217
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
217 points (99.1% liked)
News
23266 readers
3022 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, that part isn't really at issue here. It's fundamentally the same technique that's been used since the 90's, famously on To Catch a Predator. Seemingly, the "entrapment" angle has been settled.
But now they can argue that they aren’t sexually attracted to children, just AI artwork, which is technically not an image of a child. And unless I missed it, they were not trying to meet the girl.
The problem is going to be that images that aren’t real of a crime aren’t a crime. Of the opposite was true, images of murder would be illegal. Can’t just cherry pick.
If I draw a stick figure and label it “naked girl,” does it become child porn? What if I’m a really good artist?
When the "AI artwork" is made for the specific purpose of representing underage children and is indistinguishable from the real thing, that argument is going to get flattened pretty quickly.
Pretty easy to present a couple pages to a jury of kids pictures (not nude) and say "tell us which ones were AI".
Well that’s not how the law works. A jury wouldn’t decide that. They don’t get to say “close enough for fake to be real” because real has a name and fake doesn’t have a name.
The crime is possessing a photo of a thing that happened. A real person was abused. The fake image, like a realistic painting of a fictional event, does not actually involve a person getting hurt.
Let me set up a situation: A person creates a very realistic, but fake, video. They first have the character walk onto the screen in a wireframe. Then, the animation begins to build on texture and now we have a person on a green background. They look real, but we know for sure it’s not real. Then the background enters in the same way. Now the video appears to be real, but… we know it’s not. Just like movie, those are just special effects even if it looks pretty believable.
The crime is a documented event of someone being hurt. If there was a video of a person actually killing a person, that video could be considered evidence of a crime. But if that event was staged as part of a video intended as entertainment, there is no crime and that video isn’t real.
Of course, the topic of child abuse is difficult to talk about. One may make the statement that fake images lead people to the real thing, and that would encourage people to do bad things. Well, they said the same thing about video games—so we would obviously need to apply the same laws to them. Movies and books about crimes could also encourage people to commit crimes, so those need to be banned entirely, and my huge collection of horror movies could put me in jail for life.
The line becomes impossible to draw.
And if that video built to feature a child performing fellario, it would still be child pornography
No, the voiceover will say in an adult voice “I am over 18, I have a fictional disease that makes me look like a younger.”
And now it’s not a child, because “youth” is subjective at this point.
There is very legal real commercial porn of adults engaging in “age play” and “incest,” both which are illegal in reality. Some of those videos would make you think, “how are they actually 18?!”
On the flip side, in most US jurisdictions, incest is illegal and an actual video of two adults engaging in that would be evidence of a crime and they could be prosecuted.
In conclusion (haha), real is illegal and fiction is not.
Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not advocating for specific things to be LEGAL, just arguing that a law making something that is FICTION illegal could be difficult to prove in many circumstances, and lead to many false accusations.
Ok, so when the police use a young-appearing officer to nail somebody who is looking to hook up with what is listed as a 14yo... that's just going to get dropped? Because it seems that's a tactic that's been used often enough and the actual age of the officer matters less than the intent of the perp to engage in sex with a minor.
The argument "I just thought we were role-playing" isn't significantly different from "I totally know this '14yo giving a BJ to old man.mp4' was AI generated and that's just my fetish, not real kids"
Well, that’s somewhat different, and you have a very good example.
They were TOLD the person was underage, and they continued. They had no reason to think that the images were fictional. They were purposefully trying to find REAL images—a crime to possess, distribute, and create.
That is a situation where I would think some kind of legal action could be warranted because a person is asked: “do you want illegal content?” And even though that content is not real, they still engaged.
When you hear those stings where adults are busted trying to meet up with a kid but out pops the cops, that was the adults thinking a REAL thing was going to happen. Obviously the punishment for that is less than if they got caught for doing it, because one is solicitation and one is abuse. However they both get you on a list.
To elaborate, two adults arrange a role play scenario where one adult would meet another adult pretending to be a child where real ages are known, but fictional ages are “illegal.” Thats not a crime. If “fiction” was a crime, then anyone who likes to be called “daddy,” or “mommy” as kinky role play would be in jail because incest is illegal. All those ridiculous “step bro, nooo!” videos would be illegal too!
Finally, all this comes down to intention. Just like murder vs manslaughter. If someone goes to a website to get FICTIONAL content, that’s not a crime. But if they truly think they are getting the real thing, then lines begin to blur and legality could be in question.
I believe that cartoon images depicting sex of underage kids is still illegal. At least in the US.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but seems like I remember this from a news article a while back. Maybe it was just a specific state.
I am not going to Google that one though to find out though.
https://cellebrite.com/en/ai-and-csam-a-look-at-real-cases/
Best I could find about this.
Imo as long as the ai was not trained on actual CSAM and the product is not depicting real people, then it shouldn't be illegal as it is not hurting anyone which is why we have laws against CSAM in the first place.
What if it normalises CSAM and some people don't discerne between real and AI?
And what if video games, movies, and books normalize killing? There is no evidence to show that it does or that it will.
We have porn games, but we don't have CP games. There's a line between violence and SA with minors.
Edit: oh wait, Japan might be an example 🙃 and yeah, they got issues.
While I'm not going to have this specific topic in my search history, sexually violent porn very likely does nothing to encourage actual sexual violence. Most studies show that it has no effect on sexual violence at all, some show it decreases it, and only a few studies show it increases it (and those ones tend to have smarter people than me saying they are flawed).
While media can have psychological effects, normalizing extreme behavior doesn't seem to be one of them. That said, I wouldn't trust an ai bro or their ai to handle something like that. At best they don't know what goes into their training sets, at worst they would probably deliberately include csam.
I think the bar is whether it could be reasonably mistaken for a real child. Which makes quite a lot of disgusting content legal.
I also find it to be repugnant, but if the images are not based on real people and the ai was not trained on real csam(good luck proving this either way), then it shouldn't be illegal. The laws were made to protect kids, and drawings of purly fictional characters are not hurting the kids.
Pretty much every law ever made in the history of humanity that was ostensibly to protect children is actually about control of the population.
This is just plain wrong.
Obviously, there are loads of laws and very good legislation that does indeed protect children.
Just one example: child labour laws.
I suspect that what you really mean is that whenever a politician says whatever police powers are required to protect children, they really just want more power to violate privacy to make it easier to prosecute various crimes.
Exception that proves the rule.
What about child support paid by parents who are separated?
What about welfare laws ensuring a minimum standard of care for children?
What about social security for families?
What about minimum age of consent?
What about this one particular gain of sand I found that's blue? Look, here's another and another. Clearly, all sand is blue and beaches are blue. Don't argue, or I'll show you the 6 grains of sand I found.
What a silly thing to say.
You've made an assertion, I've provided examples to the contrary, and the best you've got is a grain of sand metaphor?
Obviously, it depends how many laws purported to protect children actually do. The examples I've provided form the bedrock of the modern family structure. They're not insignificant grains of sand.
I'm not going to do a survey of every law in human history to satisfy your autistic contrarianism. I'm just gonna make fun of you.
You can make fun if me all you like. This far you're not doing very well.
You don't need to survey every law in human history, you just need to support your assertion, which you seem completely unable to do.
We all say silly things from time to time. Obviously you've just parroted something you heard somewhere else and didn't really think it through. Most people can just own their mistakes. Only idiots double down, and cowards start ranting about sand.
Or, I can recognize when it's not worth it to get involved with a sealion.
Imagine being so fragile you have to fool yourself that you're right about everything and all arguments to the contrary are bad faith. Pathetic.
Lol
Yeah don’t Google it hahaha
It what makes it a child? There’s some creepy anime girls who definitely fall into that questionable category. And if I label a stick figure with an age… does that make it illegal? What about an ai image with bubble text that says “I’m not real. I’m 18, I have a magical curse on me etc etc” now it’s fiction?
Since it isn’t actually real… what is the line, and how can that line be measured? Since this is just going to keep being a problem, this awkward conversation needs to happen in a logical, calm manner.
https://cellebrite.com/en/ai-and-csam-a-look-at-real-cases/
Best I could find about this.
Imo as long as the ai was not trained on actual CSAM and the product is not depicting real people, then it shouldn't be illegal as it is not hurting anyone which is why we have laws against CSAM in the first place.
I definitely don’t want to sound as if I’m promoting this material, but I agree. Fake things are fake and real things are real. Yeah, it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to think about it and I totally understand.
Fake images of murder seem to be perfectly fine! And that’s arguably the worst crime possible. We show that shit to our kids.
Isn't it sad that we even have to say we don't promote it before we say anything else?
Probably not as bad on lemmy, at least.
Yeah. But you know how it is here, you’re either against it or you’re one of them. Make a logical comparison between two nearly identical things and you’re whatabouting. I appreciate you recognizing the difference.