this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
218 points (98.7% liked)

News

23397 readers
3500 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
 

New Mexico is seeking an injunction to permanently block Snap from practices allegedly harming kids. That includes a halt on advertising Snapchat as "more private" or "less permanent" due to the alleged "core design problem" and "inherent danger" of Snap's disappearing messages. The state's complaint noted that the FBI has said that "Snapchat is the preferred app by criminals because its design features provide a false sense of security to the victim that their photos will disappear and not be screenshotted."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Erasmus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What if it normalises CSAM and some people don't discerne between real and AI?

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And what if video games, movies, and books normalize killing? There is no evidence to show that it does or that it will.

[–] shani66@ani.social 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the bar is whether it could be reasonably mistaken for a real child. Which makes quite a lot of disgusting content legal.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pretty much every law ever made in the history of humanity that was ostensibly to protect children is actually about control of the population.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Exception that proves the rule.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Or, I can recognize when it's not worth it to get involved with a sealion.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Isn't it sad that we even have to say we don't promote it before we say anything else?

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] shani66@ani.social 2 points 2 months ago

Probably not as bad on lemmy, at least.