3 ms·
I think there's a spectrum, from actually filming someone having sex without their consent and publishing it, all the way to drawing a picture of someone and ne
by marcus_holmes 2y ago
I think there's a spectrum, from actually filming someone having sex without their consent and publishing it, all the way to drawing a picture of someone and never showing it to anyone. The ends of the spectrum are clearly immoral, and perfectly OK, respectively. We need to draw the line somewhere between the two.
Paparazzi take photos of people without their consent, and sell them for money. We tend to think this is immoral but legal, and making it illegal would cause more problems than it solves. There is no restriction about such photos being naked or clothed.
Making a deepfake uses someone's likeness. Is that the same as drawing a recognisable picture of them? If not, where do we draw the line between the two? If it is, should we make drawing a picture of someone without their consent illegal? That seems too far to me.
The law is going to take a while to catch up to this. Meanwhile, making this Google's problem seems perfectly OK to me. You create a ludicrously profitable monopoly on discovery, then you get to deal with the problems that people have with discovery <shrug>.
- CoastalCoder 2y ago> The ends of the spectrum are clearly immoral, and perfectly OK, respectively. I'd agree that it's probably a spectrum of legal culpability (although IANAL, so...) But I disagree that the extrema are clearly moral or immoral. For example, I expect that the private, hand-drawn scenario violates Christian morality. And I'm guessing there are other moral frameworks that are sincerely held by some persons, and which are okay with the other extremity.
- marcus_holmes 2y agoI'm kinda fascinated by the Christian morality thing - I was raised Anglican and while I no longer believe I still have a fair understanding of the dogma. How does drawing a picture of someone violate that morality? There are realistic pictures (and sculptures) of real people all over our churches. Are these immoral? I think possibly the confusion lies in my framing of the question; I meant drawing a picture of someone at all, not necessarily someone naked or having sex.
- matt-attack 2y agoSadly CP laws do not recognize that one end of that spectrum is OK. If I draw a photo realistic drawing (or even non photo realistic, ie anime) of CP I’m a felon in the eyes of our pathetic laws.