the article being linked by op in the comments is a letter, not a study, with a badly cited bibliography, NONE of which says anything remotely close to what op is claiming
the first two cited articles in the letter talk about action taken against specifically drawings, including the 3 year sentencing of a russian trans woman for posting underage hentai to social media. her lawyer told her to take a plea deal. the article has little to do with whether this should or shouldn't be actionable and is largely about the fact that this 3 year sentence is possibly fatal on account of her having cancer and being possibly put in a men's prison--a topic which interestingly is not being championed as an issue in a post about transmisogyny. the other article explicitly states that sexual depiction of minors "using images, cartoons, drawings or representations, of any kind" falls under their criminal code. which is the exact opposite of "inactionable"
the third link is a long read which also doesn't actually say anything about this, it's mostly about detecting child abusers who view images online, the fact that there is just so much CSAM online, combined with issues re: algorithms and AI on detecting those images, and the lack of a budget for improving detection. it DOES talk about an individual who went from viewing images online to contact abuse in 2 years after going "through a series of forums who had told him his behavior was normal"
4th link which op is apparently using for the stats in this post is from a german swiss newspaper about, specifically, the swiss police's CSAM algorithms mistakenly detecting family photos and sending it to the cops. the cover image for this article is a family beach photo
the last link is entirely about digital privacy from an organization saying that CSAM is a major problem but that monitoring everyones' devices would be a major govt overreach
so basically exactly none of these sources indicate any of the following: 1) that people are mass reporting ao3/artists on such a scale that anybody is even reporting on it in a research study, 2) that creating or engaging with fictionalized depictions is inactionable, or 3) that such reports are preventing real children from being helped by the authorities because of the prior 2 points. we do in fact get multiple sources explicitly contradicting point 2 and the 3rd link kind of ironically draws a direct line between online activity and real harm on an anecdotal scale. the fact that the letter itself doesn't say "9 in 10" and op had to look at the 4th link to do that leads me to believe intellectual dishonesty and not just parroting headline stats is at play
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
areudirty
2087
stormborns
theartofmadeline
izzy806
