Comment on Spread of sexual deepfake images created by generative AI growing in Japan
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoWe’re talking about fictional women and artwork, their physical age is measured in seconds. In my language Woman means to say Adult Female, as opposed to Girl.
jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Oh right. My mistake. I guess when it comes to art then anything that isn’t obviously a child is technically legal, if distasteful and morally more than questionable. At least that is the legal situation in most countries.
My objective is the minimisation of harm. If someone uses artwork and that means that they will never touch an underage person then that is a good thing even though I may not like it.
taladar@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I have never understood why we persecute and prosecute seemingly without taking this into account at all and treat someone with pedophile urges who never acted on them the same way as we treat someone who looked at drawn images and both of those the same was as someone who looks at actual images of real children being abused or someone who actively abuses children.
If anything we should try to offer the first two help in their attempts to never let their urges affect any real, existing children.
However a lot of the time it feels more like our society is designed to achieve the opposite in its active hostility to people who want to live their lives largely in places where they won’t encounter children.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Sometimes when you create leeway or ambiguity, the worse kinds of people will use it to stress the limits and do unimaginable harm. For example, legalizing a child pornography production and collection would legalize the company that profits off of child pornography and emboldens those with pedophilic urges.
taladar@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
But sometimes when you leave people alone with their struggles they end up losing against those urges.
And nobody said that the production of child pornography should be legalized, though even talking about this reveals that we apparently don’t make a linguistic distinction between material that essentially requires sexual abuse of children to produce and material that requires nothing more than some art supplies and artistic skill. That is the part that I consider disgusting, that we apparently dislike it so much that we forget all about the actual harm the production of some of it does to actual children in our efforts to use euphemistic language to avoid thinking about it too much. It feels like the emotional comfort of those taking part in the public discourse about it is more important than actually solving the problem for the victims.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I don’t think you correctly parsed my statement at all tbh. I was saying optics is the only indication of age in these images, they cannot literally be 18 if they don’t exist.