Skip to content

Kids are making deepfakes of each other, and laws aren’t keeping up

Technology
165 77 2
  • 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.

    Fake pictures do not ruin your life… sorry…

    Our puritanical / 100% sex culture is the problem, not fake pictures…

  • 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.

    In general, even up here in woke-ville, punishments have gotten a lot more strict for kids. There’s a lot more involvement of police, courts, jail. As a parent it causes me a lot of anxiety - whatever happened to school being a “sandbox” where a kid can make mistakes without adult consequences, without ruining their lives? Did that ever exist?

  • 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.

    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.

    You're a fucking asshole. This isn't like prosecuting parents who let a school shooter have access to guns. The interenet is everywhere. Parents are responsible for bringing up their children to be socially responsible. A thirteen year old kid is anything but responsible (I mean their mentality / maturity, I'm not giving them a pass).

    Go hang out with conservatives who want more policing. Over here, we'll talk about social programs you fucking prick.

  • 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!

    There are adults with bodies that resemble underage people that could be used to train models. Kitty Yung has a body that would qualify. You don't necessarily need to use illegal material to train to get illegal output.

  • 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.

    You can make areas safe from cameras. No, you cant make everywhere camera free but you can minimize your time in those areas. Im not saying its a good system it would just be adjusting to the times.

    If the floor was lava and all that...

  • That's what muslims do with niqabs.

    Don't trivialize the scramble suit, ok

  • 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…

  • 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…

    the toxic manosphere/blogosphere/whatever it's called has done so much lifelong damage

  • Punishment for an adult man doing this: Prison

    Punishment for a 13 year old by doing this: Publish his browsing and search history in the school newsletter.

    13 year old: “I'll just take the death penalty, thanks."

  • Hm. I wasn’t expecting the pro-child porn argument. All I can say is that’s absolutely legally and morally CSAM, and you’re fuckin nasty. Oof. Not really gonna bother with the rest because, well, yikes.

    Hey, it's OK to say you just don't have any counter-argument instead of making blatantly false characterisations.

  • 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!

    AI can generate images of things that don't even exist. If it knows what porn looks like and what a child looks like, it can combine those concepts.

  • I'm fairly well versed in tech and home labbing. I've never heard of tools that do this, generate images, etc. Not good ones anyhow. I could use those type of generation for business marketing to develop business cards, marketing materials. NOT FOR PEOPLE GENERATION. Anyone have a list of the best tools? GPT sucks at doing this I've tried.

    Take a look at InvokeAI.

  • Spoken like someone who hasn't been around women.

    You mean like a nerd who reads too much?

  • Suppose I'm a teenager attracted to people my age. Or suppose I'm medically a pedophile, which is not a crime, and then I would need that.

    In any case, for legal and moral purposes "why would you want" should be answered only with "not your concern, go eat shit and die".

    I feel like you didn't read my comment thoroughly enough. I said it can constitue CSAM. There is a surprising amount of leewat for teenagers of course.

    But no, I'm not gonna let you get away that easily. I want to know the why you think it's morally okay for an adult to draw sexually explicit images of children. Please, tell me how that's okay?

  • I feel like you didn't read my comment thoroughly enough. I said it can constitue CSAM. There is a surprising amount of leewat for teenagers of course.

    But no, I'm not gonna let you get away that easily. I want to know the why you think it's morally okay for an adult to draw sexually explicit images of children. Please, tell me how that's okay?

    Because morally it's not your fucking concern what others are doing in supposed privacy of their personal spaces.

    It seems to be a very obvious thing your nose doesn't belong there and you shouldn't stick it there.

    But no, I’m not gonna let you get away that easily.

    I don't need any getting away from you, you're nothing.

  • Yes, absolutely. But with recognition that a thirteen year old kid isn't a predator but a horny little kid. I'll let others determine what that punishment is, but I don't believe it's prison. Community service maybe. Written apology. Stuff like that. Second offense, ok, we're ratcheting up the punishment, but still not adult prison.

    In a properly functioning world, this could easily be coupled with particular education on power dynamics and a lesson on consent, giving proper attention to why this might be more harmful to get than to him.

    Of course, – so long as we're in this hypothetical world – you'd just have that kind of education be a part of sex ed. or the like for all students, to begin with, but, as we're in this world and that's Louisiana…

  • Its not a matter of feeling ashamed, its a matter of literally feeling like your value to the world is dictated by your role in the sexualities of heterosexual boys and men. It is feeling like your own body doesnt belong to you but can be freely claimed by others. It is losing trust in all your male friends and peers, because it feels like without you knowing they’ve already decided that you’re a sexual experience for them.

    Why is it these things? Why does someone doing something with something which is not your body make it feel like your body doesn't belong to you? Why does it not instead make it feel like images of your body don't belong to you? Several of these things could equally be used to describe the situation when someone is fantasised about without their knowledge - why is that different?
    In Germany there's a legal concept called "right to one's own image" but there isn't in many other countries, and besides, what you're describing goes beyond this.

    My thinking behind these questions is that I cannot see anything inherent, anything necessary about the creation of fake sexual images of someone which leads to these harms, and that instead there is an aspect of our society which very explicitly punishes and shames people - woman far more so than men - for being in this situation, and that without that, we would be having a very different conversation.

    Starting from the position that the harm is in the creation of the images is like starting from the position that the harm of rape is in "defiling" the person raped. Rape isn't wrong because it makes you worthless to society - society is wrong for devaluing rape victims. Society is wrong for devaluing and shaming those who have fake images made of them.

    We do know the harm of this kind of sexualization. Women and girls have been talking about it for generations. This isnt new, just a new streamlined way to spread it. It should be illegal.

    Can you be more explicit about what it's the same as?

    The sexualization of women and girls is pervasive across literally every level of western culture. What do you think the purpose is of the victims head and face being in the image? Do you believe that it plays an incidental and unrelated role? Do you believe that finding out that, there is an entire group of people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body, has no psychological consequences for you whatsoever? I'm just talking about it and it makes me want to throw up. It is a fucking nightmare. This is not normal. This is not creating a healthy relationship with sexuality and it is enforcing a view of women and their bodies existing for the gratification of men.

    You continuously attempt to extrapolate some very bizarre metaphors about this that are not at all applicable. This scenario is horrifying. Teenage girls should not be subject to scenarios like this. It is sexual exploitation. It is dehumanization. It promotes misogynistic views of women. This is NOT a matter of sexual liberation. Youre essentially saying that men and boys can't be expected to treat girls and women as actual people and instead must be allowed to turn their friends and peers into fetishized media content they can share amongst each other. Thats fucking disgusting. The longer you talk the more you start to sound like an incel. I'm not saying you are one, but this is the kind of behavior that they defend.

  • Because morally it's not your fucking concern what others are doing in supposed privacy of their personal spaces.

    It seems to be a very obvious thing your nose doesn't belong there and you shouldn't stick it there.

    But no, I’m not gonna let you get away that easily.

    I don't need any getting away from you, you're nothing.

    No. That's not a good enough excuse to potentially be abusing children.

    I can't think of a single good reason to draw those kinds of things. Like at all. Please, give me a single good reason.

  • The sexualization of women and girls is pervasive across literally every level of western culture. What do you think the purpose is of the victims head and face being in the image? Do you believe that it plays an incidental and unrelated role? Do you believe that finding out that, there is an entire group of people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body, has no psychological consequences for you whatsoever? I'm just talking about it and it makes me want to throw up. It is a fucking nightmare. This is not normal. This is not creating a healthy relationship with sexuality and it is enforcing a view of women and their bodies existing for the gratification of men.

    You continuously attempt to extrapolate some very bizarre metaphors about this that are not at all applicable. This scenario is horrifying. Teenage girls should not be subject to scenarios like this. It is sexual exploitation. It is dehumanization. It promotes misogynistic views of women. This is NOT a matter of sexual liberation. Youre essentially saying that men and boys can't be expected to treat girls and women as actual people and instead must be allowed to turn their friends and peers into fetishized media content they can share amongst each other. Thats fucking disgusting. The longer you talk the more you start to sound like an incel. I'm not saying you are one, but this is the kind of behavior that they defend.

    Do you believe that finding out that, there is an entire group of people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body, has no psychological consequences for you whatsoever?

    Do you think the consequences of finding out are significantly different than finding out they're doing it in their imagination? If so, why?

    Youre essentially saying that men and boys can’t be expected to treat girls and women as actual people and instead must be allowed to turn their friends and peers into fetishized media content they can share amongst each other.

    And, just to be clear, by this you mean the stuff with pictures, not talking or thinking about them? Because, again, the words "media content" just don't seem to be key to any harm being done.

    Your approach is consistently to say that "this is harmful, this is disgusting", but not to say why. Likewise you say that the "metaphors are not at all applicable" but you don't say at all what the important difference is between "people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body" and "people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality imagining your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using imagined likenesses of your naked body". Both acts are sexualisation, both are done without consent, both could cause poor treatment by the people doing it.

    I see two possiblities - either you see this as so obviously and fundamentally wrong you don't have a way of describing way, or you know that the two scenarios are fundamentally similar but know that the idea of thought-crime is unsustainable.

    Finally it's necessary to address the gendered way you're talking about this. While obviously there is a huge discrepancy in male perpetrators and female victims of sexual abuse and crimes, it makes it sound like you think this is only a problem because, or when, it affects women and girls. You should probably think about that, because for years we've been making deserved progress at making things gender-neutral and I doubt you'd accept this kind of thing in other areas.

  • No. That's not a good enough excuse to potentially be abusing children.

    I can't think of a single good reason to draw those kinds of things. Like at all. Please, give me a single good reason.

    No. That’s not a good enough excuse to potentially be abusing children.

    It's good enough for the person whose opinion counts, your doesn't. And there's no such potential.

    I can’t think of a single good reason to draw those kinds of things. Like at all.

    Too bad.

    Please, give me a single good reason.

    To reinforce that your opinion doesn't count is in itself a good reason. The best of them all really.

  • 18 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    J
    Pretty cool stuff, thanks for sharing!
  • 2k Stimmen
    214 Beiträge
    531 Aufrufe
    M
    the US the 50 states basically act like they are different countries instead of different states. There's a lot of back and forth on that - through the last 50+ years the US federal government has done a lot to unify and centralize control. Visible things like the highway and air traffic systems, civil rights, federal funding of education and other programs which means the states either comply with federal "guidance" or they lose that (significant) money while still paying the same taxes... making more informed decisions and realise that often the mom and pop store option is cheaper in the long run. Informed, long run decisions don't seem to be a common practice in the US, especially in rural areas. we had a store (the Jumbo) which used to not have discounts, but saw less people buying from them that they changed it so now they are offering discounts again. In order for that to happen the Jumbo needs competition. In rural US areas that doesn't usually exist. There are examples of rural Florida WalMarts charging over double for products in their rural stores as compared to their stores in the cities 50 miles away - where they have competition. So, rural people have a choice: drive 100 miles for 50% off their purchases, or save the travel expense and get it at the local store. Transparently showing their strategy: the bigger ticket items that would be worth the trip into the city to save the margin are much closer in pricing. retro gaming community GameStop died here not long ago. I never saw the appeal in the first place: high prices to buy, insultingly low prices to sell, and they didn't really support older consoles/platforms - focusing always on the newer ones.
  • 112 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    W
    ...the ruling stopped short of ordering the government to recover past messages that may already have been lost. How would somebody be meant to comply with an order to recover a message that has been deleted? Or is that the point? Can't comply and you're in contempt of court.
  • 'We're done with Teams': German state hits uninstall on Microsoft

    Technology technology
    102
    842 Stimmen
    102 Beiträge
    77 Aufrufe
    F
    You’ve been patient? Bye
  • 396 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    devfuuu@lemmy.worldD
    Lots of people have kids nowadays in their houses, we should ban all of that and out them all in a specialized center or something. I can't imagine what all those people are doing with kids behind close doors under he guise of "family". Truly scary if you think about it.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 51 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    H
    Also fair
  • 121 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    A
    It's one of those things where periodically someone gets sanctioned and a few others get scared and stop doing it (or tone it down) for a while. I guess SHEIN are either overdoing it or they crossed the popularity threshold where companies become more scrutinized