this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
315 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
82830 readers
3191 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If banning sex dolls that look like children is moralism, I'm OK with that.
"that look like children" is not enforceable. Are you requiring a minimum height? A minimum number of ageing features? A certain breast size? What about cartoon/anime stylized products?
But the core issue is that this literally won't solve anything and it's, therefore, a waste of time and public money.
If you read the title of the article, it would seem this is absolutely enforceable.
Also, of course Lemmy is arguing in favour of child sex dolls, I'd expect nothing less.
Ofc you frame it that way. Most people on here are just against banning things where there's A, no victims and B, no real way to determine age. You'd have to ban drawings the same way if the characters appear childlike. How is this enforceable. By the opinion of whoever is looking over something? The article specifically mentions weight and size but I don't think thats sufficient in itself.
Doesn't France already ban depictions of characters that look like minors in sexual situations and also depiction of rape and sexual violence.
In the US obscene drawings of underage characters in sexual situations is illegal under the Protect act "Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct"
Some states explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography
Out of curiosity, does that include cherubs or is religious iconography exempt?
With something like this, a judgement call would ultimately need to be made, yes. That's how a lot of law enforcement works.