> Because there's no evidence it works and the idea makes no fucking sense. It approaches the problem in a way that all experts agree is wrong.

Experts in what exactly?

There are two ways to defend a law that penalizes virtual child pornography:

- On evidence that there is harm.

- On general moral terms, aka "we just don't like that this is happening".

Worth noting that a ban on generated CSAM images was struck down as unconstitutional in Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...