Bluesky Deletes AI Protest Video of Trump Sucking Musk's Toes, Calls It 'Non-Consensual Explicit Material'
-
Some of them will actively advocate for user-unfriendliness to keep out the noobs which... I mean the number of psy-ops in the community has to be non-zero.
-
This is what I was thinking about myself. Because we're cool with political caricatures, right?
I guess the problem is that nobody wants to feature in non-consensual AI porn. I mean if you'd want to draw me getting shafted by Musk, that'd be weird, but a highly realistic video of the same event, that would be hard to explain to the missus.
-
Correct. this is indeed the correct decision to remove the thing.
BUT i have a feeling that this quick reaction does not compare to the speed of decision for normal people, especially women who get this kind of stuff made about them.Also, note that I'm not saying it was bad to make the video, or have it run in public on hacked screens.
That is perfectly fine political commentary, by means of civil disobedience.Just that Bluesky is correct in it's action to remove it from their service.
-
I guess I don't really consider AnCaps to be Anarchists because Anarchy is generally leftist philosophy. Traditional anarchy is like small government socialism: empowered local unions and city governments.
-
It is true that fascism cannot be beat peacefully, but we should never want them to suffer
This is true. We should rapidly give them a lead injection, rather than have them suffer.
-
Anarchism is never an answer
This isn't anarchism, as described. Anarchism, like actual anarchism, is the only likely solution, imo. No gods, no masters, no idols.
-
I agree. I've thought about it a lot and I still don't have any sympathy for them after the harm they've caused. I see why it's news worthy enough they might reverse it, and why it would be political speech.
But also I think they made the right choice to take it down. If blsky wants to be the better platform, it needs to be better. And not having an exception for this is the right thing.
-
In this case, it's clearly a form of speech and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.
I also don't understand such a strong reaction to non-consensual AI porn. I mean, I don't think it's in good taste but I also don't see why it warrants such a strong reaction. It's not real.
-
In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can't be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.
For politicians, I would default to "literally everything is protected free speech", with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
"I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia" is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted. -
Protected from government censorship. Companies have strong protections allowing for controlling the speech on their platforms.
And if you asked Roberts he'd probably say since companies are people, as long as it's used to protect conservatives they have protection for controlling their platforms speech as a 1st amendment right.
-
People against ancaps usually only disagree with them in the way institutions are being dismantled.
In any case looking through the eyes of an ancap you might get valuable insights, and this thought should be obvious for an intelligent person of any school in regards to any other.
-
You know what's funny about Stalinism that everyone forgets about?
Its structures were similar to what you describe on the lower level. Districts and factories and such all had their councils (soviet means council), from which representatives were elected to councils of the upper level. They still were pretty despotic most of that period, because crowd rule leads to despotism.
Democracy shouldn't be made too small and too unavoidable. In some sense an imagined hillbilly village is democratic with that problem.
Point being that this didn't look much like some people imagine anarchy.
Anyway, ancaps are not particularly attached to the name, and themselves prefer the words "voluntarism" and "agorism" and a few others. But it's one of the most common names for the ideology.
-
Solution involves answers where to get energy to dig in the gods, masters and idols. They are well-armed and those seeking solutions are not.
-
but we should never want them to suffer
No, we should, actually. It's what they want for others and is the only way they might come to an understanding with what's wrong with them.
Sympathy for the fascists is almost equal to support of them afaic
-
No. I don’t
-
This guy censored the POTUS (Granted it was Trump)
-
I'm not here to discuss how we need to be ethical in response to a fascist takeover. So we gotta play by the rules but they don't?
-
not claiming private organizations don't have to the right to regulate speech on their platforms. was responding to statement
I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
which to me implies some sort of state censorship on this type of material
Really, I just wanted to understand the rationale behind the desire to ban this type of material.
On the topic of Judge Roberts, on a similar although different legal issue
He wrote the Court’s opinion in United States v. Stevens (2010), invalidating a federal law that criminalized the creation or dissemination of images of animal cruelty. The government had argued that such images should be a new unprotected category of speech akin to child pornography. Roberts emphatically rejected that proposition, writing that the Court does not have “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.” Roberts also wrote the Court’s opinion in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), ruling that the First Amendment prohibited the imposition of civil liability against the Westboro Baptist Church for their highly offensive picketing near the funeral of a slain serviceman.
In oft-cited language, Roberts wrote:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
If Judge Roberts were to be consistent, and I make no such claims that he will ever be consistent, I believe he would likewise not support banning fake AI porn.
-
I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power
I have a hard time imagining a reasonable person being mad at satire of a politician. Like maybe it's a cultural divide and I'm not American so I don't view politics as team sports and my country has a stronger history of political satire than the often pathetically meek American political cartoons, but you can make a satirical deepfake of the politicians I voted in last election if you want.
If the deepfake was not obviously related to current political events or wasn't obviously fake, the point could be arguable at least as a matter of good taste. As it stands, the satire is obvious, harmless, and topical. It is therefore terrifying that censoring it is even a question. How far the concept of free speech has fallen that it refers to Seig Heiling but a 2s gif of Trump sucking some toes apparently crosses a line.
-
Amazed people saying it is correct decision! This is two public figures and doing art or any form of expression material with their image should be protected under freedom of speech.
