The US/UK definition of CP is not exclusive to Crime Scene Photos like propagandist say

[zarkle]

For those of you who don't know NCMEC and equivalent UK child protection agencies have been broadcasting on social media many times a message that CP should be labeled as "Crime Scene Photos" and of course the public gives it tons of likes and the rhetoric repeats on Reddit and X. Thus making them assume all legally defined CP is harmful with the slogan in bold

CALL IT WHAT IT IS - THESE ARE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS
TREAT THESE PHOTOS LIKE A TICKING TIME BOMB

But for those of us focusing on reality legal CSAM does not just include adult child contact media or adults instructing children to behave sexual. Which constitutes the definition of crime scene photos (rather you like it or not). It also can include

1) curating child swimwear undergarment and dance wear media from legal shopping websites.
2) Kids and teens dancing sexy on social media on their own sovereign will
3) Content like junior idol and child modeling in east Europe and Asia that blurs the line between cute and sexy without nudity/explicit posing
4) AI generated stuff that is extremely unrealistic like uncanny human looking children with anime eyes and giant boobs
5) pics of kids with tight and revealing clothing. Such as a 10 year old girl on a playground with short shorts riding up her ass.

and these five categories drastically outnumber all the real crime scene photos. Especially little girls dancing i ntheir bedrooms.

And yes I know they usually they call this CSEM (exploitation material) or in the 2000s "child paraphernalia" instead of CSAM (abuse material) because they know a borderline exist, but they usually don't discuss this nuance with the public, The public gets the horror story 764 Roblox groomer fever dream narrative. So they just leave that info buried on their technical facts website in places most normies won't find. Its in NCMEC"s best interest the public stays assuming the worst anyway.

The reason NCMEC and the rest of the child protection orgs says "crime scene photos" and "treat the images like a ticking time bomb" and usually only cite adult child sex media is because they are cherry picking the worst cases to present to the public. Just like Kash Patel focuses so much on 764 child torture crimes. They totally control of this domain and only focus on the worst. The public is blinded from the truth unless they ask an AI for IWF data, or break the law to learn this.

So let's be clear

Little girls wearing shorts riding up their ass is NOT a crime scene photo
A five year old dancing in a bikini is NOT a crime scene photo
AI generated kids from an anime series with giant tits and huge dicks are NOT crime scene photos
Junior Idol blurring the line between cute and sexy shouldn't be a crime in any sane human's mind either. Though unfortunately that's Production.

But they are imprisonable forbidden media

I'm so feed up with these organizations taking advantage of their monopoly of media illegalization and dumb normies who just parrot things on social media they say. My hard drive is filled with so many swimwear shopping """crime photos btw""". Every one a victim of the serious crime of modeling for a swimwear manufacture, my ass.

Sources:
The IWF's 2023 report confirms 92% of removed CSAM URLs were assessed as Category C, 7% as Category B, and 1.7% as Category A. However, this 91% figure has been a consistent, albeit slowly declining, majority over the past four years (2020-2023). In 2024, Category C's share fell slightly to 88.7%, with Category A rising to 5.3%.

https://www.iwf.org.uk/annual-report-2023/


The goal of this post is a long term strategy to unexceptionally legalize non hardcore erotic media of prepubescents. Its ok for kids to be sexy.

[Bookshelf]

The constant attempts to reframe language around the same content and actions to try and change how people feel about it should be ample evidence of the nature of this kind of propaganda. If what's actually happening physically does not evoke the right kind of reaction to a point where they need to keep changing words to try and manipulate reactions, then what's happening surely can't be that bad.

We don't need to keep changing how we describe 'murder' or the rape of an adult like they need to keep changing words associated with AMSC, because those phrases alone tell you what's happening and you know what's happening is bad on the act alone. Evidently people need regularly convinced that AMSC is 'bad' so when they get bored of one phrasing, they try a new one.

[zarkle]

I just got into a debate with an AI and I forced it to admit that 92% of Self Generated CP from the IWF report is not all coercive, black mail or abusive and that there is no reliable data on separating the worst stuff (sextortion) from self generated dancing kids and horny teenagers and based on what we know from isolated reports like that Reddit cop above its likely the tamer material significantly outweights the worst material.

So we have good reasons to belief the internet is a much safer place for kids.

https://news.sky.com/story/self-generat ... e-13049628

The AI cited this article that mentions 92% self generated content, but no where does the article say 92% is exclusive to black mail, coercion and deception. I am willing the bet the vast majority are unharmed little kids dancing to their favorite music or teens being horny coercion free.

[zarkle]

Here is the Reddit Cop I was talking about it was in another thread. I used old reddit so it loads on Tor.



https://old.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1 ... field_and/

In quotes the cop wrote in a Questions and Answers
Q: Is a lot of what is out there ‘new’ content or is it older stuff that is just continuing to circulate?

A: In a standard "police raided this guy's house and found his laptop" case, it's mostly old stuff continuing to circulate, and it's stuff where any cop that works in child sex crimes could probably accurately guess which ones are gonna be on there because they're just that common. But new content gets reported daily on social media sites, though MOST of it is self-production from kids who are too young to have phones being stupid and flashing the camera while doing silly dances or something similar.


He is saying the vast majority of legally defined CP on the clear net is kids dancing inappropriate, but in arrest its usually more intense content "adult child sex" or perhaps popular child models. He also made it clear most of the more intense stuff is old media recirculating.

[Bookshelf]

https://old.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1 ... field_and/

I had a read through this and one weird idea he's putting forward stands out:

I don't think most online predators who take advantage of children are actual pedophiles. A lot of them are doing financial schemes on any vulnerable population and know that the threat of leaking sexual content is extremely effective.

This has to be some kind of rationalization to try and explain the prevalence of self-produced CP without accepting that some kids just like doing it, surely? The idea that there are groups of scammers wasting their time trying to extract money from a population that famously doesn't have any money is bizarre.

[RoosterDance]

I don't think most online predators who take advantage of children are actual pedophiles. A lot of them are doing financial schemes on any vulnerable population and know that the threat of leaking sexual content is extremely effective.

This has to be some kind of rationalization to try and explain the prevalence of self-produced CP without accepting that some kids just like doing it, surely? The idea that there are groups of scammers wasting their time trying to extract money from a population that famously doesn't have any money is bizarre.

This claim is not completely without merit. There was in fact a report of such scammers that came out not long ago. This still doesn't nearly accurately describe "most online predators" as he put it, but it is a thing that happens.

[zarkle]

I don't think most online predators who take advantage of children are actual pedophiles. A lot of them are doing financial schemes on any vulnerable population and know that the threat of leaking sexual content is extremely effective.

This has to be some kind of rationalization to try and explain the prevalence of self-produced CP without accepting that some kids just like doing it, surely? The idea that there are groups of scammers wasting their time trying to extract money from a population that famously doesn't have any money is bizarre.

This claim is not completely without merit. There was in fact a report of such scammers that came out not long ago. This still doesn't nearly accurately describe "most online predators" as he put it, but it is a thing that happens.

I am versed in the literature of internet sex crimes.

90% of financial sextortion is teenage boys not girls. But keep in mind two things

1) Financial implies crimes involving theft with only optionally overlap with sexual gratification, it does not say 90% of sextortion is boys. Just 90% of financial sextortion
2) This does not imply all of these crimes have CP distributed but some do. I don't know the number that sell the CP of blackmail footage

These crimes obviously work very successful due to how the male sex drive works (masturbate to randos on webcam they think are hot women)

Teenage boys and young adult males are heavily targeted by overseas scammers that pretend to be an attractive women, they get the male victim to masturbate on video webcam by playing a video of the women or AI deep fake or her while on webcam chat. The victim thinks its a live webcam masturbation session with a hottie lover, then the illusion breaks and they are blackmailed saying if you don't give us transferable cash app payments we'll show these images and videos of "you" victim masturbating to their family and friends on social media. This creates a vicious duressing scenario for the victim due to the West's sex negative culture and it works.

Remember these crimes extend well beyond 18 but go below 18 for obvious reasons "HORMONES". The scammers may also sell the CP of the victim masturbating on the dark net/Telegram. So perhaps it isn't a victimless crime to look at CP of teenage boys masturbating to what they assume is a woman only to be a scammer black mailing them. Ethical boy lovers should not watch that media because getting your rocks off to someone being deceived and black mailed is not directly victimizing, but its not the ethical new world you'd want to build.

Still questions and ethics remain

1) if we filter for NON financial sextortion are girls higher, what are the stats then?
2) is it possible the government has a looser weasel definition of sextortion, as they call 16-21 drive to movie dates "kidnapping" they might call tik tok twerk challenges sextortion because of the moderate social pressure for girls to shake their ass in a video . The legal system is NOTORIOUS for weak weasel definitions.
3) How much actual sextortion videos are uploaded to the web and sold, ?
4) If boy lovers are watching illegal media of teen boys masturbating, how do they know it was ethically produced and not the product of blackmail or deception on the young lad?

[Bookshelf]

This claim is not completely without merit. There was in fact a report of such scammers that came out not long ago. This still doesn't nearly accurately describe "most online predators" as he put it, but it is a thing that happens.

It was mainly on his use of 'children' and how throughout the thread he's clearly referring to younger teens/children when he's making these implications. These kinds of cases typically only happen with older teens, often even at or above the age of consent, like the boy talked about in that article.

[zarkle]

ok I thought of something.

If someone files a freedom of information request to the United States Federal Government in theory it could force them to tell how much legally defined CSAM from arrest/convictions is adults raping kids (adult prepubescent sex) and how much are kids dancing in their bedrooms and unharmed, how much is bikini photoshoots, dance class, junior idol adjacent ect . . And what percentage of self generated CSAM is coercion and what percent is acting freely, and what are the statistics of teens compared to prepubescents, and what percent is the most brutal content.

Based on all the IWF data we have evidence is pointing things are much tamer then the public imagines. We already know self generated dominates but if we could get more data I could proceed. My guess is that the worst stuff certainly exist but its isolated to darknet p2p corners and is mostly recirculated from the 2000s.

[luvslilgirlbumsntums]

3) Content like junior idol and child modeling in east Europe and Asia that blurs the line between cute and sexy without nudity/explicit posing

This one is so stupid and i think some people just hate that these junior idol girls want to do this and enjoy being eye candy for pedo and hebe girl lovers! those lil girls know who their fans are they are not stupid!! They know their audience is not boys their age and they do not want it to be..it does not take much to see that the fans they want are older men and they love the attention and comments from them! anyone who thinks the girls are doing this kind of modelling to get attention from young boys is an idiot