Can you share a full-body shot of yourself please? Don’t worry, you wont suffer while it gets used to create other content that we’ll distribute to your friends, family, classmates, coworkers, etc.
Comment on Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 day agoCreating and distributing anything should be legal if no real person suffers during its creation and if it’s not intended at defamation, forgery, such things.
essteeyou@lemmy.world 1 day ago
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You first.
essteeyou@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Oh, so “anything” doesn’t mean what it used to mean?
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
I said “defamation”. If you are not capable of reading, that’s not my fault.
That’s why I’m ancap, you can’t deal with such chimp crowds without private tanks.
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 day ago
“Deepfakes” are edited pictures of real people. I’d be more inclined to agree with you on completely AI generated images but not something specifically intended to deceive others into thinking they’re viewing a real person’s image.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Deepfakes are, however the top-level comment I was answering was not limited to deepfakes. And as my further discussion with its author shows, they too didn’t mean only deepfakes.
Their opinion was that any kind of pornography portraying children, even if it’s not shared with others and not based on pics of real people, should be prosecuted just like making real child pornography.
You know, this thread has once again reinforced me in my opinion that the best system of government is Aspie Reich. Only people with Aspergers should be allowed to make laws and judge and hold public posts. The rest of fucking chimps just don’t have what it takes to override their chimp instincts.
emr@lemmy.sdf.org 23 hours ago
How do you litigate ‘intention’ in this way?
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
This is not a legal text, you little cheat.
This is a sentence in natural language, want me to start asking such questions about everything you write?
If you make a deepfake of someone and share it, then it’s defamation. Taking a picture voluntarily shared and editing it is not a crime.
boatswain@infosec.pub 18 hours ago
My understanding is that intention is not uncommonly litigated; I believe the question of “intent to deceive” is central to trademark law, for example. That’s also what the the “degrees” of murder etc are about.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. I do read an awful lot of contacts and talk to lawyers.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You would be fine with AI-gen porn images of your teenage daughter being distributed around the internet?
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I take it, the word “defamation” is not part of your lexicon.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The issue being discussed does not fall under defamation.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Making forged pics of someone else falls under defamation.
It’s very clearly not rape, sexual abuse, child pornography or non-consensual pornography.
droporain@lemmynsfw.com 1 day ago
Meanwhile in reality check out what she is distributing through Snapchat and only fans… Maybe pursuing the actual crimes first then if there’s spare resources go after fiction.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Big “but what was she wearing?” energy here.
I don’t give a shit if she’s doing Shein bikini hauls on Youtube. If you use AI to nudify her pictures, you’re manufacturing child pornography, and deserve the full consequences for doing that.
As for OnlyFans, they are quite strict about age requirements. Children aren’t running OF accounts. You just hate women and needed to bring up OF to slut-shame.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you use AI to nudify her pictures, you’re manufacturing child pornography, and deserve the full consequences for doing that.
No, equating this to an actual child being raped is incorrect. These are not crimes of remotely equal magnitude.
Comparing a person who raped a child, made photos and distributed them to a person who used Photoshop or an AI tool is, other than just evil, reducing the meaning of the former.
droporain@lemmynsfw.com 1 day ago
No I’m just pointing out the obvious fake morality. Big “somebody think of the children” energy here Todd. You just hate common sense and logic and are bringing it up because you need a knee jerk reaction to simulate an emotional response from real humans.
AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Bruh how is creating and distributing a non-consensual nude-ified picture of a young girl not a cause for suffering for the victim? Please, explain that to the class.
Did you just not go to school as a kid? If so, that would explain your absolute ineptitude on this topic. Your opinion is some real “your body, my choice” kind of energy.
krashmo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There’s a legitimate discussion to be had about harm reduction here. You’re approaching this topic from an all-or-nothing mindset but there’s quite a bit of research indicating that’s not really how it works in practice. Specifically as it relates to child pornography the argument goes that not allowing artificial material to be created leads to an increase in production of actual child pornography which obviously means more real children are being harmed than would be if other forms were not controlled in the same fashion. The same sort of logic could be applied to revenge porn, stolen selfies, or whatever else we’re calling the kind of thing this article is referring to. It may not be an identical scenario but I still think it would be fair to say that an AI generated image is not as damaging as a real one.
That is not to say that nothing should be done in these situations. I haven’t decided what I think the right move is given the options in front of us but I think there’s quite a bit more nuance here than your comment would indicate.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I think this is probably a really good point. I have no issue with AI generated images, although obviously if they are used to do an illegal thing such has harassment or defamation, those things are still illegal.
I’m of two minds when it comes to AI nudes of minors. The first is that if someone wants that and no actual person is harmed, I really don’t care. Let me caveat that here: I suspect there are people out there who, if inundated with fake CP, will then be driven to ideation about actual child abuse. And I think there is real harm done to that person and potentially the children if they go on to enact those fantasies. However I think it needs more data before I am willing to draw a firm conclusion.
But the second is that a proliferation of AI CP means it will be very difficult to tell fakes from actual child abuse. And for that reason alone, I think it’s important that any distribution of CP, whether real or just realistic, must be illegal. Because at a minimum it wastes resources that could be used to assist actual children and find their abusers.
So, absent further information, I think whatever a person whats to generate for themselves in private is just fine, but as soon as it starts to be distributed, I think that it must be illegal.
bastion@feddit.nl 19 hours ago
That’s a fairly decent and nuanced take.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
“The deepfakes are often used to extort, harass or bully minors, she says, and are easy to make because of the many sites and apps that will “nudify” an image.”
cbc.ca/…/deepfake-minors-porn-explicit-images-1.7…
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Read my comment again.
My advice to you would be to improve your reading comprehension before judging this way.
In particular, the word “defamation”.