4 ms·
It can be used to create pornographic images of strangers without their consent. I'm honestly surprised that you don't find it objectionable.
by jasonhansel 7y ago
It can be used to create pornographic images of strangers without their consent. I'm honestly surprised that you don't find it objectionable.
- zeliard 7y agoPhotoshop has been used for that for decades. Why not ban Photoshop?
- jasonhansel 7y ago(1) Photoshop was not designed purely for generating fake nudes. (2) I'm not calling for government censorship, just saying that GitHub (and by extension Microsoft) shouldn't be giving these people a platform.
- LeonB 7y agoIn Queensland, under Revenge Porn laws: > “The new laws also cover photoshopped images – where an image has been altered to look like a person is portrayed in an intimate way.” --http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2019/2/13/revenge-porn-now-a-criminal-offence http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2019/2/13/revenge-por...
- randyrand 7y agocheck out /r/bubbling. No one has banned that either even though it’s non-consensual porn as well and has been for years. I don’t recall any articles written about it. It suggests that creating porn of people is not always objectionable.
- JonAtkinson 7y agoPlease don’t presume to know my position on this. I never said whether I do or I don’t find this objectionable. I asked you to expand on your comment, that is all.
- jasonhansel 7y agoSorry for misunderstanding. I just think that it would be a clear invasion of privacy, and show a serious lack of respect and decency, to create fake, realistic nudes of someone without permission.