Comment on X’s deepfake porn feature clearly violates app store guidelines. Why won’t Apple and Google pull it?

• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The browser can access X. Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than depictions generated without it?

  source

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The browser can access X & any website.

    A browser doesn’t activately generate it. X did.

    Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?

    They’re both equally as bad because they result in the same things: production and advancement of child porn.

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Are you trying to distort truth or diminish the meaning of child sexual abuse until it’s meaningless?

      So, pull X-only client, but keep everything client that still accesses X, which results in no effective change: what does that accomplish?

      source

      • Sunflier@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.

        Both equally propegate child sex abuse, and I’m sure the kids these deep fakes are on might agree with me. In both topics, a kid is getting exploited for sexual material.

        Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side

        Oh, so the generating and/or distributing technology of the child porn is in the possession, custody, and control of X? Seems to make my point: X generated and/or distributed the child porn. On top of that, it made revenue off it from the ads that supported the active distributed of said child porn. Whose paying the electricity bill as an expense to profit on the child porn? X.

        Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.

        My point, going back to my origional supposition, is that it is absurd to blame Mozilla (or the like) for the nefarious uses of all its users when they merely are a tool through which the web is accessed, and they don’t make a profit directly from whatever material is accessed.

        source