I think
ian87w was correct to call you out on your previous statements.
While I have never been to the Philippines, I have been a student of Japanese language and culture for my entire life and have visited Japan, and your statements regarding Japan, to me, read as if they were misinformed at a minimum and perhaps even anti-Japanese or sinophobic, something which seems lamentably prevalent in the USA.
To be clear, the production and distribution of child pornography has been outlawed in Japan since 1999, and additional legislation was introduced in 2014 to ensure that there was no secondary market of "grandfathered in" old content allowed.
By volume, the United States has been the leading source of child pornography distribution, year after year (citation:
http://www.amlc.gov.ph/images/PDFs/2020 DEC CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THE PHILIPPINES POST-2019 STUDY USING STR DATA.pdf)
Your mention, or perhaps fixation on Lolicon (aka, fictional depictions, yes still legal there as observed by the break down here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography) seems particularly sensationalistic. The prevalence of Lolicon as a paraphilia within Japan can be directly linked to the US Occupation of Japan after WWII and its policies of censorship, which also gave rise to the prevalence of so-called "tentacle porn", neither of which is widespread nor widely distributed nor consumed. Similarly, while some point to Hokusai's 蛸と海女 「tako to ama」(The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife) wood block print from 1814 as an early example of so-called tentacle porn, that was an outlier in a culture which produced a significant amount of 春画「shunga」(erotic wood block prints) and fixation on such examples, again, from my vantage tends to be tinged with sensationalism and more often than not, derisive anti-Japanese sentiments.
As an undergraduate student some of this was a subject of study in my Japanese history courses. In particular, MacArthur's Occupation after WWII, resulted in any mention of censorship of Japanese media itself being censored (more about that subject can be understood in John W. Dower's book, Embracing Defeat). Subsequently, producers of erotic content began to treat the media as a "black box" more or less throwing it.sh at the wall until they saw what stuck, with a lot of materials being confiscated by authorities in the process. This was true even after the Occupation ended due to having somehow violated the nebulously worded obscenity legislation in Article 175, with occasional contestations under Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution, which is intended to allow for freedom of expression.
You'll note that centuries old 春画「shunga」prints were explicit in their depictions of sexual activities, whereas after WWII, it became commonplace for mosaic obfuscation around genitalia to be utilized in pornographic content, this is still common in Japan, even to this day. Again, to be clear, in historical as well as current cultural context, Lolicon and tentacle porn were utilized as erotic content creator methodologies to depict non-mature and non-realistic genitalia symbols in a manner which could potentially side step post WWII censors, and are not indicative of any prevailing paraphilia nor pornography production relative to the whole of the adult and AV (Adult Video) industries' output in Japan, especially as contrasted with such industries' output prior to WWII.
I think if looking at present day statistics around child pornography distribution, particularly given that the USA repeatedly appears at the top of such lists, why does the USA seem to be omitted from your statements? Child pornography was outlawed in the USA in 1977, yet the tendencies of individuals such as you to mention Japan, which isn't even in the top 5 of countries which have statistical data for distribution of such content, despite it being outlawed decades more recently to me, something seems amiss about that. From my vantage, it really seems to beg the question of why you think you are writing about how "inclusive" you are? No one prompted you to mention Japan in a thread focused on Apple's CSAM policies, you volunteered that perspective entirely based upon your own biases and lenses of information, which again, do not seem as if they are necessarily rooted in present day legal realities nor statistics.
