Deepfakes are, however the top-level comment I was answering was not limited to deepfakes. And as my further discussion with its author shows, they too didn’t mean only deepfakes.

Their opinion was that any kind of pornography portraying children, even if it’s not shared with others and not based on pics of real people, should be prosecuted just like making real child pornography.

You know, this thread has once again reinforced me in my opinion that the best system of government is Aspie Reich. Only people with Aspergers should be allowed to make laws and judge and hold public posts. The rest of fucking chimps just don’t have what it takes to override their chimp instincts.

I said “defamation”. If you are not capable of reading, that’s not my fault.

That’s why I’m ancap, you can’t deal with such chimp crowds without private tanks.

This is not a legal text, you little cheat.

This is a sentence in natural language, want me to start asking such questions about everything you write?

If you make a deepfake of someone and share it, then it’s defamation. Taking a picture voluntarily shared and editing it is not a crime.

Even knowing what Internet is, I sometimes try to pretend the other side is arguing in good faith.

I mean, it’s as if someone pushed me and I would try to sue them for cutting my hand off. With that hand present.

I would understand the “this punishment is not enough, we have to do more” sentiment, but instead of “more” they are trying to alias a different action with an existing action with harsher punishment.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I’m actually interested in dark grey eyed blondes just a bit taller than me, and dark hazel-eyed brunettes just a bit lower that me, and none of them have been much younger.

But thanks for confirming that you can’t argue without calling your opponent a pedo.

And even more that you really can’t comprehend that someone would argue hard in defense of someone else.

How can one be such a miserable creature is beyond me.

You first.

EDIT: Also I weren’t talking about pics of real people.

Taking a picture of a minor, making that image sexually explicit, and using it to harass, bully, and extort that minor is not a “crime against a real person”?

Doesn’t matter, that’s not what we are talking about here. You don’t have to use a face of a real child.

Oh, you wanted to pretend it is? Cheating doesn’t work with me.

Your argument is that they should.

No, my argument is what I myself already said.

The disgusting people I don’t want in society are people who use child pornography, and those who defend their use of child pornography.

It’s really not your concern what other people create for themselves. Nobody owes you any shame for being born with a flaw.

It’s really a good thing that people with this particular deviation can get materials satisfying them without harming real people. And if one can generate those materials - then that’s a noble endeavor. For every decent person, that is.

Kindly see yourself out and take the rest with you.

No, you are the one unwanted in civilized society.

BTW, for any normal person any pedophile that doesn’t hurt children is better than you.

Producing child pornography is a separate crime.

Victimless crimes are not crimes. Thus producing any pornography is a crime only when it involves violating someone’s rights.

Its users are pedophiles because they are producing child pornography. You are defending them.

Ah, so you are dumb enough to think it’s bad to defend pedophiles who have not committed a crime against a real person?

Damn right, I am defending pedophiles who are being persecuted for being born with that deviation alone. I am also defending pedophiles who satisfy that via any means not harming real people. I will do both till my last breath.

If your argument is that they are disgusting and you don’t want them in society, then so are you.

What this conversation is about has as much to do with child pornography as hentai with loli characters.

You just can’t argue without unsubstantiated accusations, can you?

When real living people are being murdered and abused in droves, you are still worried more about glorified automated Photoshop and accusing its users of being the same as actual rapists.

Making forged pics of someone else falls under defamation.

It’s very clearly not rape, sexual abuse, child pornography or non-consensual pornography.

If you use AI to nudify her pictures, you’re manufacturing child pornography, and deserve the full consequences for doing that.

No, equating this to an actual child being raped is incorrect. These are not crimes of remotely equal magnitude.

Comparing a person who raped a child, made photos and distributed them to a person who used Photoshop or an AI tool is, other than just evil, reducing the meaning of the former.

I take it, the word “defamation” is not part of your lexicon.

Read my comment again.

Your opinion is some real “your body, my choice” kind of energy.

My advice to you would be to improve your reading comprehension before judging this way.

In particular, the word “defamation”.

There are upsides to Twitter, but having to follow somebody and to register is a no.

Creating and distributing anything should be legal if no real person suffers during its creation and if it’s not intended at defamation, forgery, such things.

Small notes to be answered rarely.

I’ve looked at the early Usenet archives, and typical posts there resembled this format quite a lot. It’s later that Usenet became a place where you write long considerate posts, and also expect rather quick answers.

It’s actually interesting to communicate in a rare terse format.

The reason I don’t use Twitter, BlueSky, anything like that is - I don’t have a scenario of it being useful for me.

People behave as if having a green lock icon were enough to consider you’re safe.

People behave as if there were not multiple cases of abuse of PKI.

People behave as if all those whistleblowing cases exposing widespread illegal activities by the state were not treated as normal, except those exposing them being chased and vilified.

What I’m trying to say is that we’re past the stage where techno-optimism about the Internet made sense. They just say in the news that abusing you is good, and everybody just takes it.

When you have to use it, then yes. But in general standard technologies of today are mostly rigged.