4 ms·

I'm one of the grown men who disagree. I don't think treating half the population as pre-criminals, when in reality it's an extremely tiny minority who act in t

I'm one of the grown men who disagree. I don't think treating half the population as pre-criminals, when in reality it's an extremely tiny minority who act in this way, is a particularly good solution. If we were to apply this kind of "solution" to all undesirable behaviours exhibited by deviant minorities of both men and women I doubt there'd be any time for any actual K-12 formal education. It's a nice applause line though.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
So no to technical solutions, no to legislative solutions and no to education. What do you suggest? Edit: you disagree that men aren't entitled to women's sexuality? Edit: I mis-interpreted what was being disagree with.
- kj99 3y ago
  Presumably enforcement of existing laws.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Which laws do you mean and where do they apply? This article talks a bit about the lack of legal power to fight against deepfakes: https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-deepfake-porn-yet-refinery29/ https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-d...
    - kj99 3y ago
      Good information. Then the solution would be to improve harassment legislation rather than limiting the availability of tools. Just as assault is illegal but we don’t require all hammers to be made out of foam.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        Indeed.
- spangry 3y ago
  I suggest we clearly specify the class of problem we're trying to solve and come up with a principled solution that would make sense when applied consistently and universally to all problems in that class. I prefer this over coming up with knee-jerk moral panic patches (e.g. "censor generative models so they can't generate this particular thing I find distasteful") or with overly abstract and tangential problem-solutions (e.g. "just teach men not to be big jerks"). I think the central issue here is: what restrictions, if any, should be placed around creating and distributing a likeness of another person? Are we just looking to prohibit pornographic likenesses, or do you think the restrictions should be broader? What's the threshold rule you would apply? Should these rules be medium-specific, or should we also prohibit people from, say, painting a likeness of another person without their consent? I guess in a US context you'd also have to consider whether it's constitutional to restrict freedom of expression, even the distasteful ones, in this manner. Edit: Just saw your edit suggesting that I think "men are entitled to women's bodies" (whatever that means). I think I'll end my participation here, not interested in having a bad faith discussion.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I'm not in the US but I understand that there are already laws which limit your expression, such as in cases of CSAM or revenge pornography, which night be the closest analogue. Personally the limits are similar to that, as I'm personally most interested in fighting sexual harassment. The legislation against revenge pornography already faces and tackles issues of what constitutes pornography and when it becomes illegal to disseminate pornographic images of others, so it's not an intractable problem. Indeed, we also have precedents for limiting the use of tools for certain purposes. Using deepfake technology to generate images akin to CSAM would already be illegal in the UK, but other broader and everyday examples exist like speed limits for cars. Edit to respond to yours: I said above that we should teach boys they're not entitled to women's sexuality, but that many men disagree. You said you were one of them. I had meant the disagreement being on the entitlement, but I'm now considering that you took it to mean they disagreed with the education about entitlement. It was a misunderstanding, and I was responding in good faith. I didn't suggest anything about you, I asked if my interpretation of your response was correct.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

So no to technical solutions, no to legislative solutions and no to education. What do you suggest? Edit: you disagree that men aren't entitled to women's sexuality? Edit: I mis-interpreted what was being disagree with.

kj99 3y ago
Presumably enforcement of existing laws.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Which laws do you mean and where do they apply? This article talks a bit about the lack of legal power to fight against deepfakes: https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-deepfake-porn-yet-refinery29/ https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-d...
  - kj99 3y ago
    Good information. Then the solution would be to improve harassment legislation rather than limiting the availability of tools. Just as assault is illegal but we don’t require all hammers to be made out of foam.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      Indeed.
spangry 3y ago
I suggest we clearly specify the class of problem we're trying to solve and come up with a principled solution that would make sense when applied consistently and universally to all problems in that class. I prefer this over coming up with knee-jerk moral panic patches (e.g. "censor generative models so they can't generate this particular thing I find distasteful") or with overly abstract and tangential problem-solutions (e.g. "just teach men not to be big jerks"). I think the central issue here is: what restrictions, if any, should be placed around creating and distributing a likeness of another person? Are we just looking to prohibit pornographic likenesses, or do you think the restrictions should be broader? What's the threshold rule you would apply? Should these rules be medium-specific, or should we also prohibit people from, say, painting a likeness of another person without their consent? I guess in a US context you'd also have to consider whether it's constitutional to restrict freedom of expression, even the distasteful ones, in this manner. Edit: Just saw your edit suggesting that I think "men are entitled to women's bodies" (whatever that means). I think I'll end my participation here, not interested in having a bad faith discussion.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  I'm not in the US but I understand that there are already laws which limit your expression, such as in cases of CSAM or revenge pornography, which night be the closest analogue. Personally the limits are similar to that, as I'm personally most interested in fighting sexual harassment. The legislation against revenge pornography already faces and tackles issues of what constitutes pornography and when it becomes illegal to disseminate pornographic images of others, so it's not an intractable problem. Indeed, we also have precedents for limiting the use of tools for certain purposes. Using deepfake technology to generate images akin to CSAM would already be illegal in the UK, but other broader and everyday examples exist like speed limits for cars. Edit to respond to yours: I said above that we should teach boys they're not entitled to women's sexuality, but that many men disagree. You said you were one of them. I had meant the disagreement being on the entitlement, but I'm now considering that you took it to mean they disagreed with the education about entitlement. It was a misunderstanding, and I was responding in good faith. I didn't suggest anything about you, I asked if my interpretation of your response was correct.