Skip to content

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

Technology
171 77 2
  • Can't afford this much cheese today to find just the right slice for every bikini photo...

  • Teenagers are old enough to understand consequences.

    In fact, my neighborhood nearly burned down last week because a teenager, despite being told "no" and "stop" multiple times - including by neighbors - decided to light off fireworks on the mountainside right behind the neighborhood.

    Red arrow is my house. We were damn lucky the wind was blowing the right direction. If this had happened the day before, the neighborhood would be gone.

    some day I hope to be brave enough to post pictures of my house on the internet

  • Drawing a sexy cartoon that looks like an adult, with a caption that says "I'm 12", counts. So yeah, probably.

    This actually is quite fuzzy and depends on your country and even jurisdiction in your country

  • AI models (unless you're training your own) are usually trained on data it does not have a licence to use. The companies training these models are also notorious for ignoring robot.txt and other measures websites use to stop bots from trawling their data.

    Like in crypto, most people in AI are not nerds, just criminal scum.

    You are thinking of LLMs, not AI in general.

  • You are thinking of LLMs, not AI in general.

    I am. And so is OC. Neural networks are a different beast, although neither is actual AI. Just a marketing term at this point.

  • These are all worn voluntarily. This issue isn’t about the equivalent of scandalously clad young girls, it’s like if girls were being involuntarily stripped of their clothing by their classmates. It’s not about modesty standards it’s about sexual abuse.

    It can be both. The cornerstone of why nudity can be abused, is that society makes it shameful to be bare. If some generations from now that people can just shrug and not care, that is one less tool an abuser can use against people.

    In any case, I am of the mind that people of my generation might be doing their own version of the Satanic Panic, or the reaction against rap music. For better or worse, older people cannot relate to the younger.

  • There is an institution in society specifically designed to strip women of their autonomy, reduce them down to their sexual appeal to men, and proliferate the notions of their inherent submission to men. This simply does not exist the other way. This will not be a major problem for boys, teenage girls are not creating fucking AI porn rings with pictures of boys from their classes. That isnt happening. Will someone do it? Almost certainly. Is it a systemic issue? No. Men's bodies are not attacked institutionally in this way.

    And youre still trying to equate imagination with physical tangible media. And to be clear, if several of my friends said they were collectively beating off to the idea of me naked, I would be horrified and disgusted. The overwhelming majority of people would. Again, they've taken you an actual person they know and are friends with, and have turned you into a sexual goal to be attained. It is invasive, exploitative, and above all else dehumanizing. Yeah if even one of my friends told me he jerked off to the thought of me naked I would never see him the same way again and would stop being friends with him. If I was a teenager it would probably fuck me up pretty bad to know that someone who I thought was my friend just saw me as a collection of sexual body parts with a face attached. If I found that a whole group of boys, some who i might not even know, were sharing AI generated porn with my face it would be severely psychologically traumatizing and probably shake my trust in men and boys for the rest of my life. This isn't a fucking game. Youre acting like this is normal, its NOT FUCKING NORMAL. Photoshopping a girl in your classes face onto a nude body and sharing it with a group of boys is NOT NORMAL. That is severely disturbed behavior. That shows a complete malfunction in your empathy. It does if thats your imagination too. And finding that out, that somebody has done that, is absolutely repulsive.

    And no I find it perfectly sustainable. We have no means by which to detect pedophiles by their thoughts. But pedophilic thoughts are still wrong and are not something we tolerate people expressing. Creating CSAM is still illegal, whether or not the child is aware such content is being created of them. They cant consent to that as they are children. This is the same. No we cant fucking read people's thoughts and punish them for them. Having thoughts like that is absolutely a sign of some obsessive tendencies and already forming devaluation of women and girls and reduction of them to their bodies, but the correct thing is for them to receive counseling and proper education about sex and relationships. Creating, sharing and distributing AI generated porn of someone is so fundamentally different from that I have to think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what an image is. This isnt a fucking thought. These boys and men can do whatever they want with this pornography they've made of you, can send it to whoever they want and share it as far and wide as they want. They have literally created porn of you without your consent. And for teenage girls this is a whole other level of fucked up. This is being used to produce CSAM. They cannot consent to this. It is a provable act of violation of women and girls. This should be illegal and should be treated extremely seriously when teenage boys are found to have done it.

    You all say youre feminists until someone comes after your fucked up sexualities and your porn addictions. Always the same.

    And youre still trying to equate imagination with physical tangible media. And to be clear, if several of my friends said they were collectively beating off to the idea of me naked, I would be horrified and disgusted [...]

    So the fundamental reality is that imagination and physical tangible media are very similar in this regard. That's what you just said.

    a whole group of boys, some who i might not even know, were sharing AI generated porn with my face

    And if they were just talking about a shared fantasy - with your face? You still have the "ring" aspect, the stranger aspect, the dehumanising aspect, etc.

    This is why there's the connection that I keep getting at: there are many similarities, and you even say you'd feel similarly in both circumstances. So, the question is: do we go down the route of thought crime and criminalise the similar act? Or do we use this similarity to realise that it is not the act that is the problem, but the effects it can have on the victim?

    If I was a teenager it would probably fuck me up pretty bad to know that someone who I thought was my friend just saw me as a collection of sexual body parts with a face attached.

    Why do you think doing either thing (imagined or with pictures) means that someone just sees the person as a "collection of sexual body parts with a face attached"? Why can't someone see you as an ordinary human being? While you might not believe that either thing is normal, I can assure you it is prevalent. I'm sure that you and I have both been the subject of masturbatory fantasies without our knowledge. I don't say that to make you feel uncomfortable (and am sorry if it does) but to get you to think about how those acts have affected you, or not.

    You talk again about how an image can be shared - but so can a fantasy (by talking about it). You talk again about how it's created without consent - but so is a fantasy.

    Another thought experiment: someone on the other side of the world draws an erotic image, and it happens by pure chance to resemble a real person. Has that person been victimised, and abused? Does that image need to be destroyed by the authorities? If not, why not? The circumstances of the image are the same as if it were created as fake porn. If it reached that person's real circle of acquaintances, it could very well have the same effects - being shared, causing them shame, ridicule, abuse. It's another example that shows how the problematic part is not the creation of an image, but the use of that image to abuse someone.

    But pedophilic thoughts are still wrong and are not something we tolerate people expressing.

    It's my view that paedophilia, un-acted upon, is not wrong, as it harms no-one. A culture in which people are shamed, dehumanised and abused for the way their mind works is one in which those people won't seek help before they act on those thoughts.

    Having thoughts like that is absolutely a sign of some obsessive tendencies and already forming devaluation of women and girls

    It's kind of shocking to see you again erase male victims of (child) sexual abuse. For child abuse specifically, rates of victimisation are much closer than for adults.

    You all say youre feminists until someone comes after your fucked up sexualities and your porn addictions. Always the same.

    Luckily I know you're not representative of all of any group of people.

  • 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?

    I can already picture that as an Onion headline:

    New York Renames State to 'WokeVille'. NYC to follow.

  • Maybe let's assume all digital images are fake and go back to painting. Wait... what if children start painting deepfakes ?

    Or pasting someone's photo over porn...in their minds...

  • These are all worn voluntarily. This issue isn’t about the equivalent of scandalously clad young girls, it’s like if girls were being involuntarily stripped of their clothing by their classmates. It’s not about modesty standards it’s about sexual abuse.

    Unless it is used to pretend that it is a real video and circulated for denigration or blackmail, it is very much not at all like assault. And also, deepfakes do not have the special features hidden under your clothes, so it is possible to debunk those if you really have to.

  • And youre still trying to equate imagination with physical tangible media. And to be clear, if several of my friends said they were collectively beating off to the idea of me naked, I would be horrified and disgusted [...]

    So the fundamental reality is that imagination and physical tangible media are very similar in this regard. That's what you just said.

    a whole group of boys, some who i might not even know, were sharing AI generated porn with my face

    And if they were just talking about a shared fantasy - with your face? You still have the "ring" aspect, the stranger aspect, the dehumanising aspect, etc.

    This is why there's the connection that I keep getting at: there are many similarities, and you even say you'd feel similarly in both circumstances. So, the question is: do we go down the route of thought crime and criminalise the similar act? Or do we use this similarity to realise that it is not the act that is the problem, but the effects it can have on the victim?

    If I was a teenager it would probably fuck me up pretty bad to know that someone who I thought was my friend just saw me as a collection of sexual body parts with a face attached.

    Why do you think doing either thing (imagined or with pictures) means that someone just sees the person as a "collection of sexual body parts with a face attached"? Why can't someone see you as an ordinary human being? While you might not believe that either thing is normal, I can assure you it is prevalent. I'm sure that you and I have both been the subject of masturbatory fantasies without our knowledge. I don't say that to make you feel uncomfortable (and am sorry if it does) but to get you to think about how those acts have affected you, or not.

    You talk again about how an image can be shared - but so can a fantasy (by talking about it). You talk again about how it's created without consent - but so is a fantasy.

    Another thought experiment: someone on the other side of the world draws an erotic image, and it happens by pure chance to resemble a real person. Has that person been victimised, and abused? Does that image need to be destroyed by the authorities? If not, why not? The circumstances of the image are the same as if it were created as fake porn. If it reached that person's real circle of acquaintances, it could very well have the same effects - being shared, causing them shame, ridicule, abuse. It's another example that shows how the problematic part is not the creation of an image, but the use of that image to abuse someone.

    But pedophilic thoughts are still wrong and are not something we tolerate people expressing.

    It's my view that paedophilia, un-acted upon, is not wrong, as it harms no-one. A culture in which people are shamed, dehumanised and abused for the way their mind works is one in which those people won't seek help before they act on those thoughts.

    Having thoughts like that is absolutely a sign of some obsessive tendencies and already forming devaluation of women and girls

    It's kind of shocking to see you again erase male victims of (child) sexual abuse. For child abuse specifically, rates of victimisation are much closer than for adults.

    You all say youre feminists until someone comes after your fucked up sexualities and your porn addictions. Always the same.

    Luckily I know you're not representative of all of any group of people.

    Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people. Youre still not getting it. Youre still seemingly fundamentally confused about why having porn made of you without your consent is wrong.

    I dont think pedophilic thoughts should ever be tolerated outside a counselors office. If I found out one of my friends was a pedophile I would never speak with them again. End statement. You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

    You skipped over the section where I said that a group of boys collectively sharing in a fantasy of one of their female peers and using that fantasy to sexually gratify themselves would be severely psychologically traumatizing for the victim.

    Don't make porn of people without their consent. You should face legal consequences for making porn of someone without their consent. The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone's mind. If the fantasy is being written down and then shared then its kind of erotica isnt it, and I also think its extremely fucked up to write erotica about someone you know. Don't do that either. Wild.

  • Schools can already do that though. You can get in trouble for bullying outside of school, and when i was a student athletes i had pretty strict restrictions on what i was allowed to do because i was an "ambassador" for the school.

    And you think these are positive things?

  • I don't understand fully how this technology works, but, if people are using it to create sexual content of underage individuals, doesn't that mean the LLM would need to have been trained on sexual content of underage individuals? Seems like going after the company and whatever it's source material is would be the obvious choice here

    You know how when you look at a picture of someone and you cover up the clothed bits, they look naked. Your brain fills in the gaps with what it knows of general human anatomy.

    It's like that.

  • AI can do penises just fine though, there's just no market demand for it so quick and easy deep fake sites are focused on female bodies.

    But I disagree with this anyway, this will be the "bullied kid brings a knife to class" of AI.

    there's just no market demand for it

    Oh.... There's demand for it for sure.

    The image generation models that exist are unquestionable proof of demand for penises. I think what's missing is the kahunas required to make a business around it. There are places even pornographers fear to tread.

  • Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people. Youre still not getting it. Youre still seemingly fundamentally confused about why having porn made of you without your consent is wrong.

    I dont think pedophilic thoughts should ever be tolerated outside a counselors office. If I found out one of my friends was a pedophile I would never speak with them again. End statement. You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

    You skipped over the section where I said that a group of boys collectively sharing in a fantasy of one of their female peers and using that fantasy to sexually gratify themselves would be severely psychologically traumatizing for the victim.

    Don't make porn of people without their consent. You should face legal consequences for making porn of someone without their consent. The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone's mind. If the fantasy is being written down and then shared then its kind of erotica isnt it, and I also think its extremely fucked up to write erotica about someone you know. Don't do that either. Wild.

    Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people.

    That doesn't make sense at all. That real people are affected means it is important to get this right, which means it is necessary to think carefully about it. We don't disagree that real people are getting hurt but it seems to me that you take that to mean we should immediately jump to the first solution without regard for getting it right.

    The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone’s mind.

    You have again not taken the opportunity to say how that translates to differing harm and hence the necessity of a differing approach, even though when you talk about the harms you always talk about things that are the same between the two things.

    You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

    Yeah I know. I think the world is extremely backwards about paedophilia because the abhorrence of the crime of child sexual abuse gives them a blind-spot and makes them unable to separate the abhorrent act from the thought. I would have to guess that this is also what's going on here (but this is less extreme). That is, I think, confirmed by your rejection of making thought experiments due to the situation involving "real people", as if it is therefore impossible to think clearly about - maybe for you it is.

    I can only hope that people learn to do so, because the current situation causes abuse (in the case of paedophiles) and is likely to lead down the road of wrongly punishing people for things done in private without external repercussions (in other cases).

  • And you think these are positive things?

    Overall, I would say so yeah.

    For the bullying thing, not everyone's parents are available or willing to discipline their kids.

    And for the athletics thing, personally I believe that athletics is more about developing young adults into good people rather than the sport itself. And my school had a bunch of other things like grade minimums, required volunteer hours, we would wear dress shirts and ties before meets, and some other things like that.

  • Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people.

    That doesn't make sense at all. That real people are affected means it is important to get this right, which means it is necessary to think carefully about it. We don't disagree that real people are getting hurt but it seems to me that you take that to mean we should immediately jump to the first solution without regard for getting it right.

    The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone’s mind.

    You have again not taken the opportunity to say how that translates to differing harm and hence the necessity of a differing approach, even though when you talk about the harms you always talk about things that are the same between the two things.

    You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

    Yeah I know. I think the world is extremely backwards about paedophilia because the abhorrence of the crime of child sexual abuse gives them a blind-spot and makes them unable to separate the abhorrent act from the thought. I would have to guess that this is also what's going on here (but this is less extreme). That is, I think, confirmed by your rejection of making thought experiments due to the situation involving "real people", as if it is therefore impossible to think clearly about - maybe for you it is.

    I can only hope that people learn to do so, because the current situation causes abuse (in the case of paedophiles) and is likely to lead down the road of wrongly punishing people for things done in private without external repercussions (in other cases).

    Theres no other solution to this. Again, dont make porn of people without their consent. Its not hard. If thats hard for you, then you need to seek help.

    I talk about things that are the same to dismiss that the question of difference even matters. They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal.

    We hate pedophiles because children cannot consent. Children do not have sexuality in the same way that adults do. Being attracted to children is an attraction to exploitation, to the desire to victimize someone. Thats abhorrent. It is not a sexual orientation that the pedophile has no choice in. They have protected and engaged with a sexual fantasy of being able to victimize a child. I would never speak to someone again if they told me they were a pedophile. Most people wouldn't. Thats not a failure of society, it is socially necessary for such thoughts to be treated as unacceptable in all contexts. Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized and subject to extensive psychotherapy and monitoring.

    Its the difference between writing about genocide of a fictional race and writing about genocide of a real race. The line between fiction and reality is of extreme moral relevance. Incidentally drawing something that happens to look like someone you've never seen and drawing someone you have seen is entirely different. Even if the output is the same. Because we recognize intent. We recognize context. You also keep asking what the harm is in creating porn of people without their consent, and ive already pointed out that its dehumanizing it is invasive it is exploitative it devalues women and girls and reduces them to their bodies, yet you still seem to have trouble empathizing with women and girls in this situation.

    Do you like to make porn of people without their consent? Is that a passtime of yours? I can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation. You sound like you need help, you might have a disorder that interferes with your ability to fully connect with and understand the emotional experiences of other people.

  • Theres no other solution to this. Again, dont make porn of people without their consent. Its not hard. If thats hard for you, then you need to seek help.

    I talk about things that are the same to dismiss that the question of difference even matters. They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal.

    We hate pedophiles because children cannot consent. Children do not have sexuality in the same way that adults do. Being attracted to children is an attraction to exploitation, to the desire to victimize someone. Thats abhorrent. It is not a sexual orientation that the pedophile has no choice in. They have protected and engaged with a sexual fantasy of being able to victimize a child. I would never speak to someone again if they told me they were a pedophile. Most people wouldn't. Thats not a failure of society, it is socially necessary for such thoughts to be treated as unacceptable in all contexts. Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized and subject to extensive psychotherapy and monitoring.

    Its the difference between writing about genocide of a fictional race and writing about genocide of a real race. The line between fiction and reality is of extreme moral relevance. Incidentally drawing something that happens to look like someone you've never seen and drawing someone you have seen is entirely different. Even if the output is the same. Because we recognize intent. We recognize context. You also keep asking what the harm is in creating porn of people without their consent, and ive already pointed out that its dehumanizing it is invasive it is exploitative it devalues women and girls and reduces them to their bodies, yet you still seem to have trouble empathizing with women and girls in this situation.

    Do you like to make porn of people without their consent? Is that a passtime of yours? I can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation. You sound like you need help, you might have a disorder that interferes with your ability to fully connect with and understand the emotional experiences of other people.

    They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal.

    OK, so you only stop short of making a thought crime because you can't prove it. That's... consistent but extremely concerning. You have no business policing what people think about. Freedom of thought is a fundamental right and what goes on inside other people's heads is no-one's business but their own unless they choose otherwise.

    This ought to be the trigger to realise that you've got something wrong in this worldview. Even if not, it's my trigger to know that I'm not going to get anywhere, so this will be my last reply. If someone thinks that the only issue with thought crimes is in gathering evidence, our views on morality and the limits of authority are diametrically opposed and there is no point trying, but at least I understand. If it's the thought you really want to control, then you wouldn't have any issue with the person who makes something harmful by accident.

    Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

    Disturbing that you can't recognise how disturbing this language is. But sure: threaten people with being locked up for unchangeable yet not harmful aspects of their selves, just to make sure that they never seek help to keep from causing harm. Morality aside this can't have any negative consequences.

    Everything I have read suggests that paedophiles have no control over their attraction, only over their actions. Here's a thought experiment which I doubt you'll bother trying: could you decide to be attracted to children? I couldn't. It seems to be exactly like a sexual orientation in that respect.

    Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

    can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation.

    Your inability to engage with points of view different from your own is problematic. The victims in your narratives are always female, the perpetrators always male. Those who disagree with you are always evil perpetrators. I only say this now that I'm disengaging because there's no point in being drawn on provocative nonsense while trying to sustain a conversation.

  • They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal.

    OK, so you only stop short of making a thought crime because you can't prove it. That's... consistent but extremely concerning. You have no business policing what people think about. Freedom of thought is a fundamental right and what goes on inside other people's heads is no-one's business but their own unless they choose otherwise.

    This ought to be the trigger to realise that you've got something wrong in this worldview. Even if not, it's my trigger to know that I'm not going to get anywhere, so this will be my last reply. If someone thinks that the only issue with thought crimes is in gathering evidence, our views on morality and the limits of authority are diametrically opposed and there is no point trying, but at least I understand. If it's the thought you really want to control, then you wouldn't have any issue with the person who makes something harmful by accident.

    Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

    Disturbing that you can't recognise how disturbing this language is. But sure: threaten people with being locked up for unchangeable yet not harmful aspects of their selves, just to make sure that they never seek help to keep from causing harm. Morality aside this can't have any negative consequences.

    Everything I have read suggests that paedophiles have no control over their attraction, only over their actions. Here's a thought experiment which I doubt you'll bother trying: could you decide to be attracted to children? I couldn't. It seems to be exactly like a sexual orientation in that respect.

    Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

    can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation.

    Your inability to engage with points of view different from your own is problematic. The victims in your narratives are always female, the perpetrators always male. Those who disagree with you are always evil perpetrators. I only say this now that I'm disengaging because there's no point in being drawn on provocative nonsense while trying to sustain a conversation.

    Yup extrapolate my opinions on other things based on this one conversation where you are hellbent on justifying people making nonconsentual pornography of women and girls.

    Yeah you're right I do not empathize with pedophiles. Is that supposed to be a gotcha or something? It should be entirely socially intolerable to be a pedophile. It makes you a danger to some of the most vulnerable people in society. Some psychological conditions make you dangerous and require you to be institutionalized. Being attracted to the idea of victimizing children is one of them.

    As for the thought crime nonsequitor (since we are talking about creating AI porn), yeah I'm really not interested in the hypothetical reality where we can read thoughts. We cant, and thats not whats being discussed, you have from the outset been deadset on taking the conversation there despite its entire lack of relevance to making pornography of someone without their consent.

    I also did say I have no issue with someone making a drawing that happens to look like someone they dont know and have never seen. Its the context, random internet guy who is still somehow incapable of understanding the harm of making non-consenting porn of your classmates and friends but is capable of empathizing with and defending pedophiles, that matters. Its the fact that the porn is of a real person that's relevant. A real human being who has had their likeness taken and converted into material for sexual gratification by the people in their life. That shouldn't happen to anyone, no matter their gender. But men and boys are not out here having their bodies sexualized and policed by the state in the same way women and girls are. This whole subject affects women and girls many times more than it does men and boys. It is a systemic issue for women and girls. It connects with other things, like cat calling and body standards and sexualization of the female body. It becomes part of a system. And if the people doing it are teenage boys, it is the perfect introduction to the idea that women and girls bodies belong to them. They dont even have to ask or consider their feelings or emotions before turning them into sexual material for them to consume.

    Youre trying really hard to characterize me one way or another on subjects that aren't related to this central theme. You are very defensive of the subject and seem to think its impossible for boys and men to simply not make non-consentual pornography of women and girls. Its as easy as that. Just don't do that. I have not stated my intention to make thought crime a thing, read my past comments I explain that I would still be disgusted and horrified to discover a group of men had been sharing a group fantasy about committing sexual acts upon me. I see those thoughts as harmful in the first place, as I also stated before. But I have made no statements about making those thoughts illegal. Will I never speak with someone again if they told me I was their masturbation muse? Yup. Goodbye, never ever ever speaking to that person again. If it was a group of people? Yup, id definitely be psychologically traumatized by a group of people coming together and reducing me down to a sexual experience that they can masturbate about together. Yeah that'd fuck me up pretty bad, would never speak with any of them again and might consider restraining orders. But I never said anything about making those fantasies themselves illegal.

    Content is different from thoughts. Writing a book is different than considering a plot in your head. Making a movie is different than imagining a scene in your mind. Building a house is different than considering floor plans. Pornography is different than fantasy. It is tangible outside of your mind. Humans are visual creatures. Pornography exists even once the creator is gone. It isnt a thought, it is tangible, you can see it. The harms are worse, as porn is real. It can be shared. It can be given to others. Different from thoughts, in just a glance porn made of you also shows you exactly in what ways the creator sees you. A visual representation of your dehumanization thats been shared with others. It is different in every single way. Our bodies are policed so extensively in this society and culture. Now we have to compare ourselves with the fake bodies that AI gives our exploiters. Now our nudity can be taken from us with just an image online. Even an innocent totally normal image isnt safe in any sense of the word. Algorithms have been made to take even that away from us.

    You accuse me of being unempathetic to pedophiles, a charge I will accept. I am unempathetic to them. Its their fixation on abusing children to deal with, thats their burden to carry. Many who do get help abuse children later anyway. Because unlike a sexual orientation, pedophilia is being fixated on abuse itself. Like rapists or others who are fixated on inflicting sexual pain and torture on others. Sexual exploitation is among the most psychologically harmful things someone can go through. And pedophiles have an attraction to sexually exploiting children. It's horrifying in every sense of the word, and yes I am entirely unempathetic of them.

    You, on the other hand, seemingly cannot understand how being sexually exploited actually harms someone. You've tried very hard to create alternate explanations for why creating porn of someone without their consent is okay. You've continuously denied the way that misogyny inflicts this extremely intensely on women and girls. You've deflected, and asked for continuous explanations about why being dehumanized itself is a bad thing. You've argued yourself into protecting pedophiles. And you are saying I need to assess my world view? You're single handedly proving that feminism hasnt made any lasting progress in modernity. We are still barely even human to men.

  • Sorry for my tone too, I get dysphoric-defensive very easily (as have been illustrated).

    If only we could all resolve our disputes like this every time, even after it got heated. But 1 interaction like this is better than none. This proves that we can all understand each other if we're willing to put ego aside for a bit. You helpede push that a hit, and I really appreciate it.

  • Hacker Tactic: ESD Diodes

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    24 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 709 Stimmen
    144 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    A
    Was it Biden? Obama?
  • 180 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    D
    There is a huge difference between an algorithm using real world data to produce a score a panel of experts use to make a determination and using a LLM to screen candidates. One has verifiable reproducible results that can be checked and debated the other does not. The final call does not matter if a computer program using an unknown and unreproducible algorithm screens you out before this. This is what we are facing. Pre-determined decisions that human beings are not being held accountable to. Is this happening right now? Yes it is, without a doubt. People are no longer making a lot of healthcare decisions determining insurance coverage. Computers that are not accountable are. You may have some ability to disagree but for how long? Soon there will be no way to reach a human about an insurance decision. This is already happening. People should be very anxious. Hearing United Healthcare has been forging DNRs and has been denying things like treatment for stroke for elders is disgusting. We have major issues that are not going away and we are blatantly ignoring them.
  • Microsoft pulls MS365 Business Premium from nonprofits

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    48 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    37 Aufrufe
    S
    That's the thing, I wish we could just switch all enterprises to Linux, but Microsoft developed a huge ecosystem that really does have good features. Unless something comparable comes up in the Linux world, I don't see Europe becoming independent of Microsoft any time soon
  • 873 Stimmen
    107 Beiträge
    61 Aufrufe
    softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS
    How are they going to make money off of these projects if people can legally copy and redistribute them for free? The same reasons everyone doesn't already do this via pirating. You mean copy, not steal. When something is stolen from you, you no longer have it. Wow you are just a troll, thanks for showing me so I don't waste anymore time with you.
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    K
    Only way I'll want a different phone brand is if it comes with ZERO bloatware and has an excellent internal memory/storage cleanse that has nothing to do with Google's Files or a random app I'm not sure I can trust without paying or rooting. So far my A series phones do what I need mostly and in my opinion is superior to the Motorola's my fiancé prefers minus the phone-phone charge ability his has, everything else I'm just glad I have enough control to tweak things to my liking, however these days Samsungs seem to be infested with Google bloatware and apps that insist on opening themselves back up regardless of the widespread battery restrictions I've assigned (even was sent a "Stop Closing my Apps" notif that sent me to an article ) short of Disabling many unnecessary apps bc fully rooting my devices is something I rarely do anymore. I have a random Chinese brand tablet where I actually have more control over the apps than either of my A series phones whee Force Stopping STAYS that way when I tell them to! I hate being listened to for ads and the unwanted draining my battery life and data (I live off-grid and pay data rates because "Unlimited" is some throttled BS) so my ability to control what's going on in the background matters a lot to me, enough that I'm anti Meta-apps and avoid all non-essential Google apps. I can't afford topline phones and the largest data plan, so I work with what I can afford and I'm sad refurbished A lines seem to be getting more expensive while giving away my control to companies. Last A line I bought that was supposed to be my first 5G phone was network locked, so I got ripped off, but it still serves me well in off-grid life. Only app that actually regularly malfunctions when I Force Stop it's background presence is Roku, which I find to have very an almost insidious presence in our lives. Google Play, Chrome, and Spotify never acts incompetent in any way no matter how I have to open the setting every single time I turn Airplane Mode off. Don't need Gmail with Chrome and DuckDuckGo has been awesome at intercepting self-loading ads. I hope one day DDG gets better bc Google seems to be terrible lately and I even caught their AI contradicting itself when asking about if Homo Florensis is considered Human (yes) and then asked the oldest age of human remains, and was fed the outdated narrative of 300,000 years versus 700,000+ years bipedal pre-humans have been carbon dated outside of the Cradle of Humanity in South Africa. SO sorry to go off-topic, but I've got a big gripe with Samsung's partnership with Google, especially considering the launch of Quantum Computed AI that is still being fine-tuned with company-approved censorships.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    J
    I deleted the snapchat now.