Nobody said anything about drawings, but interesting default argument… Thanks for telling the class that you’re a lolicon pedo.
the liberty of masses be stomped and murdered
Nobody said that anyone should be stomped and murdered, so calm down, lmao. We’re just saying that child porn producers, consumers, and apologists are vile, disgusting perverts who should be held accountable for their crimes against children.
Thanks for telling the class that you’re a lolicon pedo.
I knew you are one of those reactionary false accusers. I highly doubt anyone takes you seriously in real life, because of this bratty behaviour. You are making the kids unsafe by making a reactionary bait out of this serious issue, and it is damaging more than the drawings you are posturing to be after.
You are projecting your need for professional therapy. You are so blind from anger, you are a complete utter failure at maintaining composure and thinking through things with a calm, composed mind.
I do not need to clarify my position. It is clear if you have a clear mind, which you do not. Just to repeat, AI drawings are not a CSAM problem, but a lethal weapon for defamation and libel.
…being firmly and unwaveringly against the sexual exploitation of children.
I really can’t stress enough that this was an actual 15 year old girl who was pornified with AI. This isn’t some “erotic drawings” argument, the end results were photorealistic nudes with her unmodified face. This isn’t some completely AI generated likeness. Pictures of her from social media were exploited to remove her clothes and fill in the gaps with models trained on porn. It was nonconsensual pornography of a kid.
Anyone who read this story, and feels the need to defend what was done to this girl is a fucking monster.
I can’t believe that the person defending sex crimes of this magnitude is a fucking mod.
I can’t believe that the person defending sex crimes of this magnitude is a fucking mod
Can you describe where I did exactly this? You might be violating rules by falsely accusing people of things they did not do.
Asking this as a mod. I would prefer an answer in the next 24 hours for the reputation damage you are trying to attempt to do to me. I will not hesitate to take action against such a deplorable act. Lemmy mods are not like this.
And considering I have not deleted any of my comments, I am fairly transparent here simply trying to discuss.
Edit: since you are active right now, you must provide an answer within two hours
I think I have been attacked far too much here already. These nasty people are labelling me as pedophilia supporters. I would suggest capital punishment for pedophiles and atleast a non bailable offence law for such defamation actors like the one in post article and these internet creatures that go around labelling people falsely.
Then don’t defend them? You’re trying to tell everyone that what is literally above in an article, about a child who had PHOTOREALISTIC pictures made of her, that it isn’t CSAM.
It is. Deleting everyone’s comments who disagree with you will not change that, and if anything, WILL make you seem even more like the bad guy.
It’s actually not clear that viewing material leads that person to causing in person abuse
Providing non harmful ways to access the content may lead to less abuse as the content they seek no longer comes from abuse, reducing demand for abusive content.
That being said, this instance isn’t completely fabricated and given its further release is harmful as it it involves a real person and will have emotional impact.
There has been yes, but it doesn’t mean it’s the right ruling law. The law varies on that by jurisdiction as well because it is a murky area.
Edit: in the USA it might not even be illegal unless there was intent to distribute
By the statute’s own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the Internet, transported across state lines, or of an amount that showed intent to distribute.[
So local AI generating fictional material that is not distributed may be okay federally in the USA.
Have the AI try to recreate existing CP already deemed to have serious value and then have all the prompts/variations leading up to the closest match as part of an exhibit.
Edit: I should add, don’t try this at home, they’ll still probably say it has no value and throw you in jail.
I’m not sure where you’re going with that? I would argue that yes, it is. As it’s sexual material of a child, with that child’s face on it, explicitly made for the purpose of defaming her. So I would say it sexually abused a child.
But you could also be taking the stance of “AI trains on adult porn, and is mearly recreating child porn. No child was actually harmed during the process.” Which as I’ve said above, I disagree with, especially in this particular circumstance.
Apologies if it’s just my reading comprehension being shit
Is it material that sexually abuses a child?
No, it does not. Interesting we have pro establishment bootlickers here.
So you don’t think that nudifying pics of kids is abusive?
Says something about you I think…
Are drawings real? Says a lot about you, who would rather the liberty of masses be stomped and murdered rather than drawings exist.
Found the weirdo
Found the Loli* ftfy
Nobody said anything about drawings, but interesting default argument… Thanks for telling the class that you’re a lolicon pedo.
Nobody said that anyone should be stomped and murdered, so calm down, lmao. We’re just saying that child porn producers, consumers, and apologists are vile, disgusting perverts who should be held accountable for their crimes against children.
I knew you are one of those reactionary false accusers. I highly doubt anyone takes you seriously in real life, because of this bratty behaviour. You are making the kids unsafe by making a reactionary bait out of this serious issue, and it is damaging more than the drawings you are posturing to be after.
They’re making them unsafe? You and your bullshit are making them unsafe. Every comment you post reeks of your true character. Go get help.
You are projecting your need for professional therapy. You are so blind from anger, you are a complete utter failure at maintaining composure and thinking through things with a calm, composed mind.
I do not need to clarify my position. It is clear if you have a clear mind, which you do not. Just to repeat, AI drawings are not a CSAM problem, but a lethal weapon for defamation and libel.
Do you really think being insufferable is going to change any minds here?
I’m making kids unsafe by…
checks notes
…being firmly and unwaveringly against the sexual exploitation of children.
I really can’t stress enough that this was an actual 15 year old girl who was pornified with AI. This isn’t some “erotic drawings” argument, the end results were photorealistic nudes with her unmodified face. This isn’t some completely AI generated likeness. Pictures of her from social media were exploited to remove her clothes and fill in the gaps with models trained on porn. It was nonconsensual pornography of a kid.
Anyone who read this story, and feels the need to defend what was done to this girl is a fucking monster.
I can’t believe that the person defending sex crimes of this magnitude is a fucking mod.
Can you describe where I did exactly this? You might be violating rules by falsely accusing people of things they did not do.
Asking this as a mod. I would prefer an answer in the next 24 hours for the reputation damage you are trying to attempt to do to me. I will not hesitate to take action against such a deplorable act. Lemmy mods are not like this.
And considering I have not deleted any of my comments, I am fairly transparent here simply trying to discuss.
Edit: since you are active right now, you must provide an answer within two hours
attack the argument, not the person
I think I have been attacked far too much here already. These nasty people are labelling me as pedophilia supporters. I would suggest capital punishment for pedophiles and atleast a non bailable offence law for such defamation actors like the one in post article and these internet creatures that go around labelling people falsely.
Then don’t defend them? You’re trying to tell everyone that what is literally above in an article, about a child who had PHOTOREALISTIC pictures made of her, that it isn’t CSAM.
It is. Deleting everyone’s comments who disagree with you will not change that, and if anything, WILL make you seem even more like the bad guy.
Is it material that may encourage people to asexually abuse a child?
It’s actually not clear that viewing material leads that person to causing in person abuse
Providing non harmful ways to access the content may lead to less abuse as the content they seek no longer comes from abuse, reducing demand for abusive content.
That being said, this instance isn’t completely fabricated and given its further release is harmful as it it involves a real person and will have emotional impact.
There’s other instances where it was completely fabricated, and the courts ruled it was CSAM and convicted
There has been yes, but it doesn’t mean it’s the right
rulinglaw. The law varies on that by jurisdiction as well because it is a murky area.Edit: in the USA it might not even be illegal unless there was intent to distribute
So local AI generating fictional material that is not distributed may be okay federally in the USA.
Serious value? How does one legally argue that their AI-generated child porn stash has “serious value” so they they don’t get incarcerated.
Laws are weird.
Have the AI try to recreate existing CP already deemed to have serious value and then have all the prompts/variations leading up to the closest match as part of an exhibit.
Edit: I should add, don’t try this at home, they’ll still probably say it has no value and throw you in jail.
Prison*
Ah my bad, you’re right.
Then you’ll probably get shanked if any of the other inmates find out you were sent there for CP.
That’s one definition, sure.
Now answer the very simple question I asked about whether or not child porn is abusive.
Any sex act involving a adult and a child/minor is abusive by its very nature.
it would be material of and or containing child sexual abuse in it.
I’m not sure where you’re going with that? I would argue that yes, it is. As it’s sexual material of a child, with that child’s face on it, explicitly made for the purpose of defaming her. So I would say it sexually abused a child.
But you could also be taking the stance of “AI trains on adult porn, and is mearly recreating child porn. No child was actually harmed during the process.” Which as I’ve said above, I disagree with, especially in this particular circumstance.
Apologies if it’s just my reading comprehension being shit