this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
508 points (98.5% liked)

Today I Learned

17807 readers
1632 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The problem isnt the registries per se, it is that they are extremely poorly administered if children are being put on them. The criteria for adding an individual to such registries needs to be strict and with a reasonably high threshold, so that nobody gets on one for things like pissing outside, or accidental exposure, or minors sexting each other, or for accidentally having a few CSAM images that they had downloaded unwittingly etc

I had some involvement with a local registry some years back, and we only inluded adults who physically offended against minors and with a significant age difference, and adults who were actively and deliberately involved in the production and distribution of copious quantities of CSAM. Most had track records involving multiple offences and multiple victims

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The criteria for adding an individual to such registries needs to be strict and with a reasonably high threshold

I think this needs to be part of the law itself. If it's at the discretion of people in charge of administering it, that's easily subject to corruption.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Child Sexual Abuse Material"

It's the new PC term for child porn. It actually is more accurate, to be fair.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is just a longer term, not better.

[–] Rouxibeau@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The point is that porn is consensual. A child being abused or manipulated into production can't consent.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Thank you for educating me. I hate the constant churn of PC terms. It makes communication less effective, doesn't help the problem in the slightest, and actually hampers solutions. I hope I'm not alone in this.

[–] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What you're doing here is thinking your feelings are facts. You need to back up what you say with facts not feelings. Common sense is a feeling, it's not an objective truth in the world.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, let's reverse your logic. Can you point to a study that points to a positive effect of changing "child pornography" to "csam" that would justify the effort of re-educating the public at large to this new terminology? Because if there isn't, there is no reason to change. It'll just divert effort away from solving the problem.

[–] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're assuming that I must take the other position because I called out your position.

They have reasons for theirs, you have reasons for yours.

But here you are again, another post, saying the exact same thing with nothing to back it up other than your feelings.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

I was assuming you were arguing in good faith.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

You are not alone, but in many spaces, especially those dedicated to fighting child porn, going against the hive mind means being accused of being a pedophile. Even for something as trivial as the term being used.

It's such a toxic space.

[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Child Sex Abuse Material

[–] Morkyporky@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They shouldn't exist. If someone is a danger to reoffend they shouldn't be let out of prision in the first place.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

This is what you get with a justice system focused on punishment, not justice, and a for profit penal system fixated on money not rehabilitation.

[–] Rouxibeau@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They need treatment and rehabilitation, not incarceration for the sake of filling beds

[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

We do the rehabilitation/ treatment thing here. It does not work, at least long term - not surprisingly really given that it is an innate defect of laregly biological origin. The best solution is perhaps not prison per se but some kind of community where they can live somewhat normal lives but are isolated away from children and have filtered net access so there is no possibilty of their reoffending

Technically everyone is capable of reoffending.

[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This would be the ideal solution, yes