832
Meta Is Refusing to Remove AI-Generated Facebook Videos of Graphic Child Abuse, Including a Baby Roasting in an Oven. Meta is making it clear: it doesn't care about AI-generated child abuse videos. (futurism.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
163 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 23 hours ago (8 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 21 hours ago

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago

    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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (2 children)

    For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?

    Yes. As long as the image is not created through raping somebody, it's morally okay, since no real person was violated.

    And where do you draw the line?

    Anything which requires violating somebody to be produced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •