The article headline is wildly misleading, bordering on just a straight up lie. Google didn’t ban the developer for reporting the material, they didn’t even know he reported it, because he did so anonymously, and to a child protection org, not Google. Google’s automatic tools, correctly, flagged the CSAM when he unzipped the data and subsequently nuked his account. Google’s only failure here was to not unban on his first or second appeal. And whilst that is absolutely a big failure on Google’s part, I find it very understandable that the appeals team generally speaking won’t accept “I didn’t know the folder I uploaded contained CSAM” as a valid ban appeal reason. It’s also kind of insane how this article somehow makes a bigger deal out of this devolper being temporarily banned by Google, than it does of the fact that hundreds of CSAM images were freely available online and openly sharable by anyone, and to anyone, for god knows how long.

CSAM images ATM machine

Which of the letters in CSAM stand for images then ?

Material.

Material can be anything. It can be images, videos theoretically even audio recordings. Images is a relevant and sensible distinction. And judging by the downvotes you’re collecting, the majority of people disagree with you.

You’re right. It can be images, that’s exactly why saying “this man was found in possession of child abuse material images” does not make grammatical sense. It’s why CP still defines it better as we’re not arresting people for owning copies of Lolita, which you could argue is also CSAM. the majority of people disagree with you. The majority of people can be wrong.