It's sexually objectifying the bodies of girls and turning them into shared sexual fantasies their male peers are engaging in. It is ABSOLUTELY different because it is more realistic. We are talking about entire deep fake porngraphy production and distribution groups IN THEIR OWN SCHOOLS. The amount of teenage boys cutting pictures out and photoshopping them was nowhere near as common as this is fast becoming and it was NOT the same as seeing a naked body algorithmically derived to appear as realistic as possible.

Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls? You clearly don't understand the kinds of long term psychological harm that is caused by being exploited in this way. It was also exploitative and also fucked up when it was in photoshop, this many orders of magnitude more sophisticated and accessible.

Youre also wrong that this is about bullying. Its an introduction to girls being tools for male sexual gratification. It's LITERALLY commodifiying teenage girls as sexual experiences and then sharing them in groups together. It's criminal. The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form. It should be against the law and it should be prosecuted very seriously wherever it is found to occur.

How is a school going to regulate what kids do outside of school property? They could ban cell phones on campus but that's not going to change what happens after hours.

This definitely will not add in any way to the way women and girls are made to feel entirely disgustingly dehumanized by every man or boy in their lives. Groups of men and boys reducing them and their bodies down to vivid sexual fantasies that they can quickly generate photo realistic images of.

Sexual attraction doesn't necessarily involve dehumanization. Unlike most other kinds of interest in a human being, it doesn't require interest in their personality, but these are logically not the same.

In general you are using emotional arguments for things that work not through emotion, but through literal interpretation. That's like using metric calculations for a system that expects imperial. Utterly useless.

If the person in the image is underaged then it should be classified as child pornography.

No, it's not. It's literally a photorealistic drawing based on a photo (and a dataset to make the generative model). No children have been abused to produce it. Laws work literally.

If the woman who’s photo is being used hasnt consented to this then it should be classified as sexual exploitation.

No, because the woman is not being literally sexually exploited. Her photo being used without consent is, I think, subject of some laws. There are no new fundamental legal entities involved.

Women and girls have faced degrees of this kind of sexual exploitation by men and boys since the latter half of the 20th century. But this is a severe escalation in that behavior. It should be illegal to do this and it should be prosecuted when and where it is found to occur.

I think I agree. But it's neither child pornography nor sexual exploitation and can't be equated to them.

There are already existing laws for such actions, similar to using a photo of the victim and a pornographic photo, paper, scissors, pencils and glue. Or, if you think the situation is radically different, there should be new punishable crimes introduced.

Otherwise it's like punishing everyone caught driving while drunk for non-premeditated murder. One is not the other.

If a boy fantasises sexually about a girl, is that harmful to her? If he tells his friends about it? No, this is not harmful - these actions do not affect her in any way. What affects the girl is how the boys might then treat her differently than they would do someone they don't find sexually attractive.

The solution, in both cases, has to be to address the harmful behaviour. The only arguments for criminalising deepfakes themselves are also arguments for criminalising sexual fantasies. that is why people are talking about thought crime, because once you criminalise things that are harmless on their own, but which might down the line lead to directly harmful behaviour, there is no other distinction.

The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form.

Both of these, for example, apply just as readily to discussing a shared sexual fantasy about someone who didn't agree to it.

No distinction, that is, other than this is new and icky. I don't want government policy to be dictated by fear of the new and by what people find icky, though. I do lots of stuff people find icky.

No an image that is shared and distributed is not the same as a fantasy in someone's head. That is deranged. Should CSAM also be legal because making it illegal is like criminalizing the fantasies of pedophiles? Absolutely insane logical framework you have there.

This isnt fantasy. It is content. It is media. It is material. It is produced without the consent of the girls and women being sexualized and it commodifies their existence, literally transforming the idea of them into sexual media consumed for the gratification of boys and men.

It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic, so impassive, so detached from the real world and the consequences of this, that you could even make this comparison. You have seemingly no idea what youre talking about if you believe that pornography is the same thing as mental fantasies.

And even in the case of mental fantasies, are those all good? Is it really a good thing that boys see the mere existence of the girls around them as inherently some kind of sexual availability?

So is this a way to take away rights by making it about kids?

I mean what the fuck. We did much less and got punished right? It didn't matter if we were on the property. Schools can hold students accountable for conduct with other students.

The leaded-gas adults of the time had no problem dealing with the emergence of cell phones. It was a distraction. They didn't need lawmakers to call it something specific. My Pokemon cards caused fights and were banned. No lawmakers needed.

The problem is surely with the interaction between parents and schools. Or maybe it's just the old way of thinking. Maybe it's better to have police and courts start taking over discipline in schools.

Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

(19thnews.org)

My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!

A 99-1 vote to drop the anti AI regulation is hardly the government voting against. The Senate smashed that shit hard and fast.

My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!

My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!

Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

(19thnews.org)

Aren't there already laws against making child porn?

this advice might get you locked up

Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

(19thnews.org)

In the bible, it says, and I quote: "If a deepkfake of you is made, you shall give the creator more material to create deepfakes"

Expecting people to know about that 99-1 vote might be misplaced optimism, since it hasn't been made into a meme yet.

especially that Abbot Ted Cruz, who brought this one up, voted against it in the end, which is pretty confusing for an european tbh

e: i mean that it's memeworthy lol

I'm confused - by Abbot do you mean Gov. Abbott of Texas, and are we talking about the same issue? Cuz the 99-1 vote was about a senate bill regarding AI. Greg Abbott can't vote on senate bills, and there's no senator named Abbot.

I think generating and sharing sexually explicit images of a person without their consent is abuse.

That's distinct from generating an image that looks like CSAM without the involvement of any real child. While I find that disturbing, I'm morally uncomfortable criminalizing an act that has no victim.