I'm only here for the articles... anyone has the articles to "read" the real deal?
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
86 points (89.1% liked)
Technology
59405 readers
2848 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
God what a garbage article:
On X—which used to be called Twitter before it was bought by billionaire edgelord Elon Musk
I mean, really? The guy makes my skin crawl, but what a hypocritically edgy comment to put into an article.
And then zero comment from Taylor Swift in it at all. She is basically just speaking for her. Not only that, but she anoints herself spokesperson for all women...while also pretty conspicuously ignoring that men can be victims of this too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending non consensual ai porn in the least, and I assume the author and I are mostly in agreement about the need for something to be done about it.
But it's trashy politically charged and biased articles like this that make people take sides on things like this. Imo, the author is contributing to the problems of society she probably wants to fix.
On the contrary, I find it more ridiculous when news media pretends like nothing is wrong over at Twitter HQ. I wish more journalists would call Musk out like this every time they're forced to mention Twitter.
Can you really see nothing other than "pretending nothing is wrong" and "calling musk an edge lord?"
I see the media calling out the faults regularly regularly without needing to act like ..well, an edge lord.
Professionalism was thrown out the window the moment orange man became president. The Republicans play dirty, so everyone else has to as well, or else they'll walk all over us. Taking the high ground is a dead concept.
I strongly disagree, but this is completely unrelated to what I said.
load more comments
(1 replies)
hypocritically edgy comment to put into an article.
Its vice, their whole brand is edgy. Calling Elon an edgelord is very on brand for them.
pretty conspicuously ignoring that men can be victims of this too.
Sure, but women are disproportionately affected by this. You're making the "all lives matter" argument of AI porn
make people take sides on things like this
People should be taking sides on this.
Just seems like you wanna get mad for no reason? I read the article, and it doesn't come across nearly as bad as you would lead anyone to believe. This article is about deepfake pornography as a whole, and how is can (and more importantly HAS) affected women, including minors. Sure it would have been nice to have a comment from Taylor, but i really don't think it was necessary.
Its vice, their whole brand is edgy. Calling Elon an edgelord is very on brand for them.
I've come across this source before and don't recall being so turned off by the tone. If this is on brand for them, then my criticism is not limited to the author.
Sure, but women are disproportionately affected by this. You’re making the “all lives matter” argument of AI porn
You have a point, but I disagree. Black lives matter is effectively saying that black lives currently don't matter (mainly when it comes to policing). All lives matter is being dismissive of that claim because no one really believes that white lives don't matter to police. Pointing to the fact that there are male victims too is not dismissive of the fact that women are the primary victims of this. It's almost the opposite and ignoring males is being dismissive of victims.
People should be taking sides on this.
Sorry, wasn't clear on that point. What I was saying here is this will make people take sides based on their politics rather than on the merits of whether it's wrong in and of itself.
i really don’t think it was necessary.
Neither was her speaking for swift, nor all of women kind, nor only making it about women, nor calling musk an edge lord. You seem to be making the same argument as me.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Bet that whoever is doing it is either a hardcore neckbeard simp, or a butthurt conservative. They’re similar, but not the same.
Fake celebrity porn has existed since before photography, in the form of drawings and impersonators. At this point, if you're even somewhat young and good-looking (and sometimes even if you're not), the fake porn should be expected as part of the price you pay for fame. It isn't as though the sort of person who gets off on this cares whether the pictures are real or not—they just need them to be close enough that they can fool themselves.
Is it right? No, but it's the way the world is, because humans suck.
Honestly, the way I look at it is that the real offense is publishing.
While still creepy, it would be hard to condemn someone for making fakes for personal consumption. Making an AI fake is the high-tech equivalent of gluing a cutout of your crush's face onto a playboy centerfold. It's hard to want to prohibit people from pretending.
But posting those fakes online is the high-tech, scaled-up version of xeroxing the playboy centerfold with your crush's face on it, and taping up copies all over town for everyone to see.
Obviously, there's a clear line people should not cross, but it's clear that without laws to deter it, AI fakes are just going to circulate freely.
AI fake is the high-tech equivalent of gluing a cutout of your crush’s face onto a playboy centerfold.
At first I read that as "cousin's face" and I was like "bru, that's oddly specific." Lol
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, I'm sure next time she's looking for a job her potential employer will google her name and when he find this fake porn will not hire her. She will forever be haunted by this and her career and personal life will suffer. You know, every woman's nightmare.
You clearly don’t get it, and might be beyond understanding any explanation.
I think @ExLisper is saying Taylor swift is not living other women's porn nightmare - other women need to worry about career impacts and the effect on their capability to earn money and support their families, which taylor, being the industry powerhouse and billionaire she is, need not be really concerned by.
The same way every other issue affects different classes of society differently.
The victim’s financial status doesn’t make it less harmful because the victim can afford led to take a hit.
Yes, yes it does.
It doesn't make it right to target rich people, and it doesn't diminish the harm she feels from the act, but it does mean she doesn't suffer as much as others would be suffering as a whole when you consider all other indirect impacts.
Exactly. She also doesn't have to worry that the guy she's dating saw it and will dump her or that her co-workers saw it and are spreading rumours at work. She has to worry about her multimillion dollar brand which is something other women don't really have issues with. It's terrible for her but to claim that she somehow represents other woman in this is ridiculous.
Aaaah. So she’s not a victim then. Glad you could clear that up.
Dumbass.
Good job with your reading comprehension. Give yourself a pat in the back, please.
Ya yuge nightmare being a billionaire must be. Poor rich person
So you’re saying that the more wealth a person has, the more they deserve crimes against them? Come one know kid. Do you really want to think this way?
That's not their point and you know it. Get your bad faith debating tactics out of here.
She isn't living "every woman's nightmare" because a woman without the wealth and influence Taylor has might actually suffer significant consequences. For Taylor, it's just a weird Tuesday. For an average small town lady, it might mean loss of a job, loss of mate, estrangement from family and friends... That's a nightmare.
So she’s less a victim because she’s wealthy? My god you people can justify anything, can’t you?
You just keep shifting your argument to create some sort of sympathy. I guess. No one says a rich person isn't a victim. The point is is being a victim as a wealthy and influential woman like Taylor is a lot different than being a victim in a working class context. If you disagree with that, then you're either being intellectually dishonest or living in a dream world.
Even the law agrees. It's a lot harder as a celebrity to win a defamation lawsuit than it is being a normal person. You typically have to show actual malice. Frankly, that's the legal standard that would probably apply to any lawsuit involving the deep fakes anyway.
That is exactly it. She will suffer less compared to someone else this might have happened to, an dif you define victimhood on a spectrum, she's less victim than Housewife Community leader preschool teacher Margaret from Montana.
Gross dude. Very gross. Blocking you now as someone who thinks the wealthy can’t be victimized can’t possibly have anything of value to contribute.
Do better.
The guy said less victimized and you conclude he meant cannot be victimized. Can you be any more stupid?
Since you have nothing worthwhile to say, I’m going to go ahead and block your annoying ass.
Lol, can't even bother to address such a simple point, so pathetic.