Something can only be evil when it harms or is going to harm somebody.
No matter how abhorrent a picture is it can not harm anybody by merely existing. Harm can (or may not) only be inflicted to others during its production or with its demonstration.
Banning possession of pictures produced without participation of any living person other than the viewer makes no sense.
Banning possession of child abuse pictures used to make sense because possessing implied buying and buying incentivized production which depended on actual child abuse. Nowadays nobody has to be abused and I'm totally fine with weirdos using whatever pictures their sick imagination may want as long as this keeps them satisfied enough to be able to keep their wicked desires secret from every living person. I don't want the police to bust such people as long as they don't actually harm anybody and don't pay anybody to do the harm. No crime without an actual victim is worth ruining anybody's life, whatever kind of freak they are.
Child porn is a unique case. Its presence normalizes child sex in the mind of its consumers, and feeds an addiction that greatly increases the likelihood of an actual action taken against a child.
It's the same logic most countries use to ban possession of firearms. Their presence greatly increases the risk of lethal violence and suicide, despite being harmless to people when used correctly at the range or for hunting. The lack of need for firearms weighed against the harm they cause to others makes it a hard sell for remaining legal.
Firearms may get a pass because they have real utility in self defense, but there are no positive benefits to having an endless stream of fake child abuse.
I get your point and won't hurry to object. You maybe right. But I wouldn't hurry to agree either. You may be wrong as well. This is questionable. For example many people enjoy bloody violent games and movies (I specifically did during my teen years, when I actually wasn't formally allowed by the ESRB ratings) but absolutely don't want and never wanted anything like that to happen in the real life. Perhaps a middle way should be chosen - still ban all, incl. AI generated child abuse content - don't really normalize it, but don't put anybody in prison for having artificial pictures on their PCs.
Probably in the exact same capacity as violent media normalises murder, or rough porn normalises sexual assault. Or drug use in media normalises… drug use.
No matter how abhorrent a picture is it can not harm anybody by merely existing. Harm can (or may not) only be inflicted to others during its production or with its demonstration.
Banning possession of pictures produced without participation of any living person other than the viewer makes no sense.
Banning possession of child abuse pictures used to make sense because possessing implied buying and buying incentivized production which depended on actual child abuse. Nowadays nobody has to be abused and I'm totally fine with weirdos using whatever pictures their sick imagination may want as long as this keeps them satisfied enough to be able to keep their wicked desires secret from every living person. I don't want the police to bust such people as long as they don't actually harm anybody and don't pay anybody to do the harm. No crime without an actual victim is worth ruining anybody's life, whatever kind of freak they are.