Bluesky Deletes AI Protest Video of Trump Sucking Musk's Toes, Calls It 'Non-Consensual Explicit Material'
-
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.
-
Nobody's going to mistake that stick figure for the real me, though.
-
so is that the key differentiating issue here? whether someone can mistake it for a real photo?
what if I'm a really talented artist and make a drawing of you posing in a sexually suggestive way. Should that be criminalized?
if I put a watermark "AI generated" in the AI porn, does that make it OK?
-
I think the important point in this case is not that the content is acceptable, but that it is newsworthy.
If somebody made the video and posted it, I could see it being permanently taken down. And it was at first, per the letter of their policy.
But the fact that government employees had it playing on government property inside government facilities, to protest some extreme and historical stuff going on, means it should be recorded for the public and for history.
I look at it much the same way as the photos of upside down American flags that various government employees put up. Just posting an upside down flag and saying how America is wrong is an opinion like any other that would get lost in the noise. But when it’s people inside the government intending it as a sign of distress, very much more newsworthy and important to record.
-
On Lemmy??? Blasphemy!
-
I guess "obviously Elon Musk would never go for a guy like me" would be the wrong answer
-
I made account on bluesky to post drawings and no seeing AI slop. I hate Elon Musk, but I don't consider seeing AI generated lemon party as funny thing. It's one of the reason why I don't use Twitter anymore.
-
That sounds fair, though I could still see an argument to be made for not always protecting the rich fucks the same way. Either way, we know that anything that comes out that's too incriminating would be declared AI-generated anyway, lol
Though mentioning the utopia... having porn of anyone anywhere might be some people's idea of a utopia! Haha
-
In case of Trump it's orange party
-
Yep, elitism is a huge problem. It's usually the best for newcomers to refer them to only certain subsections of the wider community (for example Linux Mint forums) who you know to be very friendly and humane. Many other places are a cesspit, and don't you dare criticize something technical. You'll get at least 30% answers trying to shut you up.
<rant>
In terms of the wider Fediverse, people seem unable to understand how many people won't even know you can use third-party software with certain services so not finding a native, official "Lemmy" app in the app store is a dealbreaker for them. Hell, our digital education and modern mobile devices are so bad & manipulative at times people don't even know that "gmail" and "email" are the same… but of course that'll be blamed on literally everyone else. Can't be that that FOSS Bros are out of touch or something. Contributing to a social & economical solution is hard, let's go back to our code cave.
</rant>
