site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3072 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 3, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Related is Aella's suggestion that we make AI generated kiddie porn (I think the original suggestion was 'old cp from adults who now consent', but AI is easier) available to people who want it. This way, there'll be no incentive to create or look for new kiddie porn.

While I think most negative reactions to this aren't well considered, I'm not sure how valuable it is. My sense is that some child abuse is actually caused by demand for images, but it's a very small percent of all abuse. And I strongly suspect the 'people see more child porn so they want to offend more' effect is either nonexistent or tiny, but now we're comparing two small things. Maybe some law enforcement agency should flood the dark web (more realistically, the twitter/reddit/facebook pages where people exchange ids for platforms with encrypted dms) with fake accounts selling AI stuff.

And I strongly suspect the 'people see more child porn so they want to offend more' effect is either nonexistent or tiny

I eh, disagree emphatically with your suspicion. If cp doesn't make people into more vigourous paedophiles, then we have to assume also assume the whole wild explosion of paraphilias and perversion that's come out in the past 20 years has just, by remarkable fluke, happened to co-incide with the ubiquity of online porn. I don't think the evidence supports that position, and I think wider availability of cruelty-free fairtrade child porn would likewise increase paedos' appetite for real-world abusing.

My intuition is based on 'did rape porn make rape more common'? Child sexual abuse (both of prepubescent and post-pubescent, the latter is much more common) was common before porn existed, so I think it's closer to rape, where I don't think the availability of porn made it more common. Also, 'loli' is readily available on the web and quite popular among people who enjoy anime-style porn, whether drawn or animated, and I don't think that's translated to real offenses against children.

Could be wrong though, hence 'strongly suspect' instead of a statement.

there'll be no incentive to create or look for new kiddie porn.

Oh there still will be. People would exchange "organic" cp images, just because it's the "real thing". Yes, it'd be dangerous - so what, it's dangerous now, it doesn't stop them. If somebody's brain is broken in this particular way, it's what they'd do.

With sufficiently good AI art, it won't be possible to tell the difference. If nothing else, it craters the value for anyone who would create the real deal for money. People would still exchange verifiably older images sure, but crushing the creation of new stuff is the goal.

With sufficiently good AI art, it won't be possible to tell the difference. If nothing else, it craters the value for anyone who would create the real deal for money.

I don't know that it wouldn't have the opposite effect. We won't be able to tell the difference just from the pixels, but the pixels aren't the only way to tell the difference. If there's enough demand for the real deal, then people will provide the requisite verification and certification of the unethical sourcing, and that extra status - compared to all the unverified images that could very well be AI generations where the viewer can't be sure that no child suffered to produce it - could very well allow them to demand more money.

With sufficiently good AI art, it won't be possible to tell the difference.

It's not the point. I'm pretty sure there are copies of famous paintings that are so good only the topmost experts using advanced methods of analysis, including radiocarbon dating, spectroscopy and other exciting geek stuff, can tell the different. Yet, as soon as it is known it's not the original, its value becomes a minuscule part of the original. I'm sure it's reasonably cheap to order a copy of any famous painting that would look like the original to a casual observer. If somebody does that and pretends it's the real thing, they'd be laughed at. In fact, among the real connoisseurs, nobody would likely even dare to do something so low-class as to exhibit a copy. Either you own the real thing, or you own nothing.

I understand, of course, that the comparison is not exact, and in a way the comparison is kinda offensive to art collectors, for which I apologize. But the point is that the history of an item matters, or at least it matters to some people. Some people would be fine with a fake. But there always would be those that aren't. And among those, the value of the real thing would not crater - it would, in fact, raise greatly, comparable to the danger and the exclusivity of owning it.

I don't doubt that what you and @07mk is true, but it's worth acknowledging that a situation where 1Cp gets sold for 100X is far better than a situation where 100Cp get sold for 1X. I don't doubt some will continue to want real stuff, but the point is that it would be possible to reduce the amount that is produced.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats