You must log in or # to comment.
Sadly nobody cares if you are wrong on something established authority is right on. Until it festers and then it becomes dangerous to the authority and society itself. see maga
See also: the West’s favorite fascist apartheid state, Israel
Ok, let’s test it. Or see if this place can react better. I’ll choose an intentionally difficult one.
It’s a technical fact that prohibiting child pornography creates the exact same economic conditions as copyright policy. By applying risk to non-paying parties in a media exchange a coordination between supply and demand is possible that does not occur naturally in media exchange. This creates a sustained market for the production of new child pornography.
Let’s see how you handle someone being technically right when you have an emotional bias for what is right and wrong, and what is acceptable to say and not say. What matters more, emotions or technical truth? If I frame it this way you will say technical truth. But if that framing wasn’t included, you would reject it immediately on the basis that the argument is offensive. Basing your views on what is offensive and not offensive is always reducing your intellect from what it could be. The right view can always be argued a better way, if it is right.
So tying it to the meme; Are you free from reflexive agreement with established views or with established authorities? If not, you have something to work on.
I can handle it just fine and I sympathize with the general point you are trying to make.
However, I do have an issue with your assumption that “applying risk to non-paying parties in a media exchange a coordination between supply and demand is possible that does not occur naturally in media exchange” in that it’s just plain wrong.
It’s completely right. If there is no risk to non-paying parties then they will just pirate any media they can get from a creator. If patronizing the creator is illegal (positive CR), then why would they pay for something and risk going to jail when they can get it for free with no risk?
The myth that is being told in legal circles by economically illiterate law enforcement and judges is that if someone downloads something they have created a demand and an incentive to create it. But let’s look at it from the creator’s perspective to see if that is true. He produced and put effort into marketing something while trying to do that in a way that doesn’t reveal who is. Not easy. Now a pirate comes along and makes it available for free. Even his first customer fucks him over like that if it is legal to do so. Now because the media is publicly available and accessible, the cops know about it, analyze the film, identify the girls on CCTV video facial detection and he goes to jail. These pirates just royally fucked him over and made his attempt at a business 10x more risky and 0.00001x as viable.
The lie we tell ourselves is just a way to get to what we want to do emotionally, punish someone we feel disgust towards, even if we have to commit a logical foul to get there. The problem is that logical foul does harm children because it makes commercial CP exist. It’s a case of adults putting their emotional needs ahead of the well-being of children. We feel a need to act viscerally instead of logically in such a case so we haven’t even calculated if there is a cost to children in doing so, so of course we assume there isn’t.
Harvard economists, who approached this problem more empirically than my formula-based approach, have issued a warning for policymakers to consider if we have misstepped because the historical correlation is significant that once we created these laws, things took off in that industry. It takes a lot of guts for Harvard economists with public names to put their name on that letter. But they did because the data is pretty significant. TBH, I don’t want to do a lot of internet searches for that letter, but I know it exists.
Solution ignore all economic factors and focus on the human. Put a bullet in the head of those producing CSAM and move on from masturbatory hypotheticals.
The only thing that matters there is protecting the vulnerable from harm.
With that kind of thinking you could win the war on drugs. Wait, no, you can’t. Economics matters to adults. Children value and act on their emotions over reality. Children will never win a war against the economic realities they unknowingly make. Your solution is to get more caveman. Get more caveman and lose more. And actually, we all lose. There will be more CP produced because you don’t want to think. You want to act on emotions.
There was no commercially viable production of CP until we made it illegal. It practically didn’t exist until one guy did it, and put it on a 90s style file share. And everyone hated it. And that one singular film would have been moderated off of every place on the internet we don’t want it, which is 99.9% of places. It would have been a one off. But in response to a single film we added a reactive policy. Then there was commercial production of CP. Now if we were to legalize it, it would be everywhere because of all of the content that was produced because of our policy can’t be uncreated.
It was already illegal to do the physical acts in the film. Prior to the policy no one would be stupid enough to film their crime and publish it without an economic incentive. But now the incentive exists because D = CV*min(1,FR/FV)-CR. Each of those letter pairings is a distribution. Respectively, perceived value of commercially available media, perceived risk of accessing freely available media, perceived value of freely available media, and perceived risk of accessing commercially available media. Because the resulting distribution of min(1,FR/FV) is uniformly zero when you don’t criminalize unpatronized exchange, there is no market until you do that. Copyrighted media uses the same formula, but there CR is zero. FYI, a distribution minus a distribution always has a positive component. So no amout of raising CR will solve the problem. That’s why you can’t win the war on drugs. There it is just D=CV-CR. The min(1,FR/FV) term is called the window of coordination and applies to media exchanges. It sets how much a media exchange behaves like a commodity. Since drugs are a commodity that term is just 1.
There is no where in the formula to encode if the production was harmful to someone, or if it offends you, or isn’t eligible for copyright status, or what the intention of the law was. Because economic laws work the same way if you are offended or not.
You are an adult, and you are trying to protect children. So be an adult and do what children can’t do. Think critically. We have responsibilities as adults to do that. Or we are children ourselves.
What is the cost of lies?
