• otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 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
        0
        ·
        6 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
        0
        ·
        6 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.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 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).

        • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I hope “those” refers to the dumb takes and not the nude photos of minors

    • micka190@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 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.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 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.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Not just silly. Extremely damaging. We don’t even treat most other crimes minors commit this way. Records can often be expanded for other crimes. At the age of 18 they are generally sealed. But not in this case.

          This is the government doing a bad job of regulating technology they do not fully understand the scope of in an attempt to save the children by punishing them sometimes for life. Over what essentially amounts to heavy flirting between people of their own age group.

          Child porn is not okay and it should be illegal. But the law cannot always be applied in a way that is equal because a kid sending another kid a nude of themselves is not the same as an adult using the nude of a child for sexual gratification or excitement. One of those things is a natural normal thing. The other is extremely reprehensible and damaging to the victims used to create those images.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s a fair point.

            We have sex offender registries that are for serious crimes where people can’t live close to schools, need to be monitored, etc…examples of such crimes include…

            • Rape
            • Sexual assault
            • Urinating outside
            • Sending a nude to a classmate
      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 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.

          • micka190@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            The issue is that the picture then exists, and it’s hard to prove it was actually destroyed.

            For example, when I was in high school, a bunch of girls would send nudes to guys. But that was 10 years ago. Those pictures still exist. Those dudes aren’t minors anymore. Their Messenger chats probably still exist somewhere. Nothing’s really preventing them from looking at those pictures again.

            I get why it’s illegal. And, honestly, I find it kind of weird that there’s people trying to justify why it shouldn’t be illegal. You’re still allowed to have sex at that age. Just don’t take pictures/videos of it.

            • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              That makes complete sense except that stuff just does not register with teens. If a couple months in juvenile hall and 100 hours community service isn’t enough deterrent for a teenager then 5 years in jail and a lifelong label of “sex offender” won’t deter them. I recall seeing a picture of a classmate topless (under 18) and over 20 years later it finally dawned on me that it was child pornography.

              If we prosecuted every offender to the full extent of the law then like half of every high school class would be in jail. Not to say that something should be legal as long as enough people are breaking the law but if millions of kids are violating some of the strictest laws in the country we’re probably not getting the full picture.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 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.