This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.
Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.
It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people.
Disagree.
Loads of countries treat animations or computer generated images the same as photos.
No one is “defending pixels”. The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised, that authorities should not have to identify a specific victim, and that no legitimate artistic interest is served.
That said, the question of whether a child in an oven depicts child abuse according to the interpretation of the court is another question entirely, and I suspect that the answer is that it does not. Yes placing a child in an oven would be abusive, no an image of a child in an oven is not “child abuse material”.
Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business.
I agree with the points you’re making, but I’d also like to put in my two cents as a victim of CSA and CSAM production. Not that it makes me an any sort of authority on it; I just wanted to share my opinion.
I don’t think fictional material should be considered the same as real footage. In real material there is a victim whereas (unless a person’s likeness is being used) there is none in fictional material. The reason CSAM is so horrible is because of the fact there is a victim, not because the material itself is disturbing (which it is, don’t get me wrong). I think that making them equal crimes is a huge disservice to the victims and downplays the crime that was committed against them, both socially and legally. In my experience a lot of people already oppose CSAM more so due to the material being graphic rather than the actual assault and continued violence against the victim by possessing/sharing footage of it.
I appreciate that you probably have given this difficult area more thought than I.
I don’t think that fictional material really is considered the same as real footage, but I do think that possession of fictional material should still be a crime.
A criminal court process has two parts: firstly deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crime they are charged with, and secondly deciding the punishment given the severity of the crime and the impact on the victims.
In Australia, if you’re charged with possession of CSAM then the fictional nature of the material is not a defense. Possession is a crime and it’s the same crime as possession of real images.
However, in the second part the judge is of course going to weigh the impact on victims in determining the sentence.
There’s a longer conversation to be had about the objectives of the penal system, but the abridged version is that I genuinely believe that disallowing the fictional nature of images as a defense helps prevent harms to potential victims. It would be dramatically more difficult to secure convictions against abusers if police need to identify a victim in each case.
The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised
I don’t think we should normalise torture, non-child abuse, exploitation, war, deception, genocide, manipulation, etc. either, but I don’t give a crap if someone make a video of it.
For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?
If you think that is not okay, would it make a difference to you if those in the material were not “realistic” (but still underage)?
I don’t think people are suggesting it should be illegal because they personally don’t want to see it, but rather because they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole.
drawn pornographic depcitions are generally legal and protected by the first amendment in the united states, even if the artist explicitly states the characters are minors.
las I checked it was being decided by the courts because the laws aren’t very clear and neither is the first amendment. I think that it’s legality probably should be handled on a case by case basis until people understand the technology better because “realistic” is unfortunately too vague for me to feel comfortable wanting laws using (imagine a “realistic” oil painting getting outlawed).
I don’t draw a line. If something 100% made up upsets you, nobody us putting your nose in it.
Your “they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole” comment is terrifying to me, because a lot of people in power believe that the mere existence of some people is “damaging to society as a whole”.
The morality is actually a little greyer there. There is research showing that consuming cartoon or otherwise artificially drawn CSAM does in fact raise the likelihood of the person who consumes it actually committing an act of abuse against a child, instead of being an effective substitute to prevent such acts.
Therefore, it may be a good idea to ban such images even though their production is harmless.
It’s a difficult area of research, which is why it’s a shame that we need more data on the issue to inform our laws on banning or not banning artificially produced CSAM.
I’m so mad that ai generated objectionable material is considered fine because it isnt illegal but someone draws a werewolf with its dick out and it gets removed for “promoting beastiality”
Source: involved in a lot of NSFW furry artist communities and constantly see peoples work being removed, flagged, or accounts lost for less.
Ah but you see, when something is hot it makes closeted conservatives uncomfortable.
You see the problem? To a conservative, nothing is more illegal than making them personally uncomfortable. And nobody is more inherently conservative than a billionaire media mogul.
It is perfectly legal for Meta to remove content they find objectionable. WHICH content they find objectionable is what is concerning. Tits? Right out. Baby killing? Stay.
Sorry that big tech isn’t censoring the things you want them to censor. We should give them more money so they can censor everything anyone finds objectionable.
Damn what a brave warrior you are, battling for your rights to look at fake CSAM on the family oriented website. You definitely showed that snowflake! Nobodies taking this guys baby-getting-killed-in-an-oven video down. No way sir.
No but actually wtf are you saying? Its facebook we’re talking about, not fucking liveleak or something
wrbsite content changes over time, usually to be more puritanical, reddit used to have beheading videos occasionally go on r/all then they banned those subs and now they don’t have r/all.
Idc. I think its good that extremely violent content is hard to access. Not illegal, just very hard to acces. No it shouldnt be widely avilable on reddit either. Leave that shit to the sites about that, like liveleak or worldstar, somethingawfull, or torrents.
Insisting on ease of acces to gore and violence is WEIRD AS FUCK.
I only rarely open Facebook, I can’t even remember when was the last time that opened it. I don’t have a Facebook account, and I generally don’t want to associate myself with that place.
Despite my wording it doesn’t mean that you specifically should to produce such a video, it was more of a thought experiment. My take is that if such video were produced and published on any of Meta’s platforms it would remain very little time online, unlike the mentioned roasted baby video FTA.
It’s in their rule that if it’s too graphic then they might take it down. Emphasise on “might”, it’s very arbitrary, and they take down content for less.
Inb4 “it’s AI generated it’s okay” that mean AI generated child porn is okay as well.
Couldn’t the ai make child porn by just combining the concepts of porn and children? Like there’s no training data of basketball players who are pigeons because they’re not pigeons, but the ais are still able to make basketball player pigeon hybrids that are cluttering tenor for some reason.
That has been legal far longer than Gen AI has existed, we don’t know how much of an effect it has on crime stats but I am sure there less rape now than there has ever been
If cutting 100% of crime is the only time doing something is worth it then no laws would exist
OK, how about another angle. If you make AI CSAM a thing, you’ve given basically anybody in possession of real CSAM an out. Also, presumably real CSAM is still illegal, so the difference between a pat on the back and serious prison time is whether some poor jury thinks the 8 year old rape victim in the video looks real enough.
I guess that’s a good argument about why it should be mandatory that all AI generated images should have some kind of watermarking to make them identifiable
that could be mitigated with cryptographic signatures being attached to the direct output from corporate models and either needing that signature to match or having the full prompt and random numbers for a reproducible output.
I mean, it would help satiate the pervert(who just wanna look), but it will not make the actual rapist(who want the action, for the lack of better word) to stop, and CSAM is provided by the latter. I don’t see why using genAI CSAM to satiate the former would solve much of the issue, the former will just watch adult porn if there’s no child porn. On the other hand it’s not like there’s a lack of loli hentai.
No but it’s probably against their ToS so I don’t know why an AI generated gore video gets a pass.
The only footage that’s illegal from what I understand are sexual assault videos (including obviously csam) and snuff films (which are different because they are specifically made for distribution and generating revenue compared to “accidental” gore films)
Depends where you are as well and this is mostly from memory.
What does guide your morality? I personally like the idea of virtue ethics, but so far I haven’t had time to properly familiarize myself with the concept. My understanding is that a virtue is a character trait that promotes human flourishing, and actions are good if they align virtues.
What? How? I mean… there are quite a lot of violent and graphic movies out there. So this should not be illegal. However, it has to be made sure that those videos cannot be seen by non-adults.
Well, I know what you are trying to say, you just put it in a very extreme way. This is like saying that there are smokers who are 90yo, so it must be not affecting your health. A skewed view, because you don’t see the affected people, because they are six feet under. Same with traumatized people, who choose suicide because of all their experiences.
Is a video of a baby roasting in an oven even illegal? In general, are videos of violent crime illegal?
This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.
Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.
It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
the video of the Christchurch mosque shootings is illegal in NZ and Australia.
A cartoon of Bart and Lisa having sex is classified as child pornography in Australia.
and a zillion other examples
And now we are back on topic!
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
Disagree.
Loads of countries treat animations or computer generated images the same as photos.
No one is “defending pixels”. The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised, that authorities should not have to identify a specific victim, and that no legitimate artistic interest is served.
That said, the question of whether a child in an oven depicts child abuse according to the interpretation of the court is another question entirely, and I suspect that the answer is that it does not. Yes placing a child in an oven would be abusive, no an image of a child in an oven is not “child abuse material”.
Preposterous.
I agree with the points you’re making, but I’d also like to put in my two cents as a victim of CSA and CSAM production. Not that it makes me an any sort of authority on it; I just wanted to share my opinion.
I don’t think fictional material should be considered the same as real footage. In real material there is a victim whereas (unless a person’s likeness is being used) there is none in fictional material. The reason CSAM is so horrible is because of the fact there is a victim, not because the material itself is disturbing (which it is, don’t get me wrong). I think that making them equal crimes is a huge disservice to the victims and downplays the crime that was committed against them, both socially and legally. In my experience a lot of people already oppose CSAM more so due to the material being graphic rather than the actual assault and continued violence against the victim by possessing/sharing footage of it.
I appreciate that you probably have given this difficult area more thought than I.
I don’t think that fictional material really is considered the same as real footage, but I do think that possession of fictional material should still be a crime.
A criminal court process has two parts: firstly deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crime they are charged with, and secondly deciding the punishment given the severity of the crime and the impact on the victims.
In Australia, if you’re charged with possession of CSAM then the fictional nature of the material is not a defense. Possession is a crime and it’s the same crime as possession of real images.
However, in the second part the judge is of course going to weigh the impact on victims in determining the sentence.
There’s a longer conversation to be had about the objectives of the penal system, but the abridged version is that I genuinely believe that disallowing the fictional nature of images as a defense helps prevent harms to potential victims. It would be dramatically more difficult to secure convictions against abusers if police need to identify a victim in each case.
AI generated material will have been trained on real material so it’s not exactly entirely fictional.
deleted by creator
I don’t think we should normalise torture, non-child abuse, exploitation, war, deception, genocide, manipulation, etc. either, but I don’t give a crap if someone make a video of it.
And where do you draw the line?
For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?
If you think that is not okay, would it make a difference to you if those in the material were not “realistic” (but still underage)?
I don’t think people are suggesting it should be illegal because they personally don’t want to see it, but rather because they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole.
drawn pornographic depcitions are generally legal and protected by the first amendment in the united states, even if the artist explicitly states the characters are minors.
Uh huh. Kinda sidestepped all my questions there. Where do you draw the line?
So, “drawn” kiddie porn is legal in the US. What about realistic AI generated kiddie porn? Is that protected by the first ammendment?
Do you think it should be?
Should you be allowed to distribute it, or do you feel its okay only if it stays in your personal collection?
las I checked it was being decided by the courts because the laws aren’t very clear and neither is the first amendment. I think that it’s legality probably should be handled on a case by case basis until people understand the technology better because “realistic” is unfortunately too vague for me to feel comfortable wanting laws using (imagine a “realistic” oil painting getting outlawed).
The usual line drawn is photorealistic. Mostly because they don’t want that used as a defense for the real thing.
I don’t draw a line. If something 100% made up upsets you, nobody us putting your nose in it.
Your “they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole” comment is terrifying to me, because a lot of people in power believe that the mere existence of some people is “damaging to society as a whole”.
Yes. As long as the image is not created through raping somebody, it’s morally okay, since no real person was violated.
Anything which requires violating somebody to be produced.
The morality is actually a little greyer there. There is research showing that consuming cartoon or otherwise artificially drawn CSAM does in fact raise the likelihood of the person who consumes it actually committing an act of abuse against a child, instead of being an effective substitute to prevent such acts.
Therefore, it may be a good idea to ban such images even though their production is harmless.
It’s a difficult area of research, which is why it’s a shame that we need more data on the issue to inform our laws on banning or not banning artificially produced CSAM.
Do you have the link to the paper?
Amen.
I’m so mad that ai generated objectionable material is considered fine because it isnt illegal but someone draws a werewolf with its dick out and it gets removed for “promoting beastiality”
Source: involved in a lot of NSFW furry artist communities and constantly see peoples work being removed, flagged, or accounts lost for less.
Ah but you see, when something is hot it makes closeted conservatives uncomfortable.
You see the problem? To a conservative, nothing is more illegal than making them personally uncomfortable. And nobody is more inherently conservative than a billionaire media mogul.
If that was true they’d be uncomfortable around CSAM.
Edit: Because THEY find it hot, not suggesting CSAM is hot. Goddamn. I’m going to hell.
Oh, but let’s put on our thinking caps! What is it they always say? “Won’t somebody think of the children?”
“That’s my secret, captain. I’m always thinking about children.”
…I’ll catch up with you there, save me a seat.
Wolfman’s got nards.
It is perfectly legal for Meta to remove content they find objectionable. WHICH content they find objectionable is what is concerning. Tits? Right out. Baby killing? Stay.
Infamously:
Breastfeeding videos? Out. Classic art with boobs? Out.
ISIS beheading videos? Actual animal mutilation videos? IN!
Beheading a boob? Out. Animal mutilation by a feral naked woman with a machete? Out.
It’s so weird that censors are more concerned about sex than violence. Both should be allowed, though.
Sorry that big tech isn’t censoring the things you want them to censor. We should give them more money so they can censor everything anyone finds objectionable.
Damn what a brave warrior you are, battling for your rights to look at fake CSAM on the family oriented website. You definitely showed that snowflake! Nobodies taking this guys baby-getting-killed-in-an-oven video down. No way sir.
No but actually wtf are you saying? Its facebook we’re talking about, not fucking liveleak or something
wrbsite content changes over time, usually to be more puritanical, reddit used to have beheading videos occasionally go on r/all then they banned those subs and now they don’t have r/all.
Idc. I think its good that extremely violent content is hard to access. Not illegal, just very hard to acces. No it shouldnt be widely avilable on reddit either. Leave that shit to the sites about that, like liveleak or worldstar, somethingawfull, or torrents.
Insisting on ease of acces to gore and violence is WEIRD AS FUCK.
Why are you deflecting to illegality? Meta removes tons of posts that are completely legal when they don’t fit into Meta’s political agenda
I only rarely open Facebook, I can’t even remember when was the last time that opened it. I don’t have a Facebook account, and I generally don’t want to associate myself with that place.
A lot of movies would be illegal, if that was the case.
Try to make a video of Zuckerberg roasting and see how fast it will be taken down. Double standards much?
That would honestly be hilarious. Would he be trussed and basted?
I’ve never mastered Blender to a degree where I would be able to produce such a video.
Despite my wording it doesn’t mean that you specifically should to produce such a video, it was more of a thought experiment. My take is that if such video were produced and published on any of Meta’s platforms it would remain very little time online, unlike the mentioned roasted baby video FTA.
Yeah tbh, they shouldn’t have to take that down. It’s the least of the bad shit they’re doing, and showing fake violence is just in poor taste.
It’s in their rule that if it’s too graphic then they might take it down. Emphasise on “might”, it’s very arbitrary, and they take down content for less.
Inb4 “it’s AI generated it’s okay” that mean AI generated child porn is okay as well.
I would argue AI generated child porn is better than the alternative, perhaps if it was legal it would give people an option that causes no harm
Research shows that consuming CSAM, even if it’s artificial, may increase the likelihood of that person committing an act of abuse.
And where would the genAI get its training data from?
Couldn’t the ai make child porn by just combining the concepts of porn and children? Like there’s no training data of basketball players who are pigeons because they’re not pigeons, but the ais are still able to make basketball player pigeon hybrids that are cluttering tenor for some reason.
I’m pretty sure there have been basketball pigeons before AI images were a thing.
There’s no rule saying a pigeon can’t play basketball.
And the abundance of online pornography explains why people don’t rape people any more.
There are actually studies showing that better access to pornography correlates with fewer sexual assaults.
This one for example.
That has been legal far longer than Gen AI has existed, we don’t know how much of an effect it has on crime stats but I am sure there less rape now than there has ever been
If cutting 100% of crime is the only time doing something is worth it then no laws would exist
OK, how about another angle. If you make AI CSAM a thing, you’ve given basically anybody in possession of real CSAM an out. Also, presumably real CSAM is still illegal, so the difference between a pat on the back and serious prison time is whether some poor jury thinks the 8 year old rape victim in the video looks real enough.
Get out of here with this shit. It’s gross.
I guess that’s a good argument about why it should be mandatory that all AI generated images should have some kind of watermarking to make them identifiable
generally a good idea, but not for this:
CSAM distributors will quickly figure out how to add the watermark to real content; what then?
then you’ve got an even bigger problem on your hands…
that could be mitigated with cryptographic signatures being attached to the direct output from corporate models and either needing that signature to match or having the full prompt and random numbers for a reproducible output.
I mean, it would help satiate the pervert(who just wanna look), but it will not make the actual rapist(who want the action, for the lack of better word) to stop, and CSAM is provided by the latter. I don’t see why using genAI CSAM to satiate the former would solve much of the issue, the former will just watch adult porn if there’s no child porn. On the other hand it’s not like there’s a lack of loli hentai.
i think the point isn’t that they should have to take it down but that they should take it down. not taking it down is a choice.
No but it’s probably against their ToS so I don’t know why an AI generated gore video gets a pass.
The only footage that’s illegal from what I understand are sexual assault videos (including obviously csam) and snuff films (which are different because they are specifically made for distribution and generating revenue compared to “accidental” gore films)
Depends where you are as well and this is mostly from memory.
Legality (or religion etc etc) doesn’t guide my morality, decency, or basic difference between right and wrong.
What does guide your morality? I personally like the idea of virtue ethics, but so far I haven’t had time to properly familiarize myself with the concept. My understanding is that a virtue is a character trait that promotes human flourishing, and actions are good if they align virtues.
What? How? I mean… there are quite a lot of violent and graphic movies out there. So this should not be illegal. However, it has to be made sure that those videos cannot be seen by non-adults.
children watched beheading videos all the time and tutned out fine, why would this slop be any different?
Well, I know what you are trying to say, you just put it in a very extreme way. This is like saying that there are smokers who are 90yo, so it must be not affecting your health. A skewed view, because you don’t see the affected people, because they are six feet under. Same with traumatized people, who choose suicide because of all their experiences.
A bit of survivorship bias never hurt anyone that survived
Oh right, that was the term. Thanks for reminding me 😄