
Child porn one of those things that won’t go away if you prohibit it, like alcohol. It’ll just go underground and cause harm to real children.
AI child pornography images, as disturbing as they might be, would serve a “need”, if you will, while not actually harming children. Since child pornography doesn’t appear to be one of those “try it and you’ll get addicted” things, I’m genuinely wondering if this would actually reduce the harm caused to real children. If so, I think it should be legal.
Normalisation in culture has effects on how people behave in the real world. Look at Japan’s sexualization of women and minors, and how they have huge problems with sexual assault. It’s not about whether or not real children are getting hurt, it’s about whether it’s morally right or wrong. And as a society, we’ve decided that CP is very wrong as a moral concept.
Here’s the thing though, being too paranoid about normalization also makes the problem worse, because the truth is that these are people with severe mental problems, who in all likelihood want to seek professional help in most cases.
The problem is the subject is SO taboo that even a lot of mental health professionals will chase them off like rabid animals when the solution is developing an understanding that can lead to a clinical treatment plan for these cases.
Doing that will also help the CSAM problem too since getting people out of the alleyways and into professional help will shrink the market significantly, both immediately and overtime, reducing the amount of content that gets made, and as a result, the amount of children victimized to make that content.
The key factor remains, we have to stop treating these people like inhuman monsters that deserve death and far worse whenever they’re found. They’re sick in the head souls who need robust mental health care and thought management strategies.
Isn’t AI art based on pre-existing content that’s been fed into the model?
Yes, but not in the way I think you’re implying, it is not trained on csam images. It can put the pieces together to varying degrees of success. If you ask for a Martian hedgehog in a tuxedo riding a motorcycle, it can create something looking like that without being trained on exactly that thing.
Martian hedgehog in a tuxedo riding a motorcycle
Just to prove your point I fed that into an AI (dreamshaper 8). no other prompts or anything, and this was the first image it generated.
There’s no conflict and no discussion, fuck these piece of shit!
I’m thinking it should still be illegal but if they get charged for it, make it less severe than being charged with actual cp. This might naturally incentivize that industry to go for ai generated images instead of trafficking. Also I think if they took an image of an actual child and used AI to do this stuff it should be more severe than using a picture of a legal aged person to make cp.
I heard an anonymous interview with someone who was sickened by their own attraction to children. Hearing that person speak changed my perspective. This person had already decided never to marry or have kids and chose a career to that same end, low likelihood that kids would be around. Clearly, since the alternative was giving up on love and family forever, the attraction wasn’t a choice. Child porn that wasn’t made with children, comics I guess, was used to fantasize to prevent carrying through on those desires in real life.
I don’t get it, why anyone would be attracted to kids. It’s gross and hurtful and stupid. If people suffering from this problem have an outlet, though, maybe fewer kids will be hurt.
Fuck them kids
My god there are way too many comments in here trying to normalize pedophilia. Disgusting. Pathetic.
These are people that need serious psychiatric care, not acceptance or to be included in the LGBTQ+ community. There is absolutely nothing to compare between them and any group within the LGBTQ+ community. Nothing.
Combatting CP is a hard enough task for the poor bastards that have to do it. There does not need to be AI produced images in the mix.
Lemmy, do better.
I think pedophiles should be treated with compassion, as being a pedophile doesn’t make someone a sexual predator.
IMO the stigma against pedophiles worsens their mental state and could push them to become sexual predators. This is just a guess though.
However, I do think “treatment” of pedophilia with generated CP should only be tried after conducting proper research into the actual effectiveness of it (maybe with general sex offenders and regular porn). In the end I think the top priority should be to minimize the amount of pedophiles who are also predators.
The stigma against racism and sexism I guess a are also making people want to hurt these groups?
I believe racism and sexism are choices, while I think most pedophiles would prefer not to be pedophiles. If a pedophile doesn’t hurt anyone, why should people want to hurt him?
Sex offenders aren’t allowed to watch porn because the evidence suggests it doesn’t treat the behavior, but encoureges it.
Having a hard time finding the evidence you mention, got a citation? First few articles I saw were actually advising against blanket pornography bans.
For example, Vega and Malamuth (2007) explored the role of pornography in the context of risk factors associated with sexual aggression within a group of male university students. They found that excessive pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression.
This review was unable to demonstrate that there was not a relationship between early exposure to pornography and sexual offending. It also consistently appears that men who sexually offend report less exposure to pornography and that exposure to pornography does not result in more harm being caused to the victim. The review suggests that there is not a consistent relationship between exposure to pornography and offending shortly after exposure.
So a recent meta analysis has not found anything conclusive one way or the other. Operant conditioning does suggest a correlation (watching naked children while masturbating reinforces the neural pathways that link sexual arousal to kids).
I did time for a drug offense and met a lot of sexual offenders. In my state, they’re not allowed to watch porn if they’re on parole.
Anyway, the jury is out on if there is enough correlation between the two. But there’s definitely not evidence that I could find that letting pedophiles masterbate to pictures of children is helpful, as you suggest. Rather those images are simulated or not.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178918302404
I didn’t suggest shit, so please don’t put words in my mouth. Thanks for the citations though.
However, I do think “treatment” of pedophilia with generated CP should only be tried after conducting proper research into the actual effectiveness of it (maybe with general sex offenders and regular porn).
Okay. Well this research has been tried with general sex offenders and it’s inconclusive rather it’s helpful or harmful.
Sorry for reading your post suggestion that we try treating pedophiles with AI generated CP as a suggestion that CP would be helpful for pedophiles.
Not my post, dude. Look at the people you are replying to.
