• Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think it’s best that it be illegal so that we can at least have a reactive response to the problem. If someone abuses someone else by creating simulated pornography (by any means), we should have a crime to charge them with.

    You can’t target the technology, or stop people from using AI to do perverted things, but if they get caught, we should at least respond to the problem.

    I don’t know what a proactive response to this issue looks like. Maybe better public education and a culture that encourages more respect for others?

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think it’s best that it be illegal so that we can at least have a reactive response to the problem. If someone abuses someone else by creating simulated pornography (by any means), we should have a crime to charge them with.

      So… Where do you draw the line exactly? Does this include classic photo manipulation too? Written stories (fanfic)? Sketching / doodling of some nude figure with a name pointed towards it? Dirty thoughts that someone has about someone else? I find this response highly questionable and authoritarian. Calling it abuse is also really trivializing actual abuse, which I, as an abuse victim, find pretty apprehensive. If I could swap what was done to me with someone making porn of “me” and getting their rocks off of that then I’d gladly make that exchange.

    • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I feel I was misconstrued. 1. a law will probably happen, and 2. it will do fuck all because the tool chain and posting/sharing process are going to be completely anonymous.

      Yeah, in specific cases where you can determine deepfake revenge porn of Person A was posted by Person B who had an axe to grind, you might get a prosecution. I just don’t think the dudes making porn on their Nvidia GPUs of Gal Godot f*ckin Boba Fett are ever gonna get caught, and the celebrity cat will stay forever out of the bag.

    • AnAnonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Making things illegal doesn’t solve anything in the WWW, principally cos there isn’t a world’s jurisdiction and cos illegality doesn’t stop criminals, see what happened to the war on drugs… just a big failure.

      Maybe attacking the problem from the root like educating people to avoid porn at all could be successful at some point but anyway this it’s definitely another problem of the hiperconsumist capitalist scheme.

      Edit: I believe if it were illegal even the price of it will go up so it will be a bigger business at the end of the day.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Making things illegal absolutely stops criminals. It doesn’t stop all criminals, but that’s never been the expectation. If you want to dismiss laws on the basis of not being 100% effective, there’s not a single law you support.

        • blargerer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah… I don’t think there is actually good proof that something being illegal actually stops a meaningful number of things on its own. There are plenty of studies that people do things that are socially frowned upon less IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE (say littering for example), but very weak evidence it stops such activity in any meaningful way in private settings. Likewise there is plenty of evidence that other forms of punishment (which is to say, no immediate social stigma) actually don’t really correlate with reduced activity at all.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I’m not under any obligation to prove it to you until you supply the “evidence” you’re mentioning. In the domain of rhetoric, “laws don’t dissuade criminals” people sounds dumb as fuck and goes against the way we’ve run societies for thousands of years.

            I’ve witnessed laws – which frequently go hand in hand with your “socially frowned upon” acts – change peoples behaviour, from drink driving to your own littering example.

            Every crime is a calculation of risk and reward. The internet makes things lower risk, but there are absolutely laws that work. They’re why the web isn’t riddled with child pornography and why online drug marketplaces have to exist behind 10 layers of bullshit.

            You’re advocating that the risk should be nonexistent and that victims have no avenues for justice.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217455/

              The Road Safety Act had a dramatic impact on Britain’s drivers. In the three months after it took effect, traffic fatalities dropped 23 percent in Britain. In the first year of the act, the percentage of drivers killed who were legally drunk dropped from 27 percent to 17 percent.

              These general trends mask several specific changes in British drinking practices. Research showed that the act did not significantly change the amount people in Britain drank. Rather, the act seems to have affected a very narrow slice of behavior—the custom of driving to and from pubs, especially on weekend nights. After the act took effect, many regular customers took to walking to pubs. Pub owners raised a considerable outcry, and a number of less conveniently located pubs closed.

              Unfortunately, the successes of the act were relatively short-lived. Within a few years, traffic fatalities again began to climb. By 1973 the percentage of drivers killed who were drunk was back to its pre-1967 level. By 1975, for reasons still unknown, this percentage had risen to 36 percent, considerably above what it was before the act.

              Research has also shown that efforts to impose tougher penalties in America have not had much effect. In part, this seems to be caused by people’s belief that “it can’t happen to me.” “After all,” Reed observes, “those who currently drive drunk are not deterred by the small risk of a very severe penalty—accidental death.”

              People gonna people.

      • ji59@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I believe it it were illegal, it wouldn’t be so popular and people would have to hide it more. Illegality would bring more barriers to use it and since people are lazy less poeple would be interested.

        But personally I think the solution is for people to stop being so sensitive to nudity. If someone would post naked pictures of me I wouldn’t be happy, but either devastated. And if it were AI generated I could simply avoid it by saying that ain’t me.

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If someone would post naked pictures of me I wouldn’t be happy, but either devastated. And if it were AI generated I could simply avoid it by saying that ain’t me.

          How to tell everyone you are male, without saying it directly.

        • celeste@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I agree that part of a way to deal with it socially is to not, like, ruin peoples lives when there are nude or pornographic images of them out there. When you lose your job because your ex posted a sex tape with you online and attached your name, and now you’re struggling to keep your house - that’s a devastating consequence, regardless of how someone personally feels about porn of them being online.

          I think we should all be like “it could even just be AI” to our more conservative acquaintances when they’re worked up because someone posted gay porn of a local teacher in their group chat.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Trying to educate people to avoid all porn sounds even less likely to be successful than trying to ban things on the internet, because you cant simply teach people to not get horny in response to certain visual stimuli, and trying to make people averse to depictions of anything sexual will just lead to a repressed society that still consumes porn but is even more embarrassed to talk about it, which causes more harm than good and still doesnt solve the problem at hand. Its also a misunderstanding of the issue anyway, because the problem isnt porn as a general concept, or even the use of AI to create it, but the creation of some that depicts real people against the wishes of those people, and secondarily the possibility that it could be used to make other people believe the event actually happened due to the ability to create photorealistic images and video.

        Would banning it make it go away? No, of course not, but it would make it a bit riskier to make and spread, and that would reduce the number that do it. We already have certain kinds of porn banned due to requiring abuse to create, like CSAM, and while that certainly hasnt made it disappear, its not something one encounters regularly either. An argument of “we shouldnt ban this because bans dont work on the internet” would apply equally to our ban on that material too after all.