4 ms·
They're both underdefining what "intimate images" means and using the term images instead of photos. So this means they want this to apply to everything that ca
by superkuh 8mo ago
They're both underdefining what "intimate images" means and using the term images instead of photos. So this means they want this to apply to everything that can be represented visually even if it has nothing to do with anything that happened in reality. Which means they don't care about actual harms. The way they're using the word 'harm' seems be to more in line with the word 'offend'. So now in the UK if there is an offensive image (like a painting) posted on a web site (or other internet protocol) they are going to be, " treated with the same severity as child sexual abuse and terrorism content,". That's wild. And dangerous. This policy will do far more damage than any painting or other non-photo images would.
- iMark 8mo agoI agree that laws such as this to be defined very carefully, but I think "images" is the appropriate term to use, rather than "photos". LLMs make it near trivially easy to render a photo in countless styles, after all, such as paintings, or sketches.
- actionfromafar 8mo agoI hate to appear to defend this, but generative AI has sort of collapsed the distinction between a photo and an image. I could generate an image from a photo which told the same story, then delete the photo, and now everything is peachy fine? So that could have been a motivation for "images". Though I wonder if not existing frameworks around slander and libel could be made to address the brave new world of AI augmented abuse.
- pjc50 8mo agoLibel is both incredibly expensive (£100k average per case, not eligible for legal aid) and unreliable (can be used to silence true information).
- actionfromafar 8mo agoMaybe we should tweak some of those laws, then.
- vr46 8mo agoWhat bit of "intimate images shared without a victim's consent" is lacking context in the article?
- Manuel_D 8mo agoWhat qualifies as an "intimate image"? A photo of someone in a swimsuit at the beach? Fictional content is also covered by this law. How do we determine what fictional content counts as an intimate image of a real person? What if the creator of an AI image adds a birthmark that the real life subject doesn't have, is that sufficient differentiation to no longer count as an intimate image of a real person? What if they change the subject's eye color, too?
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo agoIf you envision yourself as a potential victim of such content, I think the answers to these questions all become pretty obvious. A swimsuit photo might or might not be intimate, depending on what kind of swimsuit it is and the context in which the person posting the photo is presenting it. A birthmark you don't have or a different eye color obviously do not make a fictionalized image become "not you" because they would not reduce the violation you'd feel.
- Manuel_D 8mo ago> A birthmark you don't have or a different eye color obviously do not make a fictionalized image become "not you" because they would not reduce the violation you'd feel. What if someone claims to feel violated by an image of a person that looks totally different: different skin color, different build, different facial structure, etc?
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo agoThen they'll try to convince the authorities that the image is of them, and presumably mostly fail although in some cases they may succeed. (If you're worried about something like the US DMCA, that's almost certainly not going to be the proposal; the UK has a number of existing 48 hour takedown policies, and they all involve orders from the authorities rather than self-certified requests from random third parties.)
- SamoyedFurFluff 8mo agoI think if I produced inappropriate images that are identifiable as a specific child victim, who obviously cannot consent to have inappropriate images generated of their likeness, I believe images and photos are a distinction without a difference.
- noobermin 8mo agoI had to google a bit, but this Guardian article[1] goes into a lot more detail than the Register piece here. I was of the opinion that this sounds too onerous and ill-defined when I first read the Register piece especially with censorship on the rise in Europe recently, but the Guardian piece made me side more with this particular policy. It doesn't sound as broad as the Register piece puts it, it sounds like it's specifically for revenge porn and generating deep fake porn non-consensually, not any "intimate image" which I agree is far too broad. Albeit, of all governments, I'd suspect especially the current UK government is to be amongst the most likely to say expand these powers to speech they don't like or general pornography one day, etc, it doesn't sound like this specific policy is broad yet according to the Guardian article. The Register piece is using "intimate image" as a euphemism I think whereas the intent of the policy is a bit more defined and specific. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/18/tech-firms-must-remove-revenge-porn-in-48-hours-or-risk-being-blocked-says-starmer https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/18/tech-firms-m...
- femiagbabiaka 8mo agoBlame xAI. It has to be worded in this way to capture the behavior they allowed to persist.
- Ray20 8mo ago[flagged]
- femiagbabiaka 8mo agolol, in fact, lmao
- Quarrelsome 8mo agohow is blaming X's ai product victim blaming? It was allowing its users to generate CSA images and X's first response(s) to the problem didn't appear to take the issue seriously.