Even in countries a lot less corrupt than the US this is an issue.

Especially because the US government/companies doesn't do jack shit for people

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

Thank you. Focusing on the harm the victims is the right way to understand this issue. Too many people in here hunting for a semantic loophole.

Taking secret nude pictures of someone is quite a bit different than....not taking nude pictures of them.

It's not CSAM to put a picture of someone's face on an adult model and show it to your friend. It's certainly sexual harassment, but it isn't CSAM.

Anyone with half a brain will certainly claim as much. Even if people don't fully believe it, it will blunt the most serious of social consequences.

They may be little sociopaths, but they don’t run around murdering each other. Our culture hammers it into their brains that murder is wrong and they will be severely punished for it. We need to build a culture where little boys are afraid to distribute naked photos of their classmates. Where their friends will turn them in for fear of repercussions. You do that by treating it like a crime, not by saying “boys will be boys” and ignoring the issue.

Treat it like a crime, and address separately the issue of children being tried as adults and facing lifelong consequences. The reforms needed to our juvenile justice system go beyond this particular crime.

How is it different for the victim? What if they can’t tell if it’s a deepfake or a real photo of them?

It's absolutely sexual harassment.

But, to your question: you can't just say something has underage nudity when the nudity is of an adult model. It's not CSAM.

Oh I just assumed that every Conservative jerks off to kids

It's bullying with a sexual element. The fact that it uses AI or deepfakes is secondary, just as it was secondary when it was photoshop, just as it was secondary when it was cutting out photos. It's always about using it bully someone.

This is different because it's easier. It's not really different because it (can be) more realistic, because it was never about being realistic, otherwise blatantly unrealistic images wouldn't have been used to do it. Indeed, the fact that it can be realistic will help blunt the impact of the leaking of real nudes.

Yes, it’s sexual abuse of a child, the same way taking surreptitious locker room photos would be. There’s nothing magical about a photograph of real skin vs a fake. The impact to the victim is the same. The impact to the viewer of the image is the same. Arguing over the semantic definition of “abuse” is getting people tangled up here. If we used the older term, “child porn” people wouldn’t be so hesitant to call this what it is.

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.

I don't know personally. The admins of the fediverse likely do, considering it's something they've had to deal with from the start.
So, they can likely answer much better than I might be able to.

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.

There's a thing that was happening in the past. Not sure it's still happening, due to lack of news about it. It was something called "glamour modeling" I think or an extension of it.

Basically, official/legal photography studios took pictures of child models in swimsuits and revealing clothing, at times in suggestive positions and sold them to interested parties.

Nothing untoward directly happened to the children. They weren't physically abused. They were treated as regular fashion models. And yet, it's still csam. Why? Because of the intention behind making those pictures.

The intention to exploit.

If kids want to be protected they need to get some better lobbyists. /s

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.

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.

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.

Historically, the respectability of a woman depended on her sexuality. In many conservative cultures and communities, that is still true. Spreading the message that deepfakes are some particular horrible form of harassment reinforces that view.

If having your head on the model of a nude model is a terrible crime, then what does that say about the nude model? What does it say about women who simply happen to develop a larger bosom or lips? What does it say about sex before marriage?

The implicit message here is simply harmful to girls and women.

That doesn't mean that we should tolerate harassment. But it needs to be understood that we can do no more to stop this kind of harassment than we can do to stop any other kind.