5 ms·

I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally dif

I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family.

danbruc 3y ago
The generated girl was white, the actual victim black. Also - after skimming another article - it seems that the child was killed with a knife first and only then was the body put into the oven, maybe in the hope to get rid of the body. This is more like loosely based on a true story then an accurate retelling of events. Also age and name are slightly altered.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  Does that matter? What did you think YouTube has in mind when they say "realistically simulate"? Sometimes you can see a trend coming early on, and isn't YouTube responding to what people will probably do in the future?
  - gspencley 3y ago
    > I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. I'm pretty sure that's what the person you are replying to was commenting on. If you're just continuing the discussion and talking about whether or not the policy is a good move on YouTube's part, fair enough. But it kind of reads like you're shifting the goal post. My opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it "matters" or not. YouTube has every right to make their content policies according to whatever drives them, be it business forces or their own values. As an adult consumer of YouTube I would personally prefer if there were a "as long as it is legal" policy, but I get why YouTube may have reasons to adopt different policies and it's not up to me. I recognize their right to do what they think is best with their business and product.
    - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
      The discussion, as I understood it, was about contrasting dramatic reenactments using actors with using digital recreations (i.e. "what makes these two techniques different?"). danbruc was talking about how the digital recreation in the news recently was inaccurate. I was questioning if that mattered, since I wasn't so much contrasting paid actors with that specific case but instead with what new technology now allows and what YouTube is probably trying to prevent with their policy.
      - danbruc 3y ago
        I was specifically replying to the following part. A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family. In that specific case the digital recreation - if you can even call it that - was quite off and far from depicting what the real victim looked like. It would certainly have been possible to do an reenactment which more closely matched what the actual victim looked like. Therefore I think any argument along the lines that an exact digital recreation might evoke feelings that a reenactment could not does - at least in this specific case - not apply. Otherwise I have really no opinion on the entire matter. Putting children into an oven is certainly in the range of things that you could find in horror movies. Context of course matters and also the presentation and intention and target audience, but I just do not know anything besides skimming three articles about this phenomenon to properly judge this.
        kragen 3y ago
        > Putting children into an oven is certainly in the range of things that you could find in horror movies or for that matter popular children's fairy tales
        dotancohen 3y ago
        I hate to say this, but just three months ago children that I knew were burned alive. And a baby was found burned in an oven, apparently stuffed in there such that the heating element mark was visible on its body. These things happen not only in horror movies. They happen today, in real life.
maerF0x0 3y ago
I have to say I think it's more stemming from the court of public opinion's reaction to inappropriate content for kids[1] and also laws that protect kids online. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/28/parents-momo-scare-youtube-kids https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/28/parent...
rnk 3y ago
What if they are careful to make a fake kid who looks nothing like the original (other than kind of looking like a kid of that age and kind of looking like the same race)? There are dramatic re-enactments. I don't want to see this, but should it be banned? Is it okay if it was done with live actors? What about if they were on "to catch a thief"? What if it was a real drama or a play. What if you wanted to block a shakespeare play that had kids killed in it that was a historical event? Is it only for ai actors? This is a hard thing to figure out. I'm against true crime repros that are disgusting and pandering, but that's completely personal and ambiguous.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,” but merely not within the scope of the coherent speech product YouTube seeks to produce. This is, of course, their right single the platform belongs to them. You can make such videos all day long, but you would have to deliver them yourself, which is consistent with how free speech works in America.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,” They're "banned" on youtube, which many people would argue is a monopoly. Certainly banning specific types of content on the largest and most popular video platform will have a massive impact on how many people will ever see that kind of content I don't think it's unreasonable to raise concerns about censorship on platforms that have a disproportionate impact on what most people will or won't see.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Anyone who would argue that YouTube is a monopoly would probably also argue that Burger King and McDonald’s are monopolies. I agree that refusing to distribute snuff porn on YouTube probably has deleterious effects in the audience for that content. But it is unreasonable and against the core free market principles of our capitalist society for you to be too concerned about what I publish with my web site. I have a first amendment right and you can’t force me, my company, or my property to carry speech. Which isn’t to say you can’t be concerned about lack of visibility for content that’s banned by big platforms. You can. You probably should! But compelled private speech is not the answer, which is why you will, for example, frequently get pushback against the idea that this is even censorship. (I’m pedantic, but not enough so to adopt that view).

danbruc 3y ago

The generated girl was white, the actual victim black. Also - after skimming another article - it seems that the child was killed with a knife first and only then was the body put into the oven, maybe in the hope to get rid of the body. This is more like loosely based on a true story then an accurate retelling of events. Also age and name are slightly altered.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago
Does that matter? What did you think YouTube has in mind when they say "realistically simulate"? Sometimes you can see a trend coming early on, and isn't YouTube responding to what people will probably do in the future?
- gspencley 3y ago
  > I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. I'm pretty sure that's what the person you are replying to was commenting on. If you're just continuing the discussion and talking about whether or not the policy is a good move on YouTube's part, fair enough. But it kind of reads like you're shifting the goal post. My opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it "matters" or not. YouTube has every right to make their content policies according to whatever drives them, be it business forces or their own values. As an adult consumer of YouTube I would personally prefer if there were a "as long as it is legal" policy, but I get why YouTube may have reasons to adopt different policies and it's not up to me. I recognize their right to do what they think is best with their business and product.
  - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
    The discussion, as I understood it, was about contrasting dramatic reenactments using actors with using digital recreations (i.e. "what makes these two techniques different?"). danbruc was talking about how the digital recreation in the news recently was inaccurate. I was questioning if that mattered, since I wasn't so much contrasting paid actors with that specific case but instead with what new technology now allows and what YouTube is probably trying to prevent with their policy.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      I was specifically replying to the following part. A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family. In that specific case the digital recreation - if you can even call it that - was quite off and far from depicting what the real victim looked like. It would certainly have been possible to do an reenactment which more closely matched what the actual victim looked like. Therefore I think any argument along the lines that an exact digital recreation might evoke feelings that a reenactment could not does - at least in this specific case - not apply. Otherwise I have really no opinion on the entire matter. Putting children into an oven is certainly in the range of things that you could find in horror movies. Context of course matters and also the presentation and intention and target audience, but I just do not know anything besides skimming three articles about this phenomenon to properly judge this.
      - kragen 3y ago
        > Putting children into an oven is certainly in the range of things that you could find in horror movies or for that matter popular children's fairy tales
        dotancohen 3y ago
        I hate to say this, but just three months ago children that I knew were burned alive. And a baby was found burned in an oven, apparently stuffed in there such that the heating element mark was visible on its body. These things happen not only in horror movies. They happen today, in real life.

maerF0x0 3y ago

I have to say I think it's more stemming from the court of public opinion's reaction to inappropriate content for kids[1] and also laws that protect kids online. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/28/parents-momo-scare-youtube-kids https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/28/parent...

rnk 3y ago

What if they are careful to make a fake kid who looks nothing like the original (other than kind of looking like a kid of that age and kind of looking like the same race)? There are dramatic re-enactments. I don't want to see this, but should it be banned? Is it okay if it was done with live actors? What about if they were on "to catch a thief"? What if it was a real drama or a play. What if you wanted to block a shakespeare play that had kids killed in it that was a historical event? Is it only for ai actors? This is a hard thing to figure out. I'm against true crime repros that are disgusting and pandering, but that's completely personal and ambiguous.

singleshot_ 3y ago
Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,” but merely not within the scope of the coherent speech product YouTube seeks to produce. This is, of course, their right single the platform belongs to them. You can make such videos all day long, but you would have to deliver them yourself, which is consistent with how free speech works in America.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,” They're "banned" on youtube, which many people would argue is a monopoly. Certainly banning specific types of content on the largest and most popular video platform will have a massive impact on how many people will ever see that kind of content I don't think it's unreasonable to raise concerns about censorship on platforms that have a disproportionate impact on what most people will or won't see.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Anyone who would argue that YouTube is a monopoly would probably also argue that Burger King and McDonald’s are monopolies. I agree that refusing to distribute snuff porn on YouTube probably has deleterious effects in the audience for that content. But it is unreasonable and against the core free market principles of our capitalist society for you to be too concerned about what I publish with my web site. I have a first amendment right and you can’t force me, my company, or my property to carry speech. Which isn’t to say you can’t be concerned about lack of visibility for content that’s banned by big platforms. You can. You probably should! But compelled private speech is not the answer, which is why you will, for example, frequently get pushback against the idea that this is even censorship. (I’m pedantic, but not enough so to adopt that view).