this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
287 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
18 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You don't. Scissors and Polaroid and Playboy have been around for decades. If you wanted to see your classmates face on a nude and photocopy it, you could.
Now it's just easier and more believable. But it's not any more stoppable.
Tbf the ease of creating multiple realistic images quickly along with the ability to rapidly share those images is a bit different than cut ‘n paste a completely unmatched head and torso.
The point is the same. Not your body just your head.
It was harder for minors to get porn back then.
I grew up "back then" (when VHS was new technology) and it really wasn't very hard to get some sort of porn.
Even as a minor? I grew up way later than that and the only way we'd get porn before the internet really kicked off was to get lucky and find an old mag in a bush.
I grew up with internet porn, but it was also during the transition so I had magazines as a minor also. It was just as easy to have some, the only difference now is the volume that's easy to access. If people had physical porn, it had to be physically hidden, and could then be physically found. And if you're always buying more, it gets harder and harder to both hide it and keep track of what you have so that you'll notice some missing.
Though my first memories of porn are from going to a corner store style store in a mall and just looking through the porn magazines they had on display. A lot of the employees running the stores didn't give a shit. Maybe they wouldn't have sold them to me, but they either didn't even notice or just didn't say anything when I was looking at porn before I even knew about jerking off.
Yup. Neighbour's kid's dad kept his Hustler stash in their garden shed in a crate behind the lawn mower.
Yh, I don't like that my generation was the first to be exposed to freely available and copious amounts of porn. But on the flip side the internet is sooooooo useful and I would not endorse any government saying what should or shouldn't be on the internet, the internet should be free and censorship would be a very slippery slope.
It's a tough moral debate and I'm really not sure what the answer is.
In general, I'm against "censorship." There's also no reason why we should allow non consensual porn to be circulated. Abolishing online porn entirely would instantly solve the question of "revenge porn" and whether consent was obtained.
There's a certain amount of logic to the idea that you should allow bad people to feel free to express themselves so they can be identified, but I don't think that fully holds up with porn and can lead to women being harmed. Girls who are 18-22 aren't in a position to fully resist the temptation being offered by a lot of sex work possibilities. They haven't learned about money yet and getting offered "a lot" in the short term is going to be too hard for them to weigh against selling out their future at that age. For every "empowered sex worker" out there who makes a good living and really wants to be in that work, there are many more who were exploited or got into it because of mental illness or trauma. Commodification of sex is ultimately a feature of the capitalist system.
Then wtf is the point of saying "No OnE cOuLd HaVe SeEn ThIs CoMiNg"
woosh?
There might be a misunderstanding. I understand the original post is trying to say that it was obvious problems like this will occur with the introduction of AI generated images but it also implies an easy or obvious solution. But there isn't one, so what is the point of pointing this out.
I don't read it as saying that there may be a simple solution? And I don't know how to attack the problem other that maybe a posable threat of distribution of material that could be classed as CSAM
Maybe an analogy would help clear this whole thread up. Let's say you wake up tomorrow and you see headlines of scientists discovering a meteor that will hit earth in the next 48 hours. Then a couple of days later you read a meteor hit earth causing X deaths and Y billions of dollars in damages. Then you go to the comment section and read "There is absolutely no way anyone could have possibly seen this coming." So then you're thinking to yourself does this comment seem a bit weird or am I just dumb for missing something. So you ask "could this have been prevented somehow" (subtext you don't really see anything obvious) but then you get confirmation it could not have been prevented so now you're just like "wait then wtf was the original comment saying".
And that is how I feel right now lmao.
It's sarcasm. "No one could have seen this coming" is calling out the article for being obvious. More like an article about how the meteor has caused other issues: "NYC caught-off guard by unprecedented tsunami shortly after a meteor hit the Atlantic Ocean" "Miami officials launch study to explain recent floods after similar events plague cities across the coast"
Clicks