1. The kid self-produces for free from a stable environment and was aware it would be distributed, which is (IMO) morally-neutral albeit illegal

2. The kid self-produces for money from a stable environment and sees every cent she earned, which is (IMO) morally-neutral albeit illegal

3. The kid produces with others, from a stable environment, and of her own volition, and there was no manipulation, coercion, or abuse during the process of or in escalation towards the production, and she was aware it would be distributed, and sees every cent she earned (if monetized)... which is (IMO) morally-neutral albeit illegal

4. It's not even real C.P., as in there was nothing explicitly sexual about it (i.e. it was legal, consensual, monetized or amateur photography, or it was artwork or imagery, either computer-generated or drawn)

Those are the hypothetical scenarios I was thinking of... open to adjustment by debate, of course. And further reflection.

But basically... I don't see anything regarding any company, at least as described by the article, which I want to defend....

~ WOOF, WOOF