Kids are making deepfakes of each other, and laws aren’t keeping up
-
Welp, if I had kids they would have one of those scramble suits like in a scanner darkly.
It would of course be their choice to wear them but Id definitely look for ways to limit their time in areas with cameras present.
That's just called the outside now. Assume you are on camera at all times the moment you step out the front door. To be safe in the surveillance we live in today, best act as though you are being recorded in your own home as well.
-
ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse
And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?
This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.
It is not abnormal to see different punishment for people under the age of 18.
Good education about sex and what sexual assault does with their victims (same with guns, drugs including alcohol etc).You can still course correct the behaviour of a 13 year old. There is also a difference between generating the porn and abusing it by sharing it etc.
The girls should be helped and the boys should be punished, but mainly their behaviour needs to be correcte
-
Cheers for the explanation, had no idea that's how it works.
So it's even worse than @[email protected] thinks, the person creating the deep fake has to have access to CP then if they want to deepfake it!
You can probably do it with adult material and replace those faces. It will most likely work on models specific trained like the person you selected.
People have also put dots on people's clothing to trick the brain into thinking their are naked, you can probably fill those dots in with the correct body parts if you have a good enough model.
-
Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
probably because there's a rapist in the white house.
-
I'd rather these laws be against abusing and exploiting child, as well as against ruining their lives. Not only that would be more helpful, it would also work in this case, since actual likeness are involved.
Alas, whether there's a law against that specific use case or not, it is somewhat difficult to police what people do in their home, without a third party whistleblower. Making more, impossible to apply laws for this specific case does not seem that useful.
There is also a difference between somebody harassing somebody with nude pictures (either real or not) than somebody jerking off to them at home. It does become a problem when an adult masturbated to pictures of children, but children to children. Let's be honest, they will do it anyway.
-
Welp, if I had kids they would have one of those scramble suits like in a scanner darkly.
It would of course be their choice to wear them but Id definitely look for ways to limit their time in areas with cameras present.
That's what muslims do with niqabs.
-
Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?
No, but the harm certainly is not the same as CSAM and it should not be treated the same.
- it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
- The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.
as far as I know there is no good evidence that this is the case and is a big controversy in the topic of fake child porn, i.e. whether it leads to more child abuse (encouraging paedophiles) or less (gives them a safe outlet) or no change.
your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.
If someone fantasises about me without my consent I do not give a shit, and I don't think there's any justification for it. I would give a shit if it affected me somehow (this is your first bullet point, but for a different situation, to be clear) but that's different.
Hm. I wasn’t expecting the pro-child porn argument. All I can say is that’s absolutely legally and morally CSAM, and you’re fuckin nasty. Oof. Not really gonna bother with the rest because, well, yikes.
-
God I'm glad I'm not a kid now. I never would have survived.
In my case, other kids would not have survived trying to pull off shit like this. So yeah, I'm also glad I'm not a kid anymore.
-
ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse
And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?
This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Parents are responsible for their kids. The punishment, with the full force of the law (and maybe something extra for good measure), should fall upon the parents, since they should have made sure their kids knew how despicable and illegal doing this is.
Yeah, I agree, we shouldn't ruin the boys life, we should ruins his whole family to many times the extent something like this ruins a teen girl's life.
-
Well, US laws are all bullshit anyway, so makes sense
Normally yeah, but why would you want to draw sexual pictures of children?
-
Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls?
Can you please use words by their meaning?
Also I'll have to be blunt, but - every human has their own sexuality, with their own level of "drive", so to say, and their dreams.
And it's absolutely normal to dream of other people. Including sexually. Including those who don't like you. Not only men do that, too. There are no thought crimes.
So talking about that being easier or harder you are not making any argument at all.
However. As I said elsewhere, the actions that really harm people should be classified legally and addressed. Like sharing such stuff. But not as making child pornography because it's not, and not like sexual exploitation because it's not.
It's just that your few posts I've seen in this thread seem to say that certain kinds of thought should be illegal, and that's absolute bullshit. And laws shouldn't be made based on such emotions.
wrote last edited by [email protected]"thought crime"? And you have the balls to talk about using words "by their meaning"?This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone's life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim.
So, can you please use words by their meaning?Edit: I jumped the gun when I read "thought crime", effectively disregarding the context. As such, I'm scratching the parts of my comment that don't apply, and leaving the ones that do apply (not necessarily to the post I was replying to, but to the whole thread).
-
I did say equitable punishment. Equivalent. Whatever.
A written apology is a cop-out for the damage this behaviour leaves behind.
Something tells me you don't have teenage daughters.
No kids. That's why I say others should write the punishments. A written apology wasn't meant as the only punishment. It was in addition to community service and other stipulations.
-
"thought crime"? And you have the balls to talk about using words "by their meaning"?This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone's life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim.
So, can you please use words by their meaning?Edit: I jumped the gun when I read "thought crime", effectively disregarding the context. As such, I'm scratching the parts of my comment that don't apply, and leaving the ones that do apply (not necessarily to the post I was replying to, but to the whole thread).
wrote last edited by [email protected]The author of those comments wrote a few times what in their opinion happens in the heads of others and how that should be prevented or something.
Can you please stop interpreting my words exactly the way you like? That's not worth a gram of horse shit.
-
Normally yeah, but why would you want to draw sexual pictures of children?
Suppose I'm a teenager attracted to people my age. Or suppose I'm medically a pedophile, which is not a crime, and then I would need that.
In any case, for legal and moral purposes "why would you want" should be answered only with "not your concern, go eat shit and die".
-
ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse
And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?
This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.
Fake pictures do not ruin your life… sorry…
Our puritanical / 100% sex culture is the problem, not fake pictures…
-
For example, Louisiana mandates a minimum five-year jail sentence no matter the age of the perpetrator.
That's just on it's face stupid. A thirteen year old boy is absolutely gonna wanna see girls in his age group naked. That's not pedophilia. It's wanting to see the girls he fantasizes about at school every day. Source: I was a thirteen year old boy.
It shouldn't be treated the same as when an adult man generates it; there should be nuance. I'm not saying it's ok for a thirteen year old to generate said content: I'm saying tailor the punishment to fit the reality of the differences in motivations. Leave it to Louisiana to once again use a cudgel rather than sense.
I'm so glad I went through puberty at a time when this kind of shit wasn't available. The thirteen year old version of me would absolutely have got myself in a lot of trouble. And depending on what state I was in, seventeen year old me could have ended listed as a sex predetor for sending dick pics to my gf cause I produced child pornography. God, some states have stupid laws.
In general, even up here in woke-ville, punishments have gotten a lot more strict for kids. There’s a lot more involvement of police, courts, jail. As a parent it causes me a lot of anxiety - whatever happened to school being a “sandbox” where a kid can make mistakes without adult consequences, without ruining their lives? Did that ever exist?
-
Parents are responsible for their kids. The punishment, with the full force of the law (and maybe something extra for good measure), should fall upon the parents, since they should have made sure their kids knew how despicable and illegal doing this is.
Yeah, I agree, we shouldn't ruin the boys life, we should ruins his whole family to many times the extent something like this ruins a teen girl's life.
Yeah, I agree, we shouldn’t ruin the boys life, we should ruins his whole family to many times the extent something like this ruins a teen girl’s life.
You're a fucking asshole. This isn't like prosecuting parents who let a school shooter have access to guns. The interenet is everywhere. Parents are responsible for bringing up their children to be socially responsible. A thirteen year old kid is anything but responsible (I mean their mentality / maturity, I'm not giving them a pass).
Go hang out with conservatives who want more policing. Over here, we'll talk about social programs you fucking prick.
-
Cheers for the explanation, had no idea that's how it works.
So it's even worse than @[email protected] thinks, the person creating the deep fake has to have access to CP then if they want to deepfake it!
There are adults with bodies that resemble underage people that could be used to train models. Kitty Yung has a body that would qualify. You don't necessarily need to use illegal material to train to get illegal output.
-
That's just called the outside now. Assume you are on camera at all times the moment you step out the front door. To be safe in the surveillance we live in today, best act as though you are being recorded in your own home as well.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You can make areas safe from cameras. No, you cant make everywhere camera free but you can minimize your time in those areas. Im not saying its a good system it would just be adjusting to the times.
If the floor was lava and all that...
-
That's what muslims do with niqabs.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Don't trivialize the scramble suit, ok
