4 ms·
This is different because the consumers, and producers, of these images don't care if it's fake or real. They just want the picture and the bruh-cred or whateve
by brucethemoose2 3y ago
This is different because the consumers, and producers, of these images don't care if it's fake or real. They just want the picture and the bruh-cred or whatever from passing them around.
I can't think of a good text analogue. People consume clickbait and such, but the producer's motivation is different, and the consumer isn't so consciously aware of its fakeness.
One can hope that humans just get desensitized to nudity... because now its going to be basically free.
- ethbr1 3y agoI'd argue that clickbait and fake porn producers have exactly the same motivation -- money. Fox News posts rage-bait on their front page because it drives advertising revenue. Fake-Your-Classmate.com (or whatever) operates their service because it drives either direct or advertising revenue. And there's demand for the service... because 14 year olds are horny idiots with poor impulse control. I don't expect the horny idiots with poor impulse control part to change, which means this is here to stay. Sadly.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoTheoretically they could do it themselves, locally, but I suppose thats a poor assumption now that I think about it.
- ethbr1 3y agoTo me, it's the Excel perspective (was trying to find a less network effect example): social impact = adoption rate x individual impact In the 90s and 00s, I expect fake generation would have been packaged up and made available for local execution. Now? In that age, there are a ton of mobile and/or walled garden users, even assuming technical sophistication. But as a counterpoint, the resulting images are trivially shared. So only one member of a social group needs to have the production means for it to be a problem. :/