Skip to content

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

Technology
149 70 0
  • I would consider that as qualifying. Because it's targeted harassment in a sexually-explicit manner. All the girl would have to do is claim it's her.

    Source: I'm a father of teenage daughters. I would pursue the individual(s) who started it and make them regret their choices.

  • Disagree. Not CSAM when no abuse has taken place.

    That's my point.

    Except, you know, the harassment and abuse of said deepfaked individual. Which is sexual in nature. Sexual harassment and abuse of a child using materials generated based on the child's identity.

    Maybe we could have a name for it. Something like Child-based sexual harassment and abuse material... CSHAM, or maybe just CSAM, you know, to remember it more easily.

  • 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.

    Spoken like someone who hasn't been around women.

  • 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.

    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.

  • As a father of teenage girls, I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, but I would personally see to it that anyone making sexual deepfakes of my daughters is equitably and thoroughly punished.

    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.

  • Oh I just assumed that every Conservative jerks off to kids

    Get some receipts and that will be a start.

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

    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.

  • Get some receipts and that will be a start.

    Receipts you say?

    We're at 56 pages of this now for a nice round count of 1400 charges

    So far as I am aware all of these are publicly searchable court cases

  • Receipts you say?

    We're at 56 pages of this now for a nice round count of 1400 charges

    So far as I am aware all of these are publicly searchable court cases

    Alright, now we just need the main stream media to run the story.

    I mean with all the zealotry against drag shows they should be ready to run with this one right?

  • Alright, now we just need the main stream media to run the story.

    I mean with all the zealotry against drag shows they should be ready to run with this one right?

    You'd think so, right?

  • When someone makes child porn they put a child in a sexual situation - which is something that we have amassed a pile of evidence is extremely harmful to the child.

    For all you have said - "without the consent" - "being sexualised" - "commodifies their existence" - you haven't told us what the harm is. If you think those things are in and of themselves harmful then I need to know more about what you mean because:

    1. if someone thinks of me sexually without my consent I am not harmed
    2. if someone sexualises me in their mind I am not harmed
    3. I don't know what the "commodification of one's existence" can actually mean - I can't buy or sell "the existence of women" (does buying something's existence mean the same as buying the thing, or something else?) the same I can aluminium, and I don't see how being able to (easily) make (realistic) nude images of someone changes this in any way

    It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic,

    I am not unempathetic, but I attribute the blame for what makes me feel bad about the situation is that girls are being made to feel bad and ashamed not that a particular technology is now being used in one step of that.

    I am just genuinely speechless than you seemingly do not understand how sickening and invasive it is for your peers to create and share sexual content of you without your consent. Yes its extremely harmful. 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.

    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. It should be against the law to turn someone's images into AI generated pornography. It should also be illegal to share those images with others.

  • 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

    I agree with the other comments, but wanted to add how deepfakes work to show how simple they are, and how much less information they need than LLMs.

    Step 1: Basically you take a bunch of photos and videos of a specific person, and blur their faces out.

    Step 2: This is the hardest step, but still totally feasable for a decent home computer. You train a neural network to un-blur all the faces for that person. Now you have a neural net that's really good at turning blurry faces into that particular person's face.

    Step 3: Blur the faces in photos/videos of other people and apply your special neural network. It will turn all the blurry faces into the only face it knows how, often with shockingly realistic results.

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

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

  • 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.

    written apology? they'll just use chatgpt for that

  • As a father of teenage girls, I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, but I would personally see to it that anyone making sexual deepfakes of my daughters is equitably and thoroughly punished.

    There is a difference between ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse and no expectations.

    Vs scaring the shit out of them and making them work their ass off doing an ass load of community service for a summer.

  • Hey so, at least in the US, drawings can absolutely be considered CSAM

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

  • I agree with the other comments, but wanted to add how deepfakes work to show how simple they are, and how much less information they need than LLMs.

    Step 1: Basically you take a bunch of photos and videos of a specific person, and blur their faces out.

    Step 2: This is the hardest step, but still totally feasable for a decent home computer. You train a neural network to un-blur all the faces for that person. Now you have a neural net that's really good at turning blurry faces into that particular person's face.

    Step 3: Blur the faces in photos/videos of other people and apply your special neural network. It will turn all the blurry faces into the only face it knows how, often with shockingly realistic results.

    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!

  • 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.

    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.

  • There is a difference between ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse and no expectations.

    Vs scaring the shit out of them and making them work their ass off doing an ass load of community service for a summer.

    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.

  • I am just genuinely speechless than you seemingly do not understand how sickening and invasive it is for your peers to create and share sexual content of you without your consent. Yes its extremely harmful. 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.

    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. It should be against the law to turn someone's images into AI generated pornography. It should also be illegal to share those images with others.

    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?

  • Delivering BlogOnLemmy worldwide in record speeds

    Technology technology
    3
    28 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    kernelle@0d.gsK
    Nice to hear! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
  • First Tesla Robotaxi Ride

    Technology technology
    14
    37 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    A
    How do you heil a Tesla cab?....you don't. Unless you want to end up rotting in a concentration camp in El Salvador. Fuck face is exactly the type who would rape you in the morning and then walk outside the room into the balcony and shoot an innocent bystander for no reason. See "Schindler's list". So you don't.
  • Is Google about to destroy the web?

    Technology technology
    65
    1
    193 Stimmen
    65 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    S
    Or validating source, making sure it isn't AI content which usually regurgitates the same talking points. Homogenizing the entire query and removing actual information variance of personal experience.
  • Google’s test turns search results into an AI-generated podcast

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    6 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    lupusblackfur@lemmy.worldL
    Oh, Google... Just eviler and eviler every day. Not only robbing creators of any monetization via clicking on links but now just blatantly stealing their content for an even more efficient theft model. FFS. I can't fucking wait to complete my de-googling project and get you the absolute fuck completely out of my life. I've developed a hatred for Google that actually rivals my hatred for Apple. ‍️
  • The FDA Is Approving Drugs Without Evidence They Work

    Technology technology
    69
    1
    506 Stimmen
    69 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    L
    Now you hit me curious too. This was my source on Texas https://www.texasalmanac.com/place-types/town Also the total number of total towns is over 4,000 with only 3k unincorporated, I did get the numbers wrong even in Texas. I had looked at Wikipedia but could not find totals, only lists
  • 18 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    freebooter69@lemmy.caF
    The US courts gave corporations person-hood, AI just around the corner.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 182 Stimmen
    39 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    H
    https://archive.org/details/swgrap