Effectively making it illegal to create likenesses of people. She’s talking about an edited photo unless I’m mistaken? She wants to make it illegal to create a video of someone in a pornographic state. I assume that’s because porn specifically is a hard limit for her. But why can’t that hard limit be something else down the road like making images of people doing illegal things? Or just things you’re not comfortable with?
Making edits of people is nothing new. The only difference is the ease of access to quality edits which, in my opinion, only serves to discredit photo and video as evidence of fact and I’m totally ok with that already.
I think revenge porn, whether real or just claiming to be real, is a hard limit for literally everybody on earth who isn’t already engaging in that behavior.
Like, I really want to like the libertarian movement. I think there are some good ideas there, but the movement always returns back to this: the defense of sex crimes.
It just bugs me that this is the hill ya’ll choose to die on, every single time.
Should it be illegal for someone to draw a hyper realistic image of another person in a compromising position? It’s not and shouldn’t be. It’s the basis to satire and historically and answer to power imbalances.
My point was that this has always been possible - the discussion seems to be around the new easy access.
I have no clue what political thing you are adding, not super interested in foreign politics.
We are specifically talking about forcing people to engage in pornography against their will, not political satire.
I mean, we aren’t talking about that, because the topic at hand is specifically porn that people aren’t being forced to engage in, but rather porn that pretends to do so really, really well. And that difference is at the core of the point you’re ignoring.
I have a hard time believing anybody who isn’t a sex criminal is incapable of understanding that difference.
Ah, yes, resorting to ad hominem when logic and rhetoric fail you. Stay classy.
I have to pay Tom Holland rights if I want to use his likeness for a video game, and he can turn me down at any time, but you want the right to use anybody’s likeness without their consent or financial gain so you can create porn?
I understand the point you’re making. Deepfake porn is definitely “too far”, and editing celebrities to look like funny caricatures of themselves is definitely not “too far”, but exactly where should the line fall? Do we err on the side of being too restrictive so that nobody is offended? Or err on the side of being too lax so that nobody has losses a “legitimate use” of the technology?
In what way?
Effectively making it illegal to create likenesses of people. She’s talking about an edited photo unless I’m mistaken? She wants to make it illegal to create a video of someone in a pornographic state. I assume that’s because porn specifically is a hard limit for her. But why can’t that hard limit be something else down the road like making images of people doing illegal things? Or just things you’re not comfortable with?
Making edits of people is nothing new. The only difference is the ease of access to quality edits which, in my opinion, only serves to discredit photo and video as evidence of fact and I’m totally ok with that already.
I think revenge porn, whether real or just claiming to be real, is a hard limit for literally everybody on earth who isn’t already engaging in that behavior.
Like, I really want to like the libertarian movement. I think there are some good ideas there, but the movement always returns back to this: the defense of sex crimes.
It just bugs me that this is the hill ya’ll choose to die on, every single time.
Should it be illegal for someone to draw a hyper realistic image of another person in a compromising position? It’s not and shouldn’t be. It’s the basis to satire and historically and answer to power imbalances.
My point was that this has always been possible - the discussion seems to be around the new easy access.
I have no clue what political thing you are adding, not super interested in foreign politics.
We are specifically talking about forcing people to engage in pornography against their will, not political satire.
I have a hard time believing anybody who isn’t a sex criminal is incapable of understanding that difference.
I mean, we aren’t talking about that, because the topic at hand is specifically porn that people aren’t being forced to engage in, but rather porn that pretends to do so really, really well. And that difference is at the core of the point you’re ignoring.
Ah, yes, resorting to ad hominem when logic and rhetoric fail you. Stay classy.
I have to pay Tom Holland rights if I want to use his likeness for a video game, and he can turn me down at any time, but you want the right to use anybody’s likeness without their consent or financial gain so you can create porn?
I understand the point you’re making. Deepfake porn is definitely “too far”, and editing celebrities to look like funny caricatures of themselves is definitely not “too far”, but exactly where should the line fall? Do we err on the side of being too restrictive so that nobody is offended? Or err on the side of being too lax so that nobody has losses a “legitimate use” of the technology?
The slippery slope is literally a logical fallacy