I dont think it matters for the point im making. Child porn exists and should be censored.

What are you suggesting?

I think the point they might be trying to make is that there are religious and socially conservative groups that intentionally misclassify anything even remotely related to LBTQ topics as “pornography” so that anti-pornography laws can be used to silence anyone and anything that opposes their regressive views on sexuality, as one example. So it is a line that must be tread carefully.

Ah thanks that makes sense. And it indeed does not matter to the point Im making, which is some censorship, such as child porn, is good.

People can disagree on what that means, although I think there are some very obvious examples. Unless you think NOTHING called child porn should be censored because it might not actually be child porn, you can see how its a non factor.

Can you give an example?

It matters because if you can't determine if something is child porn, then you'll end up overblocking, so it doesn't matter if it "exists" and "should be censored"

But my point is some censorship is good. Such as child porn. We can disagree on what constitutes child porn in practice but you arent saying nothing should be censored right?

You do think there is such thing as child porn right? And that it should be censored?

Im not claiming more censorship is better. So I agree it could be overapplied. Im saying some censorship is clearly good.

I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP.

I’d rather track people downloading CP than prevent them from being able to find it and thus not know who was more likely to be a child predator. Of course any negative outcomes without due process is problematic but there’s tradeoffs here.

Now people paying for CP creates an incentive to create CP so that’s definitely worth banning. Similarly there’s a justification for banning ownership of CP on the premise you’re going to catch child predators, but do we then lockup kids looking for people their age?

How do you track them? That means you'd have to know all porn watchers. That's privacy violation. It's no difference than the age verification debate raging on here. Violation of the privacy of the majority for a tiny amount of violation.

> all porn watchers

That doesn’t follow, you wouldn’t need to track non CP content to track people downloading CP.

YouTube doesn’t want legal porn on its servers, and I suspect most porn websites aren’t going to want CP either especially if it makes collecting revenue illegal as per the second part of my post.

Thus whatever is currently being used would likely to continue to be used.

> you wouldn’t need to track non CP content to track people downloading CP.

May be not, but you need to be able to track down CP content viewers. How can you identify them without identifiable info of all porn watchers?

What if someone accidentally clicks on such a piece. How long should they be viewing it to be considered a violator?

The content itself provides a sorting mechanism.

You go to the grocery store and you can buy most things without showing ID, but you want to get booze and suddenly you need to verify your identity.

> accidentally clicks on such a piece

I’m playing devils advocate here not trying to design a better system. What’s the tradeoff of treating a single download as serious vs having a higher threshold? Perhaps a single click is reason enough to ban someone from ever teaching in public schools, perhaps you could keep a list but someone could get due process to remove themselves from the list, I don’t have a strong opinion at this point.

>I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP.

Very interesting.

What about revenge porn? A scorned lover who posts explicit content of their ex.

IMO, that falls under the same umbrella as copyright in terms of distribution.

The actor in a porn needs to sign over their rights before you can distribute it. If you’ve got all the proper paperwork then it doesn’t matter if it’s your ex and they want to retroactively remove permission. On the other hand if you’ve don’t then the ex has the same protections as Disney has over one of their movies.

Now we can call this censorship, but it’s rather stretching the definition.