this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
255 points (93.5% liked)

News

23259 readers
4506 users here now

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A bipartisan group of US senators introduced a bill Tuesday that would criminalize the spread of nonconsensual, sexualized images generated by artificial intelligence. The measure comes in direct response to the proliferation of pornographic AI-made images of Taylor Swift on X, formerly Twitter, in recent days.

The measure would allow victims depicted in nude or sexually explicit “digital forgeries” to seek a civil penalty against “individuals who produced or possessed the forgery with intent to distribute it” or anyone who received the material knowing it was not made with consent. Dick Durbin, the US Senate majority whip, and senators Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar and Josh Hawley are behind the bill, known as the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2024, or the “Defiance Act.”

Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd really prefer that people not send my parents any kind of porn.

I look at it like someone took my face out of a Facebook picture, printed it, cut it out, pasted it over some porn, and did the same thing.

It'd be a weird thing for them to do, but I don't really need to send the law after them for it. Maybe for harassment?

Laws have a cost, even good intentioned laws. I don't believe we need new ones for this.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Do you think people might change their opinion on you and act differently after seeing you performing in porn?

Laws have a cost, even good intentioned laws.

It causes distress to victims, arguably violates personal rights and is moral and ethically at least questionable. What would be downsides of criminal persecution for non-consensual sexual Deepfakes?

[–] Montagge@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but it's happening to women mostly so these commenters probably don't really care.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

I think a lot of man have unfortunately difficulties to empathize with women here, because they have rather different experience when it comes to expressing their sexuality and possible negative consequences.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If they understand that this kind of porn exists? No.

But that's an education thing, not a legal thing.

The downside is giving law enforcement yet another excuse to violate digital privacy. Laws that are difficult/impossible to enforce tend to do more harm than good.

I don't see this law removing any fake Taylor Swift porn from the Internet. Or really any other celebrity, for that matter.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If they understand that this kind of porn exists? No.

You know people form opinions on actors based on their roles in movies? So people will change what they think of you and how they act towards you based on media, even if it's clearly fictional.

The downside is giving law enforcement yet another excuse to violate digital privacy. Laws that are difficult/impossible to enforce tend to do more harm than good.

How exactly? Which new abilities to violate digital privacy is given the state by the this bill?