4 ms·

Spicy is one thing. A fake nude is a violation of image rights and of bodily autonomy. It’d be different if there were real nude photos of her released out in t

Spicy is one thing. A fake nude is a violation of image rights and of bodily autonomy. It’d be different if there were real nude photos of her released out in the public with her permission.

olalonde 1y ago
[flagged]
- Barrin92 1y ago
  Personality rights are a thing, publishing your likeness without your consent in particular in any commercial context is illegal in just about any jurisdiction on earth.
  - olalonde 1y ago
    I meant from a moral perspective. I'm aware that it is illegal in some jurisdictions but this would almost certainly not be considered "commercial use" in the context of likeness (unless the author uses the generated picture in an ad, etc.).
    - JohnFen 1y ago
      If Grok is charging a fee to do this, then it's "commercial use".
      - olalonde 1y ago
        I highly doubt so. Paid software like Photoshop has been used to generate fake pictures for ages and yet they are legal. It's how the generated pictures are used that matters.
- aredox 1y ago
  Of course you disagree, you are not the one being targeted. I wonder how long you would stand being impersonated in various situations. Or your parents. Or your significant other. Or your (adult) kids. Would you still tell them to their face there is "no violation"?
  - olalonde 1y ago
    You're wrong, I would still disagree. In fact, you're welcome to make some fake nudes of me, my pictures aren't too hard to find.
    - aredox 1y ago
      Of you. But you dodge my question about people who aren't you but you care about (if there is any of the sort).
      - olalonde 1y ago
        I answered that question in the first sentence of my previous comment...
simianwords 1y ago
i think the more this becomes normalised the less taboo it will become. people will no longer care about it
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  > people will no longer care about it I wonder how Taylor Swift feels about it.
  - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
    She feels exactly how management tells her to feel. If they could point to her liking it being good for her brand and business she would be all over it.
    - nozzlegear 1y ago
      Why don't you think she has any agency of her own? She's a billionaire, I doubt she's letting her management tell her how to think and feel about her own body. Do you think Zuckerberg or Bezos let their management "feel exactly how their management tell them to feel"?
      - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
        I’m sure Swift the Person has thoughts that come from a single source. Swift the Brand, is not that. My reason for why I don’t think she has agency over her brand has more support than your thinking she does.
- cestith 1y ago
  What are your feelings on revenge porn, peeping toms, sexual assault, rape, and pedophilia?
  - simianwords 1y ago
    what's your feeling about thinking about a person while jerking off?

Spicy is one thing. A fake nude is a violation of image rights and of bodily autonomy. It’d be different if there were real nude photos of her released out in the public with her permission.

olalonde 1y ago

[flagged]

Barrin92 1y ago
Personality rights are a thing, publishing your likeness without your consent in particular in any commercial context is illegal in just about any jurisdiction on earth.
- olalonde 1y ago
  I meant from a moral perspective. I'm aware that it is illegal in some jurisdictions but this would almost certainly not be considered "commercial use" in the context of likeness (unless the author uses the generated picture in an ad, etc.).
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    If Grok is charging a fee to do this, then it's "commercial use".
    - olalonde 1y ago
      I highly doubt so. Paid software like Photoshop has been used to generate fake pictures for ages and yet they are legal. It's how the generated pictures are used that matters.
aredox 1y ago
Of course you disagree, you are not the one being targeted. I wonder how long you would stand being impersonated in various situations. Or your parents. Or your significant other. Or your (adult) kids. Would you still tell them to their face there is "no violation"?
- olalonde 1y ago
  You're wrong, I would still disagree. In fact, you're welcome to make some fake nudes of me, my pictures aren't too hard to find.
  - aredox 1y ago
    Of you. But you dodge my question about people who aren't you but you care about (if there is any of the sort).
    - olalonde 1y ago
      I answered that question in the first sentence of my previous comment...

simianwords 1y ago

i think the more this becomes normalised the less taboo it will become. people will no longer care about it

nozzlegear 1y ago
> people will no longer care about it I wonder how Taylor Swift feels about it.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
  She feels exactly how management tells her to feel. If they could point to her liking it being good for her brand and business she would be all over it.
  - nozzlegear 1y ago
    Why don't you think she has any agency of her own? She's a billionaire, I doubt she's letting her management tell her how to think and feel about her own body. Do you think Zuckerberg or Bezos let their management "feel exactly how their management tell them to feel"?
    - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
      I’m sure Swift the Person has thoughts that come from a single source. Swift the Brand, is not that. My reason for why I don’t think she has agency over her brand has more support than your thinking she does.
cestith 1y ago
What are your feelings on revenge porn, peeping toms, sexual assault, rape, and pedophilia?
- simianwords 1y ago
  what's your feeling about thinking about a person while jerking off?