@br0kenrabbit said:
As I've been telling you, it's a commonly used term in media. Whether you've seen it or not is irrelevant, and no basis to assume anything. It is not a term 'reserved for those who have experience in the field.' lol
Excerpt: “Google Search has strong protections to limit the reach of abhorrent content that depicts CSAM [child sexual abuse material] or exploits minors, and these systems are effective against synthetic CSAM imagery as well,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. “We proactively detect, remove and report such content in Search, and have additional protections in place to filter and demote content that sexualizes minors. In line with our policies, we’ve removed the image that was reported to us, and we are constantly updating and improving our algorithms and policies to combat these evolving threats.”
I disagree, but it is becoming more common as major organizations like NCMEC and IWF continue to educate folks on replacing it. But this is a recent push within the last 5ish or so years as the internet (mostly within the same last 5 years as this issue has exploded since the pandemic). And yes, it is a term typically reserved for those who have experience in the field--educators, advocates, safety tech personnel, law enforcement, counsel, etc, as it isn't common knowledge among folks compared to the term "child pornography." Again what's the accusation? Wasn't even looking for ... what exactly? Again, are you searching for piggies? :)
But this whole discussion stemmed from a judicial action related to a rarely used statute in a civil bench trial. It's perfectly reasonable to critique at its usage and the subsequent civil punishment, and to the dismay of LJS, yes, even law enforcement routinely critique the sentencing or judicial authority of judges; as we should. ;)
Log in to comment