It is porn involving children who did not (and more to the point legally cannot) consent. Moving away from that term has as its object attempting to reframe certain obvious acts of child abuse as not abuse but "art". Words have meanings, and a spade should be called a spade.

Calling it Child Sexual Abuse Material is doing exactly that.

That is what is depicted, that is what has taken place to produce the material. It puts front and centre that this is abuse, categorically and by definition, not 'porn'.

Why would that not be "porn"? I would define that as "material intended to sexually arouse the particular audience". Merriam-Webster appears to largely agree

The material being harmful and produced via abuse doesn't remove it from that definition, in the same way that rape isn't removed from the definition of "sex"

‘Porn’ these days generally implies legal and consensual. Reflect as you will on what that means about society and the pervasiveness of porn as compared to a few decades back.

Regardless, calling it CSAM puts the abuse aspect front and centre, and puts it in a separate category to that, it avoids euphemism rather than adding to it.

> Moving away from that term has as its object attempting to reframe certain obvious acts of child abuse as not abuse but "art".

This is a nonsensical interpretation.

"The world", being random individuals, still overwhelmingly calls it child porn. Organizations in the field call it CSAM

It's just like "ISIS". Every organization had an opinion on whether to call it "ISIL" or "the so-called Islamic State" or "Daesh", but the fact is everyone not making a press release just called it "ISIS". Nobody thought that that name was endorsing their self-claimed statehood, and nobody thinks "child porn" somehow justifies it. But using constantly-changing ("CSAI", "CSEM") jargon just confuses anyone not in the know and makes the topic harder to search

_All_ revenge porn involves abuse, but that's still the common term. It's still porn, in the same way that rape is still sex

> _All_ revenge porn involves abuse, but that's still the common term.

Because it was normal porn when it was made, and the abuse is external to the actual content.

> in the same way that rape is still sex

Oh dear. This is appallingly misinformed.

I don't like the term CSAM because I've seen it lead to such tortured and misleading terms as "CG-CSAM" (computer-generated child sexual abuse material), suggesting that an AI model generating images of naked children is committing sexual abuse. The already-existing concept of "simulated child pornography" actually describes it better.

That material is illegal in many jurisdictions for the reason that it encourages and is often found coincident with real CSAM. This is common sense.

CG-CSAM also covers photoshop editing, I think.

Do you have sources to back up the fact that "it encourages and is often found coincident with real CSAM"? You can't just claim that it's common sense that an AI-generated image of a child is encouraging real child abuse. Generative AI hasn't even been around for long enough to be part of common knowledge.

Again: it's you that has put the specific "AI" projection onto "CG".

As I say, this term appears to be used in the past broadly to include the kind of 3D animations that appear in conventional porn adverts, and also to face-swap and other Photoshop-type edits.

All I can say is that prosecutions in the UK for example have often mentioned such material alongside conventionally shared material.

I don't think I've read about any prosecutions where fake material was the only material justifying prosecution. But I could have missed that.

I have absolutely no interest in getting into the rest of the argument, which is tedious and IMO kind of obvious on many grounds.