5 ms·
>it's a pretty reasonable position for someone to think "a company now sells a service that lets you generate fake porn of any human" is a bad thing and shouldn
by qualeed 1y ago
>it's a pretty reasonable position for someone to think "a company now sells a service that lets you generate fake porn of any human" is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed,
There is a surprising number of people here on HN (and I imagine elsewhere) that think generating fake porn of real people without their consent is totally fine, if not their right to do so.
You can see some of them cropping up in the comments here already.
- skeezyboy 1y ago[flagged]
- qualeed 1y ago>what about drawing a picture of your mum getting bukkaked? It's really weird that you chose to make your point this way instead of the hundreds of other ways you could have phrased it. I mean, it's obvious you're just trolling, so I'm not surprised. But I hope one day you think back on some of the things you typed out and cringe at how fucking weird it is.
- skeezyboy 1y agoso we can draw deepfakes then? just not digitally draw them?
- Joker_vD 1y agoSuch a shame there is no explicit and complete list of all rights, so that everything that's off that list is obviously prohibited.
- qualeed 1y agoI'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but generating and distributing non-consensual nudes is already "obviously prohibited" (by law) in many jurisdictions. It is also explicitly prohibited by twitter's terms of service.
- miltonlost 1y agoAnd those people are why I wish this site had a block commenter ability instead of having to bother reading them