They could literally end both of those things if they actually gave a damn. It doesn’t help their profits though. It costs very little to ban lolis, and they probably consider that a PR win for most of the population. So their reasoning checks out from a sinister villain perspective anyway.
As my favorite waifu Tonkatsu Sinclair says, it’s lazy activism. You get to feel good about yourself while not actually doing anything worthwhile that helps people.
Not to mention diverting massive resources from actually stopping child harm towards a P.R. stunt. This would only actually harm children more.
Last I checked, the FBI receives more than 2 million reports of CSAM a year, most of it inactionable. Who wants to bet how much of it is art and not actually a child being abused that they could really allocate resources to finding?
i honestly doubt that the U.N. could end those but the Nations that reside in the U.N. could. This might sound like a stupid point to make but the U.N. mostly is a communication-forum, an effort to have nations talk to each other and to make working together easier. The U.N. might ratify something concerning world hunger or poverty but without the member states doing something about it nothing will happen. The U.N. simply has no power to force something onto nations. That is also why the U.N. will not be able to ban lolis. It is rather a comdenmation, which is also bad.
But yeah, i too see this as a pr-stunt. People are so infatuated with pedophilia-hate that they will turn their brain off at the mention of the word.
Its to delay the obsolescence of blackmail that will be caused by generative AI. See this video for more elaboration.
The U.N. tried to ban loli art?
Yeah back in 2019.
Countries responded and I don’t think it went anywhere.
Here’s the US response
In the United States, federal law provides that it is illegal to create, possess, or distribute a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene. However, visual depictions (CGI, anime, etc.) where there is not a “real” child are typically protected by the First Amendment (unless the visual depictions are obscene)
Japan
Japan therefore proposes to exclude “audio representations” and “written or printed materials” from the third sentence of paragraph 61. "Furthermore, for the reasons explained above, whether criminal penalties should be imposed, even if the case involves pornography of a non-existent child, it needs to be carefully considered. Japan proposes to add “to the extent that it represents an existing child” at the end of paragraph 61.
