Aaaand there it is.
thinkofthechildren.gif
there is an excellent technical reason to bring up CSAM: it is a clear example of why spam is harmful, which is a principle tenet in the fight against it. Very often our ideological opponents say "there is nothing WRONG with spam" (e.g. here: nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqf42cz6fz5vk4t22w8hrqdpe7verglllzesnjzv7yh5jchhc0k2eqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqyr4s0ts4kgrntp8wq2e8wsavnpang24mcedypzpdz9aseul4n6x5svpncsk) or issue challenges like "you can't DEFINE spam" (e.g. here: https://x.com/L0RINC/status/1967404819716694518)
CSAM is an obvious way to counter these statements/challenges
Discussion
yes
for the reasons given, "thinking of the children" is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring up in a technical debate
it immediately counters the statements/challenges mentioned and instantly illustrates a central tenets of the pro-filter position: that spam is harmful
Yes. If you are in favor of raising the OP_RETURN limit to 100,000 bytes and removing its configurability, you NEED to bite this bullet and say why CSAM is acceptable in people's mempools for your stated reasons.
Same reason it’s acceptable on chain (it’s already there btw)—Bitcoin must be neutral and censorship resistant. This has unfortunate and unavoidable tradeoffs. If you’re scared of it, don’t run a node.