- @[email protected]
- deleted by creator
- 0 Posts
- 12 Comments
How many times can I say “social context” before you grok it? There’s a difference between a picture taken by a doctor for medical reasons and one taken by a pedo as CSAM. If doctors and parents are being nailed to the cross for totally legitimate images then that strikes me as evidence that the law is too rigid and needs more flexibility, not the other way around.
Who will be the judge?
The same people that should judge every criminal proceeding. Of course it’s not going to be perfect, but this is a case of not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Allowing generated or drawn images of sexualized children to exist has external costs to society in the form of normalizing the concept.
The argument that making generated or drawn CSAM illegal is bad because the feds might plant such images on an activist is incoherent. If you’re worried about that, why not worry that they’ll plant actual CSAM on your computer?
there cannot be developed a scale or spectrum to judge where the fake stops and real starts
Ah, but my definition didn’t at all rely on whether or not the images were “real” or “fake”, did it? An image is not merely an arrangement of pixels in a jpeg, you understand - an image has a social context that tells us what it is and why it was created. It doesn’t matter if there were real actors or not, if it’s an image of a child and it’s being sexualized, it should be considered CSAM.
And yes I understand that that will always be a subjective judgement with a grey area, but not every law needs to have a perfectly defined line where the legal becomes the illegal. A justice system should not be a computer program that simply runs the numbers and delivers an output.
Hot take: yes. All art exists in a social context, and if the social context of your art is “this is a child and they are sexualized” then your art should be considered CSAM. Doesn’t matter if it’s in an anime style, a photorealistic style, or if it’s a movie where the children are fully clothed for the duration but are sexualized by the director as in Cuties - CSAM, CSAM, CSAM.
Bethesda announced that players could download a new series of missions for a group known as the Track Alliance. The problem is that The Vulture is the second mission in the Tracker Alliance, and it costs $7 to buy. But it’ll actually cost players $10 because they must purchase 1,000 Starfield creation credits to afford it.
So they put the first mission out for free, but it turns out the first mission was a fucking advertisement. I remember being super pissed when Dragon Age pulled this shit.
And of course they pull the classic cost-obfuscation trick because it would just be far too convenient to just be able to buy a DLC for actual money and then download it.
The movie point blank says
The in-universe propaganda TV show point blank says these things. The film is pretty vague on the origins of the bug conflict - we know that the “Mormon extremists” tried to colonize a bug world and got killed for the trouble, and we know that Zegema Beach in the outer rings also gets nuked like Buenos Aires did, but not much else besides these two totally contextless events. In fact the very first propaganda film we see is about how great the Earth’s planetary defenses are - so why was the asteroid allowed to impact at all? This and the fact that Klendathu is so far away that launching meteors towards Earth doesn’t make sense is why many people who analyze the film conclude that the destruction of Buenos Aeries was a false flag, or at least was allowed to happen, by the fascist government in order to spur the people to support the war.
Also, the cinematography speaks for itself. Look at this shot from the battle of Klendathu sequence, where the mobile infantry are literally swarming over the arachnid home planet like ants. The movie wants you to question who the “bugs” really are, because any time humans and arachnids are on screen together, the humans are swarming around the much bigger aliens, only barely managing to bring them down (except in the very brief shot of the aircraft bombing the valley).
And the ending of the film - Dougie Howser walks out in a Nazi SS uniform and uses his psychic powers to tell everyone that the brain bug is afraid. You can tell it’s afraid just by looking at the fucking thing, the way it’s recoiling from him - it looks like it’s about to cry! Johnny Rico’s whole character arc in the film is being a kid who wants to do some good and who has some humanity in him getting that humanity ground out of him by the military machine until he’s shouting the exact same catch phrase that the older generation shouted at him. An older generation that is without exception portrayed as broken by their lives in the military meat grinder.
Last thing I promise: and really, the film isn’t about the conflict with the bugs. Listen to the director’s commentary with Verhoven and the script writer, and they barely talk about the bugs at all. The movie is really about the ways in which a fascist society perpetuates itself and destroys the people in it. Whether the bugs started the war or not is irrelevant - the war is necessary for that society to exist. It’s a society that brainwashes you as a kid, and then incentivizes you to maintain your brainwashing as an adult. It’s a society of broken people breaking their children. It’s a society where a hundred hot young adults can stand around in the shower together and everybody is so horny for the political ideology that they forget to be horny for each other!
Do you think that the only thing people use AI for is making deepfakes and CSAM? AFAIK the most common use is generating porn. Now, I don’t think generating regular porn is “malicious”, but I certainly understand why most people (self included) want to keep what they generate private.