Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
Maybe let’s assume all digital images are fake and go back to painting. Wait… what if children start painting deepfakes ?
Or pasting someone’s photo over porn…in their minds…
Back in my day we just had to use our own imagination.
Can’t afford this much cheese today to find just the right slice for every bikini photo…
Deepfakes might end up being the modern version of a bikini. In the olden days, people wore these to the beach. Having less was scandalous and moral decay. Yet, now we wear much less.
Our grandchildren might simply not give a damn about their nudity, because it is assumed that everyone is deepfaking everyone.
These are all worn voluntarily. This issue isn’t about the equivalent of scandalously clad young girls, it’s like if girls were being involuntarily stripped of their clothing by their classmates. It’s not about modesty standards it’s about sexual abuse.
It can be both. The cornerstone of why nudity can be abused, is that society makes it shameful to be bare. If some generations from now that people can just shrug and not care, that is one less tool an abuser can use against people.
In any case, I am of the mind that people of my generation might be doing their own version of the Satanic Panic, or the reaction against rap music. For better or worse, older people cannot relate to the younger.
Unless it is used to pretend that it is a real video and circulated for denigration or blackmail, it is very much not at all like assault. And also, deepfakes do not have the special features hidden under your clothes, so it is possible to debunk those if you really have to.
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.
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?
I can already picture that as an Onion headline:
New York Renames State to ‘WokeVille’. NYC to follow.
it existed if society liked you enough.
fascists just have a habit of tightening that belt smaller and smaller, is what’s going on.
As a father of teenage girls, I don’t necessarily disagree with this assessment, but I would personally see to it that anyone making sexual deepfakes of my daughters is equitably and thoroughly punished.
There is a difference between ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse and no expectations.
Vs scaring the shit out of them and making them work their ass off doing an ass load of community service for a summer.
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
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.
I am an asshole, that’s never been in question, and I fully own it. Having said that, no amount of “social programs” is going to have any effect if fucking parents don’t raise their kids right.
I’m entirely against surveillance, except when it comes to parents and keeping a close eye on everything their kids watch, browse or otherwise access (evidently making it known to the kids that “I can see EVERYTHING you see and do”).
So, yeah, hang the imbecile parents that should not have had kids in the first place because a fucking social program or school would raise them instead. Fuck off.
social program
And thanks to the assholes in Congress who just passed the Big Betrayal Bill, those are all going away.
Teenagers are old enough to understand consequences.
In fact, my neighborhood nearly burned down last week because a teenager, despite being told “no” and “stop” multiple times - including by neighbors - decided to light off fireworks on the mountainside right behind the neighborhood.
Red arrow is my house. We were damn lucky the wind was blowing the right direction. If this had happened the day before, the neighborhood would be gone.
some day I hope to be brave enough to post pictures of my house on the internet
Yes, absolutely. But with recognition that a thirteen year old kid isn’t a predator but a horny little kid. I’ll let others determine what that punishment is, but I don’t believe it’s prison. Community service maybe. Written apology. Stuff like that. Second offense, ok, we’re ratcheting up the punishment, but still not adult prison.
written apology? they’ll just use chatgpt for that
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.
Punishment for an adult man doing this: Prison
Punishment for a 13 year old by doing this: Publish his browsing and search history in the school newsletter.
13 year old: “I’ll just take the death penalty, thanks."
Burkas for the win ?
Lawmakers are grappling with how to address …
Just a reminder that the government is actively voting against regulations on AI, because obviously a lot of these people are pocketing lobbyist money
Oh I just assumed that every Conservative jerks off to kids
Get some receipts and that will be a start.
We’re at 56 pages of this now for a nice round count of 1400 charges
So far as I am aware all of these are publicly searchable court cases
Alright, now we just need the main stream media to run the story.
I mean with all the zealotry against drag shows they should be ready to run with this one right?
You’d think so, right?
A 99-1 vote to drop the anti AI regulation is hardly the government voting against. The Senate smashed that shit hard and fast.
Expecting people to know about that 99-1 vote might be misplaced optimism, since it hasn’t been made into a meme yet.
especially that
AbbotTed Cruz, who brought this one up, voted against it in the end, which is pretty confusing for an european tbhe: i mean that it’s memeworthy lol
I’m confused - by Abbot do you mean Gov. Abbott of Texas, and are we talking about the same issue? Cuz the 99-1 vote was about a senate bill regarding AI. Greg Abbott can’t vote on senate bills, and there’s no senator named Abbot.
aaah i misremembered, it was Ted Cruz, oops :-D
In the case of US govt, the AI part of the bill they voted against was the part that blocked regulations on AI for a period of 10 years.
In case that wasn’t clear, the US govt voted in favor of regulating AI. 99-1.
Even in countries a lot less corrupt than the US this is an issue.
Especially because the US government/companies doesn’t do jack shit for people
They want to be regulated so they can finally have their mote. Cutting out the states’ power does mean they will only have to buy one group of politicians in Washington and those are some relatively cheap Hoes
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.
Don’t trivialize the scramble suit, ok
mkay 😬
Honestly I think we need to understand that this is no different to sticking a photo of someone’s head on a porn magazine photo. It’s not real. It’s just less janky.
I would categorise it as sexual harassment, not abuse. Still serious, but a different level
Schools generally means it involves underage individuals, which makes any content using them csam. So in effect, the “AI” companies are generating a ton of csam and nobody is doing anything about it.
Do deepfake explicit images created from a non-explicit image actually qualify as CSAM?
I would consider that as qualifying. Because it’s targeted harassment in a sexually-explicit manner. All the girl would have to do is claim it’s her.
Source: I’m a father of teenage daughters. I would pursue the individual(s) who started it and make them regret their choices.
I don’t know personally. The admins of the fediverse likely do, considering it’s something they’ve had to deal with from the start. So, they can likely answer much better than I might be able to.
Drawing a sexy cartoon that looks like an adult, with a caption that says “I’m 12”, counts. So yeah, probably.
This actually is quite fuzzy and depends on your country and even jurisdiction in your country
Disagree. Not CSAM when no abuse has taken place.
That’s my point.
I think generating and sharing sexually explicit images of a person without their consent is abuse.
That’s distinct from generating an image that looks like CSAM without the involvement of any real child. While I find that disturbing, I’m morally uncomfortable criminalizing an act that has no victim.
Harassment sure, but not abuse.
Except, you know, the harassment and abuse of said deepfaked individual. Which is sexual in nature. Sexual harassment and abuse of a child using materials generated based on the child’s identity.
Maybe we could have a name for it. Something like Child-based sexual harassment and abuse material… CSHAM, or maybe just CSAM, you know, to remember it more easily.
If someone put a camera in the girls’ locker room and distributed photos from that, would you consider it CSAM? No contact would have taken place so the kids would be unaware when they were photographed, is it still abuse?
If so, how is the psychological effect of a convincing deepfake any different?
If someone puts a camera in a locker room, that means that someone entered a space where you would usually feel safe. It implies the potential of a physical threat.
It also means that someone observed you when you were doing “secret” things. One may feel vulnerable in such situations. Even a seasoned nude model might be embarrassed to be seen while changing, maybe in a dishevelled state.
I would think it is very different. Unless you’re only thinking about the psychological effect on the viewer.
Taking secret nude pictures of someone is quite a bit different than…not taking nude pictures of them.
It’s not CSAM to put a picture of someone’s face on an adult model and show it to your friend. It’s certainly sexual harassment, but it isn’t CSAM.
How is it different for the victim? What if they can’t tell if it’s a deepfake or a real photo of them?
It’s absolutely sexual harassment.
But, to your question: you can’t just say something has underage nudity when the nudity is of an adult model. It’s not CSAM.
Yes, it’s sexual abuse of a child, the same way taking surreptitious locker room photos would be. There’s nothing magical about a photograph of real skin vs a fake. The impact to the victim is the same. The impact to the viewer of the image is the same. Arguing over the semantic definition of “abuse” is getting people tangled up here. If we used the older term, “child porn” people wouldn’t be so hesitant to call this what it is.
There’s a thing that was happening in the past. Not sure it’s still happening, due to lack of news about it. It was something called “glamour modeling” I think or an extension of it.
Basically, official/legal photography studios took pictures of child models in swimsuits and revealing clothing, at times in suggestive positions and sold them to interested parties.
Nothing untoward directly happened to the children. They weren’t physically abused. They were treated as regular fashion models. And yet, it’s still csam. Why? Because of the intention behind making those pictures.
The intention to exploit.
I hope it might lead to a situation of dirty pics/vids not being a problem for the people in it any more, as it could be a deepfake. Like there were cases where a surfacing dirty pic was used for blackmail, ruined someones career or got them kicked out of some comittee, but since it could be fabrication now, I hope this will beva thing of the past, soon.
That could be a socially healthy place to end up at. I don’t see it anytime soon though. Just look at the other response I got.
Sure. That might end up being a socially healthy place for adults to end up.
But it will never work that way for young teens. Their brains aren’t done baking yet. They don’t have the emotional maturity to understand that enough to be “okay with it because it’s just a fake”.
That’s why we protect kids rather than just telling them “hey it’s okay…it’s only a fake.”
Anyone with half a brain will certainly claim as much. Even if people don’t fully believe it, it will blunt the most serious of social consequences.
Furthermore, we generally assume malicious intent, but I wouldn’t be surprised if teenagers were using the app to ‘get’ big boobs etc., we all have seen those shopped pictures with deformed background 😁
I’m not even going to begin describing all the ways that what you just said is fucked up.
I’ll just point out that online deepfake technology is FAR more accessible to the average 13 year old to use on their peers than “porno mags” were in our day.
You want to compare taking your 13 year old classmates photo off of Facebook, running it through an AI and in five seconds creating photo-realistic adult content featuring them, and compare that to getting your dad’s skin-mag from under his mattress when he’s not home, cutting your classmates face out of a yearbook, taping it on, then sneaking THAT into the computer lab at school so that you can photocopy it and pass it around in home room, and then putting the skin-mag BACK under the mattress before your dad finds out.
Is that right…is THAT what you’re trying to say? Are those the two things that you’re trying say are equivalent?
Yes, we all know it’s fucked up. The point is that we don’t need a new class of laws just because it’s harassment and bullying ✨with AI✨.
I’m sure the laws will focus on protecting IP - specifically that of AI companies or megacorps, the famous and powerful, but not the small creators of content or the rabble negatively affected by AI abuse.
The rest of us will have to suffer through presenting whatever damaging and humiliating video to a court. If you can even afford a lawyer to do so. Then be offered a judgement that probably won’t be paid or won’t cover the damage done by an image that will never be able to be erased from the internet. Those damages could include the suicide of young people bullied and humiliated by such deepfakes.
My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!
In the bible, it says, and I quote: “If a deepkfake of you is made, you shall give the creator more material to create deepfakes”
this advice might get you locked up
My mama also told me that if someone locks you up, then you just lock them up right back.
Thanks, cap’n.
So is this a way to take away rights by making it about kids?
I mean what the fuck. We did much less and got punished right? It didn’t matter if we were on the property. Schools can hold students accountable for conduct with other students.
The leaded-gas adults of the time had no problem dealing with the emergence of cell phones. It was a distraction. They didn’t need lawmakers to call it something specific. My Pokemon cards caused fights and were banned. No lawmakers needed.
The problem is surely with the interaction between parents and schools. Or maybe it’s just the old way of thinking. Maybe it’s better to have police and courts start taking over discipline in schools.
How is a school going to regulate what kids do outside of school property? They could ban cell phones on campus but that’s not going to change what happens after hours.
Schools can already do that though. You can get in trouble for bullying outside of school, and when i was a student athletes i had pretty strict restrictions on what i was allowed to do because i was an “ambassador” for the school.
And you think these are positive things?
Overall, I would say so yeah.
For the bullying thing, not everyone’s parents are available or willing to discipline their kids.
And for the athletics thing, personally I believe that athletics is more about developing young adults into good people rather than the sport itself. And my school had a bunch of other things like grade minimums, required volunteer hours, we would wear dress shirts and ties before meets, and some other things like that.
All your examples are of things that were stopped while at school, so your argument doesn’t really carry over. You still had your pokemon cards everywhere else.
Aren’t there already laws against making child porn?
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.
I don’t understand fully how this technology works, but, if people are using it to create sexual content of underage individuals, doesn’t that mean the LLM would need to have been trained on sexual content of underage individuals? Seems like going after the company and whatever it’s source material is would be the obvious choice here
You know how when you look at a picture of someone and you cover up the clothed bits, they look naked. Your brain fills in the gaps with what it knows of general human anatomy.
It’s like that.
This is mostly about swapping faces. You take a video and a photo of someone’s face. Software can replace the face of someone in the video with that face. That’s been around for a decade or so. There are other ways of doing it.
When the face belongs to an underage individual, and the video is pornographic…
LLMs only do text.
Instead of laws keeping up It also might turn out to be a case where culture keeps up.
