5 ms·

This is a fine line. There are people who care. But at the same time this crosses boundaries of freedom of speech. The content is completely generated and and

This is a fine line. There are people who care. But at the same time this crosses boundaries of freedom of speech. The content is completely generated and and there is effort to censor this content. Think about it. Censoring generated content is equivalent to censoring art. It's morally equivalent to censoring art because you don't like the art. There's a problem from many perspectives and no one perspective is completely right. There's the female perspective where their beauty, rank and character is judged on their perceived promiscuity levels. Pictures obviously effect the womens ranking and the spouses care too so this is a factor. But it does not negate the existence of the freedom of speech perspective too. The problem here is that it's too fuzzy you can't strictly define what is creative art and what is a reputation bashing porno. What if the art was generated but just happens to look like the daughter off of pure coincidence? Similar to how a real person can look like another person randomly. What if someone that looks extremely similar to you starts modelling for porn. Do you ban and censor that person? Do you ban art that coincidentally looks like you? What if there's nude art where half the population finds it offensive and the other half does not? Once you cross this line because the boundaries are so fuzzy it's easy to overstep. China a very hated country by the US doesn't consider freedom of speech. They jump right in with what they believe to be the most reasonable decision. They would of course severely punish anyone who makes AI generated porn of real people. But we all know the consequence of this is china crosses too many fuzzy lines. If you have a wife and daughter do you prefer the china way or the more "freedom of speech" way?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ethanbond 3y ago
There’s plenty of material that lands near the fine line and there’s plenty of material that lands nowhere close to it. Let’s start by saying “synthetically generated pornography of a real person created without their consent is bad.” This conversation is very very far from trying to figure out the intricacies of complicated cases. This is people saying, “there’s no relevant concept of consent” and “there’s no harm inflicted by pixels which just so happen to look like a real person.” For the former, you merely have to ask why we have any concept of consent anywhere at all, and the answer is: to make it illegal to do certain things which inflict certain harms. So here is a new specific way to produce a new specific harm. Don’t think it’s a harm? You merely have to ask someone who has had this done to them if they feel harmed or not. A bunch of 20-50 year old dudes on HN saying “I wouldn’t care lol” doesn’t qualify. I personally am more inclined to trust the victim advocacy groups and researchers who overwhelmingly agree that sharing nonconsensual sexual imagery of someone does inflict harm upon them. This argument is apparently so obvious that we in fact have curtailed freedom of speech along various boundaries of this area, and only complete weirdos or “I am very smart because I logic good” people have a hard time understanding why that is.
- corethree 3y ago
  If we just banned things because it harms people then journalism would be out of business. Any damning article with an associated damning photograph would be censored. In your blindness you crossed several lines already. It's your attitude that creates places like china where they censor and stop freedom of speech. I wouldn't want people like you in power. I would prefer someone like me who can see both sides of the story. > “synthetically generated pornography of a real person created without their consent is bad.” It's not of a real person. The argument can easily be made that the person just happens to look like the real person. I guarantee you for every nude painting of a fictitious person there is at least one person in the world who looks identical to that photo. In fact the science says there's roughly seven people per person. https://www.audacy.com/y98/news/you-have-at-least-six-doppelgangers-out-there-in-the-world https://www.audacy.com/y98/news/you-have-at-least-six-doppel.... That renders almost all realistic nude art of fictitious people illegal under your rules. >This argument is apparently so obvious that we in fact have curtailed freedom of speech along various boundaries of this area, and only complete weirdos or “I am very smart because I logic good” people have a hard time understanding why that is. Nah. I'm not like that. Let me spell out what your saying here without that "logic". You are calling me a pedantic over logical ass hole while trying to skirt the rules of HN. But your intention is clear you basically called me a weirdo. Haha well fuck you too. The opposite of that would be an idealistic idiot out to protect the sanctity of all women without rational thought. A simp who who tries to display his false confidence by getting angry at anything that even questions things that slightly harm women. And I'll be straight here, that sinp is you. You realize women have the upper hand in many arenas in life that are unfair towards men? They can ruin you by declaring rape or harassment. They can fucking end you on on just an allegation. In divorces they can take your child and half your wealth. And MANY women exploit this imbalance. The current status quo exists because of some idiot like you didn't think shit through and just wanted to "protect" women so they made these things into laws. This does not mean that what happened here is not wrong. This topic deserves fair discussion and women deserve to be treated as equals. But this blind allegiance to protect women at all costs and get fucking angry when someone even questions these things is blindness. You put women on some sort of pedestal. Wake the hell up. They are human and it's stupid to suddenly make sweeping censorship laws just to protect their sacred purity. Open your fucking mind. This topic and the intricacies and far reaching consequences deserves a genuine discussion without you trying to skirt the rules and call me some over pedantic weirdo. Don't be a Dick. Engage in conversation with people who talk about these things. Don't be all uppity like you're on some moral high ground and think you're 100 percent justified to just rage because your protecting women. I definitely don't see this type of behavior when people on HN talk about other issues. Those people who like to pretend to be overly "rational" don't get called out on other topics. But when it comes to women's issues then that's when cliche characters like you appear... trying to be all protective for no reason.
RoyalHenOil 3y ago
What is your opinion on revenge porn, nonconsensual upskirt photos, or peeping Toms (such as hidden cameras in bathrooms)?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ethanbond 3y ago

There’s plenty of material that lands near the fine line and there’s plenty of material that lands nowhere close to it. Let’s start by saying “synthetically generated pornography of a real person created without their consent is bad.” This conversation is very very far from trying to figure out the intricacies of complicated cases. This is people saying, “there’s no relevant concept of consent” and “there’s no harm inflicted by pixels which just so happen to look like a real person.” For the former, you merely have to ask why we have any concept of consent anywhere at all, and the answer is: to make it illegal to do certain things which inflict certain harms. So here is a new specific way to produce a new specific harm. Don’t think it’s a harm? You merely have to ask someone who has had this done to them if they feel harmed or not. A bunch of 20-50 year old dudes on HN saying “I wouldn’t care lol” doesn’t qualify. I personally am more inclined to trust the victim advocacy groups and researchers who overwhelmingly agree that sharing nonconsensual sexual imagery of someone does inflict harm upon them. This argument is apparently so obvious that we in fact have curtailed freedom of speech along various boundaries of this area, and only complete weirdos or “I am very smart because I logic good” people have a hard time understanding why that is.

corethree 3y ago
If we just banned things because it harms people then journalism would be out of business. Any damning article with an associated damning photograph would be censored. In your blindness you crossed several lines already. It's your attitude that creates places like china where they censor and stop freedom of speech. I wouldn't want people like you in power. I would prefer someone like me who can see both sides of the story. > “synthetically generated pornography of a real person created without their consent is bad.” It's not of a real person. The argument can easily be made that the person just happens to look like the real person. I guarantee you for every nude painting of a fictitious person there is at least one person in the world who looks identical to that photo. In fact the science says there's roughly seven people per person. https://www.audacy.com/y98/news/you-have-at-least-six-doppelgangers-out-there-in-the-world https://www.audacy.com/y98/news/you-have-at-least-six-doppel.... That renders almost all realistic nude art of fictitious people illegal under your rules. >This argument is apparently so obvious that we in fact have curtailed freedom of speech along various boundaries of this area, and only complete weirdos or “I am very smart because I logic good” people have a hard time understanding why that is. Nah. I'm not like that. Let me spell out what your saying here without that "logic". You are calling me a pedantic over logical ass hole while trying to skirt the rules of HN. But your intention is clear you basically called me a weirdo. Haha well fuck you too. The opposite of that would be an idealistic idiot out to protect the sanctity of all women without rational thought. A simp who who tries to display his false confidence by getting angry at anything that even questions things that slightly harm women. And I'll be straight here, that sinp is you. You realize women have the upper hand in many arenas in life that are unfair towards men? They can ruin you by declaring rape or harassment. They can fucking end you on on just an allegation. In divorces they can take your child and half your wealth. And MANY women exploit this imbalance. The current status quo exists because of some idiot like you didn't think shit through and just wanted to "protect" women so they made these things into laws. This does not mean that what happened here is not wrong. This topic deserves fair discussion and women deserve to be treated as equals. But this blind allegiance to protect women at all costs and get fucking angry when someone even questions these things is blindness. You put women on some sort of pedestal. Wake the hell up. They are human and it's stupid to suddenly make sweeping censorship laws just to protect their sacred purity. Open your fucking mind. This topic and the intricacies and far reaching consequences deserves a genuine discussion without you trying to skirt the rules and call me some over pedantic weirdo. Don't be a Dick. Engage in conversation with people who talk about these things. Don't be all uppity like you're on some moral high ground and think you're 100 percent justified to just rage because your protecting women. I definitely don't see this type of behavior when people on HN talk about other issues. Those people who like to pretend to be overly "rational" don't get called out on other topics. But when it comes to women's issues then that's when cliche characters like you appear... trying to be all protective for no reason.

RoyalHenOil 3y ago

What is your opinion on revenge porn, nonconsensual upskirt photos, or peeping Toms (such as hidden cameras in bathrooms)?