this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
127 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
59608 readers
3912 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Big "but what was she wearing?" energy here.
I don't give a shit if she's doing Shein bikini hauls on Youtube. If you use AI to nudify her pictures, you're manufacturing child pornography, and deserve the full consequences for doing that.
As for OnlyFans, they are quite strict about age requirements. Children aren't running OF accounts. You just hate women and needed to bring up OF to slut-shame.
No I'm just pointing out the obvious fake morality. Big "somebody think of the children" energy here Todd. You just hate common sense and logic and are bringing it up because you need a knee jerk reaction to simulate an emotional response from real humans.
Somebody in non US satellite foreign state can go and do that now from the youtube "bikini hauls" since they publicly avaoialble
What are you or the feds gonna about that, chief?
If that is your or her concern, don't post pictures online. Otherwise, you are literally the mercy of the internet. Privacy 101.
I am sure giving feds extra powers on this won't end like everything else, ie abused against lesser peons.
No, equating this to an actual child being raped is incorrect. These are not crimes of remotely equal magnitude.
Comparing a person who raped a child, made photos and distributed them to a person who used Photoshop or an AI tool is, other than just evil, reducing the meaning of the former.
It is weird how hard you have been defending the production of child pornography in this thread.
Fr, bro is giving off some strong Trumpist vibes.
They are now at the point of calling me a disgusting person who doesn't belong in civilized society because I am against the production, and use, of child pornography.
Give me a million attempts and I would never have guessed that is the person I would encounter today. haha
What this conversation is about has as much to do with child pornography as hentai with loli characters.
You just can't argue without unsubstantiated accusations, can you?
When real living people are being murdered and abused in droves, you are still worried more about glorified automated Photoshop and accusing its users of being the same as actual rapists.
People can be worried about more than one thing at a time.
Creating sexually explicit images of minors is child pornography.
You literally confirmed my claim in your first sentence, and your last.
Production of child pornography is production of child pornography. It does not need to involve rape. Producing child pornography is a separate crime.
Its users are pedophiles because they are producing child pornography. You are defending them.
These are the facts.
Victimless crimes are not crimes. Thus producing any pornography is a crime only when it involves violating someone's rights.
Ah, so you are dumb enough to think it's bad to defend pedophiles who have not committed a crime against a real person?
Damn right, I am defending pedophiles who are being persecuted for being born with that deviation alone. I am also defending pedophiles who satisfy that via any means not harming real people. I will do both till my last breath.
If your argument is that they are disgusting and you don't want them in society, then so are you.
You mean like when someone takes a photo of a minor, removes their clothing to make a sexually explicit image, and uses that image to harass, bully, and extort?
Taking a picture of a minor, making that image sexually explicit, and using it to harass, bully, and extort that minor is not a "crime against a real person"?
You should stop "defending" their "right" to child pornography and start advocating for them to get real help with the very serious mental disorder that causes them to want sexual activity with a minor instead.
My argument is that they should not be given child pornography. Your argument is that they should.
The disgusting people I don't want in society are people who use child pornography, and those who defend their use of child pornography.
Kindly see yourself out and take the rest with you.
Doesn't matter, that's not what we are talking about here. You don't have to use a face of a real child.
Oh, you wanted to pretend it is? Cheating doesn't work with me.
No, my argument is what I myself already said.
It's really not your concern what other people create for themselves. Nobody owes you any shame for being born with a flaw.
It's really a good thing that people with this particular deviation can get materials satisfying them without harming real people. And if one can generate those materials - then that's a noble endeavor. For every decent person, that is.
No, you are the one unwanted in civilized society.
BTW, for any normal person any pedophile that doesn't hurt children is better than you.
Despite your shit attitude, AI nudification is, in fact, what we are talking about. It's what the OP article is about. Actual children were exploited and harmed.
You have decided to change the subject to "what if the child porn is 100% synthetic?", which is a different thing than what everyone else has been talking about, but is fucked up just the same.
When confronted with the near universal attitude that CSAM is morally reprehensible, you have decided to lash out in anger and act like nobody knows what you're talking about.
Don't worry, we get it. You make fucked up pedo shit with Stable Diffusion on your gaming PC, and you get scared every time you see the very real consequences. You think you can change our minds about it by talking down to us, as if being against child pornography was a remotely controversial take.
And you are downplaying the very real crime against very real children the OP article describes because you are compelled to defend your own disgusting habit.
Seek help, and don't fucking look at child porn. You're doing irreparable damage to yourself. There are resources available to you: https://troubled-desire.com/
I'm actually interested in dark grey eyed blondes just a bit taller than me, and dark hazel-eyed brunettes just a bit lower that me, and none of them have been much younger.
But thanks for confirming that you can't argue without calling your opponent a pedo.
And even more that you really can't comprehend that someone would argue hard in defense of someone else.
How can one be such a miserable creature is beyond me.
That's a suspicious amount of information you're offering up to deflect that we can all see you defending child porn.
that's also my words:
your arguments are trash, so fool blocked
The only people who defend child pornography this hard are pedophiles, and I am not going to continue to argue with a pedophile.
I hope you get the help you desperately need before it is too late.