Let me see if I have my pedo-billionaire glasses tinted correctly:
School shootings are caused by violent video games, teenage depression, and propping doors open. But promoting Nazi-fascist ideology while posting videos that dehumanize others? All good!
Moderation is completely fucked. Tried reporting shit and nothing ever happens unless one is a business tycoon, a celebrity at the level of Taylor Swift, or a government affording to formally file a complaint.
Wow. They don’t want to offend the manosphere that’s been making nazi jokes for ten years now. Ha ha, killing people in ovens, isn’t it funny? /s
Suckerberg is such a piece of shit.
Saving the
childrenprofits as usualTake the normalized cruelty and punching down that most are brainwashed into, and give the apes ideas, sickness called freedom.
People who use facebook are fucking nuts…
I’m going to agree but also point out that this notion that Facebook is somehow the coalescence point for the world’s jackasses is totally delusional.
The world is filled with morons, spend 5 minutes on any platform and you’ll see that.
There is nothing special about the younger generation and the apps they use, they are just as fucking ignorant as the Facebook users. I mean really, spend a few minutes on any social media app and you are bombarded by the pointless thoughts of every jackass who’s ever felt they had some magic idea they just need to share.
Man, we don’t need these graphic details in the headline. “AI-generated child abuse videos” is plenty of info.
Will no one think of the artificial children!?
This is not the meaning of my reply.
hint: is the baby roasting in oven video accompanied by a hasbara/description of “this is what hamas/palestinians do to Israeli babies”?
That would explain a lot.
When I still used Facebook would regularly report imitation sites and posts pretending to be national news outlets as impersonation and misinformation. They would never do anything about it. On Instagram I’ve reported openly hateful accounts calling for violence against groups, as their account name or bio and it doesn’t violate their TOS according to the responses I’m getting.
Damn, so much for “protecting the children” ig
Think of the childred has never meant what they want you to think it means
Unpopular opinion:
There are actions that are illegal. Recordings of those actions is illegal. Generated material counts as art. Also movies count as art. If those show an illegal action, it is not illegal. It is art. And should be protected, whether you like it or not. Same category as freedom of speech.
Well, maybe this stuff can be called art or free speech. However, the US constitution only guarantees that the government can’t persecute you for your expression. It says nothing about corporations or private individuals.
Facebook is not the government. Facebook can and should do something about hateful material on its platform. People aren’t calling for the those posting AI child torture images to be arrested - they just want Facebook to stop spreading their material.
If you decide to use AI to create child torture porn, you should at least be forced to publish it yourself. Why should Facebook help you?
Generally that’s still true. No one is being persecuted by the government over this. But Facebook is not the government, and is within their rights to remove objectionable or distasteful material.
Oh yes, it is within their rights to delete or allow such content. I just don’t understand why people are upset about this, as this is not the first case, this is happening. And we all should know by now that tech giants and billionaires are the last ones on this planet to have something resembling what I would call morals
Facebook doesn’t view it as objectionable or distasteful, never has; same guys been running it since its inception as a rate your classmates site. Nothing has changed with the platform, but I do appreciate more people talking about how shitty it is.
Give me a break with this free speech stuff, as if meta isn’t constantly deleting “legal” posts it doesn’t like for political or social reasons.
This has nothing to do with legality, it’s a question of morality. Meta isn’t the government and we can absolutely call them out for their immoral policies.
Absolutely. I was only talking about the legal aspect. The morality is absolutely questionable. Besides that, it is probably very distasteful as well. I just don’t see the point of being upset about something, that is neither happening the first time, nor was unexpected. It is their platform. They can do whatever they want. And we are free to not use it.
How does intent play into this?
Personal, unprofessional opinion: it plays a huge role, when it comes to a possible sentencing. Judges value factors such as intent and remorse, to adjust the sentences. However, it has to come to a case first and for that, something legally questionable has to happen. We are at the stage, where it is probably only morally questionable, but not legally.
If fake babies roasting in ovens was a bad thing, how come The Sims never got cancelled? 🤔
Couple shrimps on the barbie, eh?
SIGNIFICANTLY less realistic
People called DOOM realistic when it came out in 1993.
Allegedly they used Doom to desensitize soldiers?
Not Doom, no, but the military did (and probably still does) have an FPS video game it used for training.
If I was my current age back then I would have asked those people what drugs they were on to see demons IRL.
Where’s the video? Something tells me it’s not that realistic.
Also, this reminds me of the Bonsai Kitten panic at the turn of the century.
Only someone who regularly roasts babies on the barbie would know this 😉
Well how else are you supposed to cook fresh baby back ribs, not like it’s beef and you can get it anywhere. Acquiring an infant is a lot like donating a kidney, they always ask questions like “where did you get that?” “Who’s is that?” And “Why does it have a bite taken out of it?” then when they stop asking stupid questions they start shouting shit like “Put your hands up!” Upside to the latter is that I get roast pork alongside the baby back ribs, still though youd expect them to be a bit more grateful.
Found Jonathan Swift’s Lemmy account.
Is a video of a baby roasting in an oven even illegal? In general, are videos of violent crime illegal?
It is perfectly legal for Meta to remove content they find objectionable. WHICH content they find objectionable is what is concerning. Tits? Right out. Baby killing? Stay.
Try to make a video of Zuckerberg roasting and see how fast it will be taken down. Double standards much?
That would honestly be hilarious. Would he be trussed and basted?
Why are you deflecting to illegality? Meta removes tons of posts that are completely legal when they don’t fit into Meta’s political agenda
Legality (or religion etc etc) doesn’t guide my morality, decency, or basic difference between right and wrong.
This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.
Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.
It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
And where do you draw the line?
For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?
If you think that is not okay, would it make a difference to you if those in the material were not “realistic” (but still underage)?
I don’t think people are suggesting it should be illegal because they personally don’t want to see it, but rather because they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole.
drawn pornographic depcitions are generally legal and protected by the first amendment in the united states, even if the artist explicitly states the characters are minors.
Uh huh. Kinda sidestepped all my questions there. Where do you draw the line?
So, “drawn” kiddie porn is legal in the US. What about realistic AI generated kiddie porn? Is that protected by the first ammendment?
Do you think it should be?
Should you be allowed to distribute it, or do you feel its okay only if it stays in your personal collection?
The usual line drawn is photorealistic. Mostly because they don’t want that used as a defense for the real thing.
las I checked it was being decided by the courts because the laws aren’t very clear and neither is the first amendment. I think that it’s legality probably should be handled on a case by case basis until people understand the technology better because “realistic” is unfortunately too vague for me to feel comfortable wanting laws using (imagine a “realistic” oil painting getting outlawed).
video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people.
Disagree.
Loads of countries treat animations or computer generated images the same as photos.
No one is “defending pixels”. The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised, that authorities should not have to identify a specific victim, and that no legitimate artistic interest is served.
That said, the question of whether a child in an oven depicts child abuse according to the interpretation of the court is another question entirely, and I suspect that the answer is that it does not. Yes placing a child in an oven would be abusive, no an image of a child in an oven is not “child abuse material”.
Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business.
Preposterous.
I agree with the points you’re making, but I’d also like to put in my two cents as a victim of CSA and CSAM production. Not that it makes me an any sort of authority on it; I just wanted to share my opinion.
I don’t think fictional material should be considered the same as real footage. In real material there is a victim whereas (unless a person’s likeness is being used) there is none in fictional material. The reason CSAM is so horrible is because of the fact there is a victim, not because the material itself is disturbing (which it is, don’t get me wrong). I think that making them equal crimes is a huge disservice to the victims and downplays the crime that was committed against them, both socially and legally. In my experience a lot of people already oppose CSAM more so due to the material being graphic rather than the actual assault and continued violence against the victim by possessing/sharing footage of it.
I’m so mad that ai generated objectionable material is considered fine because it isnt illegal but someone draws a werewolf with its dick out and it gets removed for “promoting beastiality”
Source: involved in a lot of NSFW furry artist communities and constantly see peoples work being removed, flagged, or accounts lost for less.
Ah but you see, when something is hot it makes closeted conservatives uncomfortable.
You see the problem? To a conservative, nothing is more illegal than making them personally uncomfortable. And nobody is more inherently conservative than a billionaire media mogul.
i think the point isn’t that they should have to take it down but that they should take it down. not taking it down is a choice.
A lot of movies would be illegal, if that was the case.
Yeah tbh, they shouldn’t have to take that down. It’s the least of the bad shit they’re doing, and showing fake violence is just in poor taste.
It’s in their rule that if it’s too graphic then they might take it down. Emphasise on “might”, it’s very arbitrary, and they take down content for less.
Inb4 “it’s AI generated it’s okay” that mean AI generated child porn is okay as well.
I would argue AI generated child porn is better than the alternative, perhaps if it was legal it would give people an option that causes no harm
And where would the genAI get its training data from?
Couldn’t the ai make child porn by just combining the concepts of porn and children? Like there’s no training data of basketball players who are pigeons because they’re not pigeons, but the ais are still able to make basketball player pigeon hybrids that are cluttering tenor for some reason.
I’m pretty sure there have been basketball pigeons before AI images were a thing.
There’s no rule saying a pigeon can’t play basketball.
I mean, it would help satiate the pervert(who just wanna look), but it will not make the actual rapist(who want the action, for the lack of better word) to stop, and CSAM is provided by the latter. I don’t see why using genAI CSAM to satiate the former would solve much of the issue, the former will just watch adult porn if there’s no child porn. On the other hand it’s not like there’s a lack of loli hentai.
And the abundance of online pornography explains why people don’t rape people any more.
There are actually studies showing that better access to pornography correlates with fewer sexual assaults.
This one for example.
That has been legal far longer than Gen AI has existed, we don’t know how much of an effect it has on crime stats but I am sure there less rape now than there has ever been
If cutting 100% of crime is the only time doing something is worth it then no laws would exist
OK, how about another angle. If you make AI CSAM a thing, you’ve given basically anybody in possession of real CSAM an out. Also, presumably real CSAM is still illegal, so the difference between a pat on the back and serious prison time is whether some poor jury thinks the 8 year old rape victim in the video looks real enough.
Get out of here with this shit. It’s gross.
I guess that’s a good argument about why it should be mandatory that all AI generated images should have some kind of watermarking to make them identifiable
No but it’s probably against their ToS so I don’t know why an AI generated gore video gets a pass.
The only footage that’s illegal from what I understand are sexual assault videos (including obviously csam) and snuff films (which are different because they are specifically made for distribution and generating revenue compared to “accidental” gore films)
Depends where you are as well and this is mostly from memory.
What? How? I mean… there are quite a lot of violent and graphic movies out there. So this should not be illegal. However, it has to be made sure that those videos cannot be seen by non-adults.
children watched beheading videos all the time and tutned out fine, why would this slop be any different?
Well, I know what you are trying to say, you just put it in a very extreme way. This is like saying that there are smokers who are 90yo, so it must be not affecting your health. A skewed view, because you don’t see the affected people, because they are six feet under. Same with traumatized people, who choose suicide because of all their experiences.
A bit of survivorship bias never hurt anyone that survived
Oh right, that was the term. Thanks for reminding me 😄
Holy shit y’all love censorship. Puritan shit here but it’s okay cause you hate ai 🤣.
