this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
938 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
87649 readers
3525 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
CSAM laws are already overreaching in dimensions that are rife with abuse. It's rare to have a law where owning a picture of something is highly illegal. It's the only law I know of where somebody can just send you a picture on your phone, and suddenly, you're breaking the law. You could be arrested and thrown in prison for even admitting that somebody else sent you the picture.
Police use CSAM as an excuse all the time to search without a warrant. Remember the duress passcode case? Police claimed he had CSAM on his phone, when everybody knew they were targeting his activist work.
And what should we really care about? The CSA. Go after the CSA. Focus on the abuse. The Epstein files are right over there.
Yeah, it's absolutely valid to question the degree to which this is an outcome that we should even want. If someone hides a CSAM image in the Linux kernel should Linux become illegal?
I think there is a valid distinction to be drawn in this case, because removing individual components of an LLM isn't really something we know how to do. So there's a fair argument that a model which is built using illegal content should be illegal, and if that means they have to completely retrain from scratch, so be it.
But yes, I'd want to be very careful about the lines around a law or ruling like that and exactly what it's extent is. Child sex crimes and child safety are topics that tend to short-circuit all reasonable objections, and are frequently exploited as a means of getting bad laws onto the books. Bill C-22 up here in Canada is a great recent example.
Globally, there's powers at work to get all kinds of "age verification" laws on the books, which we all know is just a thin excuse for de-anonymization and identity gathering. These same powers were fucking with Steam and Itch.io's payment methods, because "what about the children", which then ties to similar events with PornHub a few years earlier. Congress passed three different "Internet child safety" laws in the 2000s and 2010s, and all three were struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. Decades earlier, DARE abused "child safety" justifications for personal gains.
This excuse is used all the time, and the emotional weight it carries makes it shocking effective to the proles that buy it at face value.