3 ms·

If 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 migh

If 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
  Then 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.)
  - Manuel_D 9mo ago
    > Then they'll try to convince the authorities that the image is of them, and presumably mostly fail although in some cases they may succeed. How will the government determine which images fail or succeed this claim?
    - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
      Presumably the same way they investigate revenge porn complaints today? I don't mean to be obtuse, I understand your questions are rhetorical, but I don't see what it is you're gesturing towards.
      - Manuel_D 9mo ago
        In the case of revenge porn, there's an image of a real person. By contrast, fictional content doesn't affect actually show a real person, so any attempt to prohibit fictional revenge porn must target images that merely look similar to a person. What degree of similarity is required to qualify? That dimension isn't a factor in real revenge porn.
        SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
        Perhaps you're missing the context? In the incidents which led to this proposal, no judgment of similarity was necessary, the sexualized images were posted in the replies to non-sexualized images of the same person. This isn't really a novel dimension in the first place, I don't think. It's just rarely an issue in practice, because most people who post these images do so to shame and embarrass the depicted person. No doubt there will be edge cases where a sexualized image of consenting person A gets taken down because they look similar to non-consenting person B - but is that really a big problem?
        Manuel_D 9mo ago
        The law doesn't stipulate that the offending images have to be posted with the intent to shame or embarrass, nor that the images have to be sent directly to the person that's supposed to be depicted in the image. If that's the justification, then the legislators ought to have put wording to that effect into the law.
        SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
        What law are you referring to? The amendment described in the source article has not yet been written.

Manuel_D 9mo 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 9mo ago
Then 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.)
- Manuel_D 9mo ago
  > Then they'll try to convince the authorities that the image is of them, and presumably mostly fail although in some cases they may succeed. How will the government determine which images fail or succeed this claim?
  - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
    Presumably the same way they investigate revenge porn complaints today? I don't mean to be obtuse, I understand your questions are rhetorical, but I don't see what it is you're gesturing towards.
    - Manuel_D 9mo ago
      In the case of revenge porn, there's an image of a real person. By contrast, fictional content doesn't affect actually show a real person, so any attempt to prohibit fictional revenge porn must target images that merely look similar to a person. What degree of similarity is required to qualify? That dimension isn't a factor in real revenge porn.
      - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
        Perhaps you're missing the context? In the incidents which led to this proposal, no judgment of similarity was necessary, the sexualized images were posted in the replies to non-sexualized images of the same person. This isn't really a novel dimension in the first place, I don't think. It's just rarely an issue in practice, because most people who post these images do so to shame and embarrass the depicted person. No doubt there will be edge cases where a sexualized image of consenting person A gets taken down because they look similar to non-consenting person B - but is that really a big problem?
        Manuel_D 9mo ago
        The law doesn't stipulate that the offending images have to be posted with the intent to shame or embarrass, nor that the images have to be sent directly to the person that's supposed to be depicted in the image. If that's the justification, then the legislators ought to have put wording to that effect into the law.
        SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
        What law are you referring to? The amendment described in the source article has not yet been written.