• otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The laws regarding a lot of this stuff seem to ignore that people under 18 can and will be sexual.

    If we allow people to use this tech for adults (which we really shouldn’t), then we have to accept that people will use the same tech on minors. It isn’t even necessarily pedophilia on all cases (such as when the person making them is also a minor)*, but it’s still something that very obviously shouldn’t be happening.

    * we don’t need to get into semantics. I’m just saying it’s not abnormal (the way pedophilia is) for a 15-year old to be attracted to another 15-year old in a sexual way.

    Without checks in place, this technology will INEVITABLY be used to undress children. If the images are stored anywhere, then these companies will be storing/possessing child pornography.

    The only way I can see to counteract this would be to invade the privacy of users (and victims) to the point where nobody using them “”“legitimately”“” would want to use it…or to just ban them outright.

    • micka190@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      such as when the person making them is also a minor

      I get the point you’re tying to make. But minors taking nudes of themselves is illegal in a lot of places, because it’s still possession.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        And that’s still a bit messed up. It’s a felony for a teen to have nude pictures of themselves and they’ll be registered sex offenders for life and probably ineligible for most professions. Seems like quite a gross over reaction. There needs to be a lot of reform in this area but no politician wants to look like a “friend” to pedophiles.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Which is more of a “zero-tolerance” policy, like unto giving the same punishment to a student defending themselves as the one given to the person who initiated the attack.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I get the point you’re tying to make. But minors taking nudes of themselves is illegal in a lot of places, because it’s still possession.

        I agree, and on the one hand, I understand why it could be good to consider it illegal (to prevent child porn from existing), but it does also seem silly to treat it as a case of pedophilia.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      137
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s a lot of words to defend fake child porn made out of photos and videos of actual children.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        89
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Reading comprehension not a strong suit? Sounds to me they’re arguing for protections for both adults AND minors.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s about the right amount of words to completely ignore the sentiment of a statement so you can make a vapid holier-than-thou statement based on purported moral superiority.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Have you tried actually reading what they said instead of just making shit up?

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s a lot of words to defend fake child porn made out of photos and videos of actual children.

        Uh…this is the second sentence or so (and the start of the second paragraph, I think)

        If we allow people to use this tech for adults (which we really shouldn’t)

        So I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m defending AI-generated child porn.

        Unless you’re so adamant about AI porn generators existing that banning their usage on adults (or invading the privacy of the users and victims with oversight) is outright unthinkable? Lol

        I’m saying that IF the technology exists, people will be using it on pictures of children. We need to keep that in mind when we think about laws for this stuff. It’s not just adults uploading pictures of themselves (perfectly fine) or adult celebrities (not fine, but probably more common than any truly acceptable usage).

      • WallEx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        What a dumb take. And I do those myself, so I know one if I see one.