446
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
446 points (95.1% liked)
News
23634 readers
3382 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem is how to actually prevent this. What could one do? Make AI systems illegal? Make graphics tools illegal? Make the Internet illegal? Make computers illegal?
Make "producing real or simulated CSAM illegal?"
Isn't it already? Has it provided any sort of protection? Many things in this world are illegal, and nobody cares.
Yes, I would argue that if CSAM was legal, there would be more of it...meaning it being illegal provides a level of protection.
I wonder why are you being downvoted, something being illegal puts fear in most people to not do it.
I've been wondering about this lately, but I'm not sure how much of an effect this has. There are millions of people in prison, and many of those will go on to offend again. Making things illegal can be seen as an agreement to a social contract (in a democracy), drive the activity underground (probably good thing in many cases), and prevent businesses (legal entities) from engaging in the activity; but I'm not sure how well it works on an individual level of deterrence. Like, if there were no laws, I can not really think of a law I would break that I wouldn't already break regardless. I guess I'd just be more open about it.
Though, people who cause harm to others should be removed from society, and ideally, quickly rehabilitated, and released back into society as a productive member.
So how would this consent system improve anything if nobody cares about the law anyway?
It is where I'm at. Draw Lisa Simpson nude and you get a visit from the law. Dunno what the punishment is though. A fine? Jail? Can't say.
Edit: Apparently I was wrong, it has to be a realistic drawing. See here: 2010/0064/COD doc.nr 10335/1/10 REV 1
Lisa Simpson is shambles reading this
What about making depictions of other crimes? Should depictions of theft be illegal? Depictions of murder?
Why should depictions of one crime be made illegal, but depictions of other heinous crimes remain legal?
Because a picture of someone robbing my house doesn't revictimize me. Even if it's simulated, every time they run into some rando who recognizes them or every time a potential employer runs a background/social media check, it impacts the victim again
A picture of a cartoon child having sex doesn't victimize you either, the same way a drawing of a robbery doesn't victimize you
You mean being raped. What it does is let pedos feel like it's OK to be pedos.
Lol just like violent video games makes people think it's ok to be violent in real life?
Who is being victimized with a drawing of Lisa Simpson?
Make anime illegal
By dishing out punishment that really hurts.
Severity of punishment works poorly. Inevitability, on the other hand...
I think in this case less mild punishment would send the appropriate signal that this isn't just a little joke or a small misdemeanor.
There are still way too many people who believe sexual harassment etc. aren't that huge of a deal. And I believe the fact that perpetrators so easily get away with it plays into this.
(I am not sure how it is in the US, in my country the consequence of crimes against bodily autonomy are laughable.)
Average American be like
Require consent to take a person's picture and hold them liable for whatever comes from them putting it on a computer.
That's a whole fucking can of worms we don't need to open. Just make faking porn a crime similar to publishing revenge porn.
Nah. Use my image and pay me what I want. If I can't make a Mickey Mouse movie they shouldn't be able to make a porn staring me. Does a corporatation have more rights to an image than I have to my image?
That really depends on what you consider "using my image". Are you going to demand that people pay you because you were wandering around in the background of their family photo or their YouTube video? Will you ask to be compensated when people post group photos that include you on their social media? Does mom owe you money for all those pictures she took of you as a kid?
If I can be identified and it is on a computer attached to the Internet then pay me.
You already need consent to take a persons picture. Did it help in this case? I don't think so.
You do not need consent to take peoples pictures
*in the US.
In the US, the thought is that if you are in a public place, you have no presumption of privacy. If you're walking down the street, or shopping in a grocery store or whatever else, anyone can snap a picture of you.
Other countries have different values and laws such that you may need a person's permission to photograph them even if they are in a public place.
That thought is a pile of bull crap. If you really think you have zero presumption of privacy then I have the right to follow right behind you with a sign that says "idiot ahead". Laws like this are so written for the drug war and for big media not for us.
Not saying I agree with it, that's just the way the laws are written.
A good example of how crappy this law works out is paparazzi. They harass celebrities just to get any halfway decent photo. Then they can sell the photo, the celebrity has no say in the matter. And to make things even worse, if the celebrity happens to use the photo of themselves in any way, the photographer can demand payment because they own the copyright.
And this is exactly what I was talking about. We need tules that say you own your own image.
That much I can agree with. If someone takes a picture of me, I should have some say in how that image is used, even if the default assumption is that a person in public is plainly visible to everyone including photographers.
But there's a lot of nuance here. Maybe a celebrity, or any person really, doesn't want an unflattering image used. Fair enough I suppose, but to what extent is that actually enforceable?
Or maybe the subject wants to use the image of themselves for their own purposes. Does the photographer deserve compensation for their role in creating the image?
What about unflattering images of politicians or government employees? What about criminals? There's a line to be walked here as well. We already have this sort of concept in slander laws. Public figures have a higher bar to prove damages resulting from statements that might otherwise be considered slanderous or libelous. There are also free speech and freedom of the press issues associated with government entities.
Yes, you should have a right to decide how your image is used, and yes, you should probably have some shared ownership of images of yourself unless you agree otherwise. But the reality isn't so clear cut.
Admittedly, I haven't looked into how other parts of the world that don't default to lack of privacy in public handle this. Some of these questions must have already been hashed out.
Sorry, I forgot that the US is decades behind the rest of the world in privacy laws.
Well, maybe you could start with this aspect.
Really? Please show me the signed and notarized letter with the girl's name on it that says they agree to have their image used for AI porn. Also since she is a minor her legal guardians.
How would you possibly enforce that, or prevent people from just copying publicly available pictures for nefarious usage
It would have to be enforced after getting caught. As an add on charge. Like if an area has a rule against picking locks to commit a crime. You can never be charged with it alone but you can add that on to existing charges.