3 ms·

Oh, contrair, I think that a.i. flips it on its head. Nudes proof nothing but the weird obsession of the owner nowadays. It's quite socially liberating ...

klyrs 3y ago
[flagged]
ethanbond 3y ago
[flagged]
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  That’s not symmetrical at all.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mistermann 3y ago
      If your examples are not logically equivalent even using abstraction, some people may be less impressed than yourself unfortunately. I do appreciate the fun aspect of it though.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        The general form of the argument is just “when things happen very frequently, people get used to them.” This is both true and a terrible reason to be okay with bad things proliferating. And it’s especially suspicious when this argument is leveled by people who generally aren’t going to be victimized by said bad things.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        All of these things you’re listing are tangible events that cause specific harm to someone. A nude photo is information. If you can turn it from implied authenticity to implied inauthenticity then the harm is reduced. The argument here is not about being used to things.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Does harassment to the point of job loss, familial dysfunction, or suicide count as tangible harm or not tangible? Sure, if you can do that. Of course the question is whether/when that’ll happen and how many young people have to be victimized first in order to get there — and for what benefit?
        mistermann 3y ago
        Was your claim above not absolute in terms of outcomes? I mean sure, you were "just joking" I suppose, but what's the point of conversation if we normalize bait and switching?
        ethanbond 3y ago
        What was I joking about and what was absolute in terms of outcomes?
        mistermann 3y ago
        Let's try a quick litmus test: above, did you make any assertions that are non-factual?
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Umm I made assertions in which I don't believe, of the shape "Near term bad thing is okay because in the long run it might have good second order consequences." Not sure what's "non-factual" about it?
lebean 3y ago
Au contraire, this makes no sense.
acdha 3y ago
This is imperfect and only covers the easiest aspect of the problem: leaking of consensual nudes, where the images are real but you didn’t want them to be public. There’s still a ton of damage possible by providing plausible images of things that were never real: middle school can be toxic and kids know how to pick the most damaging things, and the initial description and circulation will stick to some extent no matter what – spread photos of someone having sex with the least popular student and the victim has to prove a negative or wonder how much everyone around them is probably weighing the “maybe it’s real?” odds even if they’re saying they don’t believe it, and the other kid is going to live with knowing that someone thought they were the best way to degrade someone else. It probably won’t be hot porn star sex, either, but whatever they picked as the least flattering option - the kind of thing the target knows people will remember when they think about them. Worse, some of the options force criminal investigations. If they fake a video with an adult, now that kid has to deal with the police investigating a very sensitive topic. If they pick a teacher or family member, etc. that also means those people might have their jobs jeopardized and it could be very hard to disprove if the fakes don’t have obvious errors.
- netsharc 3y ago
  I think fake nudes are shocking to the victims because even if fake, the pics/videos depict them as sexual objects. One usually just wants to be seen at in a sexual way by intimate partners and with one's consent, but imagine finding out there are fake nudes of you, and that plenty of horny people have been looking at you sexually. Even if it's not your actual body, it'll still feel violating.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Especially because there’s often an intention to degrade the target. It’s not just someone’s private fantasy, it’s usually shared in the context of them being able to do something without the victim’s consent which is going to be hard to look past.

klyrs 3y ago

[flagged]

ethanbond 3y ago

[flagged]

jncfhnb 3y ago
That’s not symmetrical at all.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mistermann 3y ago
    If your examples are not logically equivalent even using abstraction, some people may be less impressed than yourself unfortunately. I do appreciate the fun aspect of it though.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      The general form of the argument is just “when things happen very frequently, people get used to them.” This is both true and a terrible reason to be okay with bad things proliferating. And it’s especially suspicious when this argument is leveled by people who generally aren’t going to be victimized by said bad things.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        All of these things you’re listing are tangible events that cause specific harm to someone. A nude photo is information. If you can turn it from implied authenticity to implied inauthenticity then the harm is reduced. The argument here is not about being used to things.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Does harassment to the point of job loss, familial dysfunction, or suicide count as tangible harm or not tangible? Sure, if you can do that. Of course the question is whether/when that’ll happen and how many young people have to be victimized first in order to get there — and for what benefit?
        mistermann 3y ago
        Was your claim above not absolute in terms of outcomes? I mean sure, you were "just joking" I suppose, but what's the point of conversation if we normalize bait and switching?
        ethanbond 3y ago
        What was I joking about and what was absolute in terms of outcomes?
        mistermann 3y ago
        Let's try a quick litmus test: above, did you make any assertions that are non-factual?
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Umm I made assertions in which I don't believe, of the shape "Near term bad thing is okay because in the long run it might have good second order consequences." Not sure what's "non-factual" about it?

lebean 3y ago

Au contraire, this makes no sense.

acdha 3y ago

This is imperfect and only covers the easiest aspect of the problem: leaking of consensual nudes, where the images are real but you didn’t want them to be public. There’s still a ton of damage possible by providing plausible images of things that were never real: middle school can be toxic and kids know how to pick the most damaging things, and the initial description and circulation will stick to some extent no matter what – spread photos of someone having sex with the least popular student and the victim has to prove a negative or wonder how much everyone around them is probably weighing the “maybe it’s real?” odds even if they’re saying they don’t believe it, and the other kid is going to live with knowing that someone thought they were the best way to degrade someone else. It probably won’t be hot porn star sex, either, but whatever they picked as the least flattering option - the kind of thing the target knows people will remember when they think about them. Worse, some of the options force criminal investigations. If they fake a video with an adult, now that kid has to deal with the police investigating a very sensitive topic. If they pick a teacher or family member, etc. that also means those people might have their jobs jeopardized and it could be very hard to disprove if the fakes don’t have obvious errors.

netsharc 3y ago
I think fake nudes are shocking to the victims because even if fake, the pics/videos depict them as sexual objects. One usually just wants to be seen at in a sexual way by intimate partners and with one's consent, but imagine finding out there are fake nudes of you, and that plenty of horny people have been looking at you sexually. Even if it's not your actual body, it'll still feel violating.
- acdha 3y ago
  Especially because there’s often an intention to degrade the target. It’s not just someone’s private fantasy, it’s usually shared in the context of them being able to do something without the victim’s consent which is going to be hard to look past.