News
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.
view the rest of the comments
I agree the two are different, but not as different as you seem to think. None of these girls were raped, but this is still sexual abuse, especially because these images were shared.
Sexual abuse is complex, and far surpasses "slander," especially in ones formative years. This act of sexual abuse is going to change how 60 girls and soon to be woman respond to sex, likely for the rest of their lives. These images may follow them forever, causing heartache, job loss, on and on, and the damage will be done because this is a form of CSAM of them that is in the world.
That is not a light matter to be sidelined to a "hand slap" level of offense. I think the fact the perpetrators were also children should play heavily in their defense, but otherwise this needs to be treated as the sexually damaging event it is.
Isn't all of that still kinda of true regardless of the age of the subjects? If they were 18 or 30 it isn't magically better.
Revenge Porn might be a closer analogue. CSAM laws feel like they'll get loopholed somehow, like idk if can just ask the AI to make the person aged up or whatever and get away with it.
It does seem like there needs to be a new law specifically addressing this. In the past someone could have cut out the heads of a 17 year old and pasted it on top of a playboy model. That's an obvious fake, but I don't think it is the same as what's happened here. But to a degree there are similarities. Does the ability to detect a fake matter? I don't know. There are applications that can determine if a picture is AI generated with some level of confidence. Does that mean only human opinion matters? Again, I don't know. Certainly there was no abuse at the time the image was taken, so there is a difference with this and CP.
I don't think this is "hand slap" level, but it also isn't multiple decades behind bars level which is what they would be looking at for that quantity of CSAM, particularly for a couple of horny teenagers that likely weren't even sure what they were doing was illegal. I do think you're over exaggerating somewhat the harm in this case as fundamentally what was done isn't much different from something like cutting out photos of these girls heads and pasting them into a porn magazine. It's certainly fancier and more convincing, but at the end of the day that's what happened, their faces got superimposed on the bodies of porn stars. That likely bothered these girls in the same way the thought of some random creep jerking off to their original photos would, and if the images were widely circulated it could cause some issues down the line (heartache certainly, but job loss certainly not), but if this bothered them enough to alter the way they feel about sex for the rest of their lives there were already significant mental issues at play.
I honestly don't know exactly what an appropriate level of punishment would be. My gut says something like 6 months to a year in juvenile detention plus some years of probation. I think a significant amount of weight needs to be given to the fact that these were a couple of teenagers doing something that wasn't obviously illegal. They cannot and should not be held to the same standards as adults would be for the same reason statutory rape is a thing, they're incapable of reasoning about their actions to the same degree as an adult is.
No, it's not. No, it shouldn't.
First, it's so, so much easier to deal with when you have the response of "that's not me". Second, it's current AI. How real do these things even look?
These girls were not sexually abused. Sexual harassment is more a appropriate crime. Maybe libel. Maybe a new crime that we can call "sexual libel" or something.
Current AI for generating sexual images is on the real side of the uncanny valley at this point. If you're really looking you might be able to tell, but I don't think most people looking for porn are going to scrutinize anything too closely in the first place.. So real enough.
However, I don't see how 60 images of what's effectively a face plastered on a miscellaneous body doing something sexual would follow anyone for anything. Anyone who knows of them and outs themselves just admitted to child porn..
Most people don't have such unique facial features that would be something that could even follow them in the first place.
As for the criminal aspect of it, that's a societal thing to figure out, so here they go figuring it out.