That’s a lot of words to defend fake child porn made out of photos and videos of actual children.
Comment on Spurred by Teen Girls, States Move to Ban Deepfake Nudes
otp@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
The laws regarding a lot of this stuff seem to ignore that people under 18 can and will be sexual.
If we allow people to use this tech for adults (which we really shouldn’t), then we have to accept that people will use the same tech on minors. It isn’t even necessarily pedophilia on all cases (such as when the person making them is also a minor)*, but it’s still something that very obviously shouldn’t be happening.
- we don’t need to get into semantics. I’m just saying it’s not abnormal (the way pedophilia is) for a 15-year old to be attracted to another 15-year old in a sexual way.
Without checks in place, this technology will INEVITABLY be used to undress children. If the images are stored anywhere, then these companies will be storing/possessing child pornography.
The only way I can see to counteract this would be to invade the privacy of users (and victims) to the point where nobody using them “”“legitimately”“” would want to use it…or to just ban them outright.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Reading comprehension not a strong suit? Sounds to me they’re arguing for protections for both adults AND minors.
Ok_imagination@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Words is treacherous bastards
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I don’t always be like that but sometimes it do
Zorque@kbin.social 6 months ago
That's about the right amount of words to completely ignore the sentiment of a statement so you can make a vapid holier-than-thou statement based on purported moral superiority.
Fosheze@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Have you tried actually reading what they said instead of just making shit up?
FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 months ago
But I want to be outraged now!
otp@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
That’s a lot of words to defend fake child porn made out of photos and videos of actual children.
Uh…this is the second sentence or so (and the start of the second paragraph, I think)
If we allow people to use this tech for adults (which we really shouldn’t)
So I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m defending AI-generated child porn.
Unless you’re so adamant about AI porn generators existing that banning their usage on adults (or invading the privacy of the users and victims with oversight) is outright unthinkable? Lol
I’m saying that IF the technology exists, people will be using it on pictures of children. We need to keep that in mind when we think about laws for this stuff. It’s not just adults uploading pictures of themselves (perfectly fine) or adult celebrities (not fine, but probably more common than any truly acceptable usage).
WallEx@feddit.de 6 months ago
What a dumb take. And I do those myself, so I know one if I see one.
Amir@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
I hope “those” refers to the dumb takes and not the nude photos of minors
WallEx@feddit.de 6 months ago
Yeah for sure
micka190@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I get the point you’re tying to make. But minors taking nudes of themselves is illegal in a lot of places, because it’s still possession.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 6 months ago
And that’s still a bit messed up. It’s a felony for a teen to have nude pictures of themselves and they’ll be registered sex offenders for life and probably ineligible for most professions. Seems like quite a gross over reaction. There needs to be a lot of reform in this area but no politician wants to look like a “friend” to pedophiles.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
It does seem a bit heavy handed when the context is just two high schoolers tryna smash.
micka190@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The issue is that the picture then exists, and it’s hard to prove it was actually destroyed.
For example, when I was in high school, a bunch of girls would send nudes to guys. But that was 10 years ago. Those pictures still exist. Those dudes aren’t minors anymore. Their Messenger chats probably still exist somewhere. Nothing’s really preventing them from looking at those pictures again.
I get why it’s illegal. And, honestly, I find it kind of weird that there’s people trying to justify why it shouldn’t be illegal. You’re still allowed to have sex at that age. Just don’t take pictures/videos of it.
NightAuthor@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They’re both pedos and should be locked up for life.
Zorque@kbin.social 6 months ago
Which is more of a "zero-tolerance" policy, like unto giving the same punishment to a student defending themselves as the one given to the person who initiated the attack.
otp@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I agree, and on the one hand, I understand why it could be good to consider it illegal (to prevent child porn from existing), but it does also seem silly to treat it as a case of pedophilia.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Not just silly. Extremely damaging. We don’t even treat most other crimes minors commit this way. Records can often be expanded for other crimes. At the age of 18 they are generally sealed. But not in this case.
This is the government doing a bad job of regulating technology they do not fully understand the scope of in an attempt to save the children by punishing them sometimes for life. Over what essentially amounts to heavy flirting between people of their own age group.
Child porn is not okay and it should be illegal. But the law cannot always be applied in a way that is equal because a kid sending another kid a nude of themselves is not the same as an adult using the nude of a child for sexual gratification or excitement. One of those things is a natural normal thing. The other is extremely reprehensible and damaging to the victims used to create those images.
otp@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
That’s a fair point.
We have sex offender registries that are for serious crimes where people can’t live close to schools, need to be monitored, etc…examples of such crimes include…