Should it be illegal to generate deepfake child porn?
Discussion
Ooooh, spicy questions.
Any type of child porn should be illegal
If it's not a real child, who is being harmed?
Society
We are not morally neutral creatures and neither are we morally unnafected by the content we engage with. No *real* children are portrayed but *real people* are always effected by the fallout of perverse and sinful behaviors and activities, no matter how private we think they are.
Normalizing sexual attraction to children essentially promotes it.
The fruits of that increase grooming and attacks on real children.
Enabling bad behavior can never diminish it or it's fruits.
It will be made for real people, that kind of content can nourish sick pulsions and make growing the desire of some people to do it on real child
God and His created order can't be harmed, but they can be dishonored. People who view porn are to various extents evil, deceived, and sick. Evil must be destroyed. Lies must be corrected. The sick must be healed, and you don't do that by administering more poison.
Fake or real, the mind will create the vibration and send it out into the matrix.
Protect yourself from your own thoughts ~ Rumi
As we evolve we also strive to protect others from our own thoughts. 🙏
Can you define evil? Mine would be: unconscious, unprocessed pain being expressed as an externalisation of that inner pain.
How does one "destroy" evil in your definition?
This is not the point. Indirectly, the simple existence of the pornography market feeds a worldwide network of crimes and atrocities. I hate discussions based on intellectual idealism, however, if pornographic content is, apparently, neutral, with regard to its production (which does not make it neutral in other aspects at all), it does not resolve the issue regarding practice in general. With AI and deep fake, the image of real people can be used to generate content, and this will inevitably be done (in fact, it is already being done with celebrities). I'm not even going to go into the issue of copyright, which is another problem just as complex. The man opened Pandora's box with this rubbish called AI. A way of indiscriminately giving vent to what is darkest within the human soul. I see almost nothing good in this technology, and nothing will prevent this from happening. But the fact that something evil is inevitable does not justify the conformation
The question would be what exactly is a deep fake? When you say it is not a real child, is the face not real or the body not real, or both not real.
The usual deep fake is using someone's face on a fake body doing fake action.
If the face is that of a real child, it's very real harm to the child and the family.
very good point, did not think of possibility of actual real child porn being altered with some sort of face/bodyswap. this will include real childporn.
in this case the poll question is not relevant tho, bc it will already be covered in the current law.
however, it seems that then it's the matter of finding a proper solution to unite in how to distinguish between real and fake AI footage.. even after editing.
problem😬
Whether it’s real or not, if you’re getting off on child porn then that itself should be illegal and immoral and you definitely have a major mental problem.
yea but that's besides the question
you cant illegal what's between someone's own mind and eye
If you’re downloading or watching it it’s illegal.
"in this case the poll question is not relevant tho, bc it will already be covered in the current law."
🤝
It would seem to me that the victimization of the is only PART of the crime. It's also a breech of socially accepted moral norm. Which is why the crime isn't simply classified as sexual assault. So fake child porn escapes the victimization-of-a-child criticism. But still runs afoul of the moral code we all accept as part of society
By analogy plagiarism is a violation SEPARATE from the fact that it's a violation against the originator of thw content
At least this is how I interpret it..... so I would argue that deepfake child porn should still be illegal insomuch as it's still child porn - regardless of the "realness" of the child
The soul
The mind of consumer (individual) at phase 1;
The public opinion of western civilization (collective) at phase 2;
The Congress laws (violence monopoly) at phase 3.
Yes, since it would need source material to generate fakes in the first place
^This
Any deep fake is a derivative of original content.
That's like asking "if you put a sepia filter on child porn is it still illegal?"
Yes.
Also, unpopular opinion: all porn should be illegal. It is a moral blight on our society. It strips men of their vigor, strips women of their dignity, objectifies those taking part in it, ruins marriages and families, makes real world relationships and expectations unhealthy, is often accompanied by violence and abuse and exploitation inside and outside *the industry*, distorts the blessings and purposes of sex (ignoring the blessings of bearing children, for example), is addicting, and often causes addicts to go further into darker and more degenerate sexual content (like child porn) to satiate their lusts.
Well, so-called child #pornography is illegal or should be. So if it's depicting an actual child. It should probably be illegal too.
It's not my call. But personally I think it's disgusting and dangerous..😐
That's a good question... 🤔 Mentally ill gonna mentally ill, so causing no physical world harm & let them be in their own metaverse with their goggles on could be OK... Would solve some issues with the low hanging fruit, but naturally, Epsteiners would prefer the real deal... But, nevertheless, I like the question here.
Obviously yes because it promotes further degenarcy and only gives short term gratification for sick pedophiles whil long term it furthers grooming.
This is a debate long held in the EU parliament as they argue flodding the market with it will prevent further harm to real children.
While in fact they just want to normalize it and over long term it does not cut the deal but normalizes grooming and exposes more real children to sick and sadistic ideology.
Fuck everyone who promotes it, death penalty for pedophiles.
Oh, spicy. "Illegal" should be considered in terms of the level of punishment, otherwise it's sort of empty question.
It should also be considered in terms of whether this introduces new lever that the government can pull for some other thing later (i.e. it could later become illegal to generate a deepfake video on your computer complaining about Joe Biden).
Not really a poll kinda question haha.
It's an interesting one though since I don't believe there is a single "right" answer to it.
It would require extensive non-emotional driven discussion to reach some sort of basic consensus, which is damn difficult for most people, and even then it's a headscratcher.
Here's my view:
- Why the ban would be bad:
It is censorship, which is always bad imo. The ability to ban something within a certain system, means other things can be banned within that system and you are subject to the decision of a few "deciders".
A law that acts like it is protecting children is probably the best way to appeal to someone's sense of morality, and thus easiest for them to manipulate people into agreeing to underlying things they wouldn't actually want.
- Why the ban would be good:
It would at one point get to a stage where it is difficult to say whether or not it is real, which would have many negative consequences obviously, such as courtcase rulings to name one.
- Neutral point:
On one hand, it could quench a pedo's thirst and prevent him from doing the actual deed.
On the other hand, it could push him into wanting to do it in real even more.
Regardless of any of this, they can try banning something all they want, a law does not prevent those that disagree with the law from breaking it.
In short, I would opposse the ban.
I oppose child porn and sex but I do not oppose the creation of fake child porn, based on the fact that there is no real harm to others. The problem will lie in its future realism and the difficulty to distinguish real and fake rape cases.
Why not ask if imagining it in a mind (be it natural or artificial) should be illegal? It's pretty much the same premise, though closer to the point imo.
No because it's victimless
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=625x416&blurhash=rCF%7EjmEM01.9_4R%3AtStSbc%25%25tR%25ND%25IUxut7t6t6_NV%408_ogxuV%40jEV%40M%7BayRjW%3Bt7adRjofjYIUD%25WAxuV%40V%40jYRiV%40j%3FWYaxt7j%5Bt7s%3AM%7CWBof&x=f8ab098f57ca3957c3f94a36387885f35b98f402fa28e8f8e786d5bc20d26129
I consider this question as a Christian and an anarchist, and so any kind of pornography, especially involving children and facsimiles thereof is morally repugnant, and should be treated as such by society, not the State. Governance, not Government.
Did God make deep-fake child-porn illegal?
I consider this issue according to the following principles:
Pornography, and child-porn, is wrong, according to God's law.
God's laws are the only laws that should exist. The State, because it is involuntary and thus usurps human freedom through force, is immoral, like child-porn, and therefore should not exist.
Society gets its REAL and only natural laws from God, and therefore should consider child-porn, including AI-generated child-porn, immoral (which we all naturally know in our hearts, when not corrupted and warped by sin, is wrong).
Society, and not a State, should enforce morality and thus penalize and ostracize and inflict whatever punishments are necessary in response to an act of aggression. So I would think that a pedophile would have to actually act out against a child for violence to justifiably be done against him or her.
Societal norms should make viewing any kind of child-porn, even the AI-generated kind, unacceptable and subject to whatever kind of penalties society can inflict, including ostracism, "cancellation", loss of job, disinheritance, etc., excluding physical violence.
Given that we all presently live under the State, no, the State should not make it "illegal" because of all the problems that can come from that. Leave it to society to deal with. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, all vices are not (and should not be) crimes.
That's my 50 sats.
Assuming it in essence is the same as making it illegal to think certain stuff, and eventhough disgusting and abhorrent, no.
It is between their mind and their eyes.
Should persecution be there to distribute this generated material? maybe yes by one means, maybe no by other means, but that's another question.
The power that will be given to the gov to effectively be able to regulate both scenarios sets a very dangerous precedent that will facilitate the form of a tyrannical surveillance state.. and we are already very close as is.
Another question is whether or not it would even be possible to regulate it effectively so that it makes sense too put a team and money toward it.
They will probably push for either kyc on the accounts accessing centralised software or accessing the web from start with Digital state ID authentication. Has tons of cons tied to it and itself be deemed unethical to begin with. Then it won't even rly make sense to go further in the ethical decison making here.
Eventually, they're gonna do what they want themselves, irregardless of our input. The ef bi eye probably already has all data and online activity accessable to them wrt AI and since they can do whatever, our opinion doesn't matter.
Conclusion: Protect your privacy and childrens exposure on the internet individually for what's about to come.
No one (I hope) disagrees that this is unlawful/immoral. All of these questions assume some kind of enforcement arm of the State. Assuming this exists, then yes--all forms of theft (identity, fraud, etc.) should be liable to retribution (equalling of the scales).
But, assuming no State with a "monopoly on violence," the principle of talionic justice exists prior to any State (a.k.a., Natural Law), so the questuon is really "by what mechanism or institution should retribution be meted out?" How does a given community decide and delegate this power, if we each are not to enforce it ourselves? The "trial by jury of peers" has been the historical way of proving beyond shadow of a doubt (lest injustice obtain) a person's guilt, with the hangman delegated the somewhat unfortunate task of executing whatever punishment the jury-peers (the actual "judges") decide is fair and right.
A society without a sword *of some kind* is a society without justice.
I don't know.
Maybe "the devil we know" (adversarial court system) is better than "the devil we don't" (vigilante-ism)...(?)
In nature there is no concept of legal / illegal
Yes, there very much is. Justice is part of the Natural Order. It is the way of strong men.
As is the instinct for adults to protect children from predators and to root out those who would harm children and put them in the afore-ordained appropriate woodchipper.
In nature there is no concept of equality
If the lion is hungry, the lion eat you. If the lion NOT hungry, the lion will not eat you.
Even parents that love their children, will not give same time & energy to their kids.
Girls prefer strong, healthy, tall, smart, popular men.
People do not treat everyone the same. its not equal amongst humans, its not equal in nature.
Equality = human made up concept, so the losers feel good.
Not my opinion, it's just how it is.
Gotta protect those you love and care about.
But its also important the kids are not in a bubble. They should also learn how the real world works.
It's important to be in the mud to develop strong imune system. If the kids get a lot of antibibiotics they will be sick more often later on, because of weak immune system
If someone hurts your children, you should go after them. The legal system is there to stop you and placate you with signs of activity.
It is a mediator.
Justice is not about equality. Justice is about laying down a law and enforcing it.
The legal system is what adds the concept of equality.
Yet, the justice system is broken, so hunting season is open. I often speak about this with my wife, god forbid something happened to our kid, no government instance should know about this. Rally up some guys who I know can be helpful in this situation, settle it & off to the pigfarm it is...
We should revolt & overthrow any government that does not offer hunting permits for child abusers.
As per the question I would consider using a child's likeness to train such a model to be abuse.
We should hunt them.
As for the accounts that keep popping up here on Nostr I will pay a bounty of 1,000,000 sats to dox them.
Government law? No
Natural law? Yes
Same as capital punishement. Im for, cos someone people just loooove killing, Im against government administaring it. It should be local communities.
#unpopularOpinion, but I'm going to say "no".
Who is being harmed by deepfake anything?
I can see an argument that DISTRIBUTING such a thing causes harm (to the reputation of anyone recognisably depicted in a deepfake.
And I strongly agree that producing NEW training material involves harm.
But #victimless crimes are bullshit.
Always.
A Qu'ran does not feel pain when burned or blasphemed.
Trafficking woollens across state boundaries does not leave anyone unclothed.
Pixels on a screen are not traumatised by sex.
Anthropomorphising pixels on a screen is something our brains are primed for, but this human weakness has no moral or philosophical weight.
Lamentably, sufficient CSAM material exists already in police evidence lockers to train any number of Diffusion models.
This could produce any amount of "child abuser Methadone" without harming or wronging any real person.
Victimless crimes shouldn't exist, right?!
Wait a minute...
Consider that the producer and consumer of this content may be victims of brain reprogramming by trivializing morally unacceptable behavior in Western civilization and a crime in the physical world for violating even Hoppean Argumentative Ethics.
Do you doubt that the next step after the dissemination of this type of content would be to propose a law in Congress making the practice more flexible in the real world with parental consent in exchange for financial compensation and, 10 years later, a project of law completely releasing this harmful behavior?
Put yourself in the position of your children, vulnerable physically and psychologically, facing a rich sexual predator with good lawyers.
For me, it continues to be a crime with victims, both in the real world and in the virtual world. It's not about moralism, but about realism, knowing the modus operandi of the nihilists of the Frankfurt School of Thought.