Cheers for the explanation, had no idea that's how it works.

So it's even worse than @danciestlobster@lemmy.zip thinks, the person creating the deep fake has to have access to CP then if they want to deepfake it!

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)

I'd rather these laws be against abusing and exploiting child, as well as against ruining their lives. Not only that would be more helpful, it would also work in this case, since actual likeness are involved.

Alas, whether there's a law against that specific use case or not, it is somewhat difficult to police what people do in their home, without a third party whistleblower. Making more, impossible to apply laws for this specific case does not seem that useful.

Welp, if I had kids they would have one of those scramble suits like in a scanner darkly.

It would of course be their choice to wear them but Id definitely look for ways to limit their time in areas with cameras present.

Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

No, but the harm certainly is not the same as CSAM and it should not be treated the same.

• it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
• The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.

as far as I know there is no good evidence that this is the case and is a big controversy in the topic of fake child porn, i.e. whether it leads to more child abuse (encouraging paedophiles) or less (gives them a safe outlet) or no change.

your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

If someone fantasises about me without my consent I do not give a shit, and I don't think there's any justification for it. I would give a shit if it affected me somehow (this is your first bullet point, but for a different situation, to be clear) but that's different.

God I'm glad I'm not a kid now. I never would have survived.

ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse

And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?

This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.

Well, US laws are all bullshit anyway, so makes sense

Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls?

Can you please use words by their meaning?

Also I'll have to be blunt, but - every human has their own sexuality, with their own level of "drive", so to say, and their dreams.

And it's absolutely normal to dream of other people. Including sexually. Including those who don't like you. Not only men do that, too. There are no thought crimes.

So talking about that being easier or harder you are not making any argument at all.

However. As I said elsewhere, the actions that really harm people should be classified legally and addressed. Like sharing such stuff. But not as making child pornography because it's not, and not like sexual exploitation because it's not.

It's just that your few posts I've seen in this thread seem to say that certain kinds of thought should be illegal, and that's absolute bullshit. And laws shouldn't be made based on such emotions.

I did say equitable punishment. Equivalent. Whatever.

A written apology is a cop-out for the damage this behaviour leaves behind.

Something tells me you don't have teenage daughters.

"thought crime"? And you have the balls to talk about using words "by their meaning"?

This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone's life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim. So, can you please use words by their meaning?

Edit: I jumped the gun when I read "thought crime", effectively disregarding the context. As such, I'm scratching the parts of my comment that don't apply, and leaving the ones that do apply (not necessarily to the post I was replying to, but to the whole thread).

Normally yeah, but why would you want to draw sexual pictures of children?

ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse

And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?

This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.

For example, Louisiana mandates a minimum five-year jail sentence no matter the age of the perpetrator.

That's just on it's face stupid. A thirteen year old boy is absolutely gonna wanna see girls in his age group naked. That's not pedophilia. It's wanting to see the girls he fantasizes about at school every day. Source: I was a thirteen year old boy.

It shouldn't be treated the same as when an adult man generates it; there should be nuance. I'm not saying it's ok for a thirteen year old to generate said content: I'm saying tailor the punishment to fit the reality of the differences in motivations. Leave it to Louisiana to once again use a cudgel rather than sense.

I'm so glad I went through puberty at a time when this kind of shit wasn't available. The thirteen year old version of me would absolutely have got myself in a lot of trouble. And depending on what state I was in, seventeen year old me could have ended listed as a sex predetor for sending dick pics to my gf cause I produced child pornography. God, some states have stupid laws.

Parents are responsible for their kids. The punishment, with the full force of the law (and maybe something extra for good measure), should fall upon the parents, since they should have made sure their kids knew how despicable and illegal doing this is.

Yeah, I agree, we shouldn't ruin the boys life, we should ruins his whole family to many times the extent something like this ruins a teen girl's life.

Cheers for the explanation, had no idea that's how it works.

So it's even worse than @danciestlobster@lemmy.zip thinks, the person creating the deep fake has to have access to CP then if they want to deepfake it!

That's just called the outside now. Assume you are on camera at all times the moment you step out the front door. To be safe in the surveillance we live in today, best act as though you are being recorded in your own home as well.

That's what muslims do with niqabs.

probably because there's a rapist in the white house.

To add to that. I live in a red area and since the election I’ve been cat called much more. And it’s weird too, cus I’m middle aged…. I thought I’d finally disappear…