IMO commenters here discussing the definition of CSAM are missing the point. Definitions are working tools; it’s fine to change them as you need. The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.
Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted, because it violates the person’s rights over their own body — including its image. Plus it’s ripe material for harassment.
This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated, and the sexual acts being depicted did not happen. Like the sort of thing Grok is able to generate. This is what Timothy Sweeney (as usual, completely detached from reality) is missing.
And it applies to children and adults. The only difference is that adults can still consent to have their image shared as porn; children cannot. As such, porn depicting children will be always non-consensual, thus always victimising the children in question.
Now, someone else mentioned Bart’s dick appears in the Simpsons movie. The key difference is that Bart is not a child, it is not even a person to begin with, it is a fictional character. There’s no victim.
EDIT: I’m going to abridge what I said above, in a way that even my dog would understand:
What Grok is doing is harmful, there are victims of that, regardless of some “ackshyually this is not CSAM lol lmao”. And yet you guys keep babbling about definitions?
Everything else I said here was contextualising and detailing the above.
Is this clear now? Or will I get yet another lying piece of shit (like @[email protected] and @[email protected]), going out of their way to misinterpret what I said?
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.
Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content.
All of that while they’re still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called “never play defence”: make dumb claim, waste someone else’s time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.
Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.
There’s no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You’ve already failed.
But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.
I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.
But you said there’s a major moral difference? For you maybe.
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.
Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content.
There ARE victims, lots of them.
You’re only rewording what I said in the third paragraph, while implying I said the opposite. And bullshitting/assuming/lying I didn’t read the text. (I did.)
Learn to read dammit. I’m saying this shit Grok is doing is harmful, and that people ITT arguing “is this CSAM?” are missing the bloody point.
Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite
No, it does not. Stop being a liar.
Or, even better: do yourself a favour and go offline. Permanently. There’s already enough muppets like you: assumptive pieces of shit lacking basic reading comprehension, but still eager to screech at others — not because of what the others actually said, but because of what they assumed over it. You’re dead weight in any serious discussion, probably in some unserious ones too, and odds are you know it.
Also, I’m not wasting my time further with you, go be functionally illiterate elsewhere.
IMO commenters here discussing the definition of CSAM are missing the point. Definitions are working tools; it’s fine to change them as you need. The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.
Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted, because it violates the person’s rights over their own body — including its image. Plus it’s ripe material for harassment.
This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated, and the sexual acts being depicted did not happen. Like the sort of thing Grok is able to generate. This is what Timothy Sweeney (as usual, completely detached from reality) is missing.
And it applies to children and adults. The only difference is that adults can still consent to have their image shared as porn; children cannot. As such, porn depicting children will be always non-consensual, thus always victimising the children in question.
Now, someone else mentioned Bart’s dick appears in the Simpsons movie. The key difference is that Bart is not a child, it is not even a person to begin with, it is a fictional character. There’s no victim.
EDIT: I’m going to abridge what I said above, in a way that even my dog would understand:
What Grok is doing is harmful, there are victims of that, regardless of some “ackshyually this is not CSAM lol lmao”. And yet you guys keep babbling about definitions?
Everything else I said here was contextualising and detailing the above.
Is this clear now? Or will I get yet another lying piece of shit (like @[email protected] and @[email protected]), going out of their way to misinterpret what I said?
(I don’t even have a dog.)
Supporting CSAM should be treated like making CSAM.
Down into the forgetting hole with them!
Nobody here is supporting CSAM. Learn to read, dammit.
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.
There ARE victims, lots of them.
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read a comment properly.
Which they then talk about and point out that victims are absolutely present in this case…
If this is still too hard to understand i will simplify the sentence. They are saying:
“The important thing to talk about is, whether there is a victim or not.”
It doesn’t matter if there’s a victim or not. It’s the depiction of CSA that is illegal.
So no, talking about whatever or not there’s a victim is not the most important part.
It doesn’t matter if you draw it by hand with crayons. If it’s depicting CSA it’s illegal.
Nobody was talking about the “legality”. We are talking about morals. And morally there is major difference.
I wish I was as composed as you. You’re still calmly explaining things to that dumb fuck, while they move the goalposts back and forth:
All of that while they’re still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called “never play defence”: make dumb claim, waste someone else’s time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.
Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.
There’s no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You’ve already failed.
But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.
I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.
But you said there’s a major moral difference? For you maybe.
You’re only rewording what I said in the third paragraph, while implying I said the opposite. And bullshitting/assuming/lying I didn’t read the text. (I did.)
Learn to read dammit. I’m saying this shit Grok is doing is harmful, and that people ITT arguing “is this CSAM?” are missing the bloody point.
Is this clear now?
Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite since you above, reiterated
Which has never been an issue. It has never mattered in CSAM if it’s fictional or not. It’s the depiction that is illegal.
Is it so hard to admit that you misunderstood the comment ffs? It is painfully obvious to everyone.
No, it does not. Stop being a liar.
Or, even better: do yourself a favour and go offline. Permanently. There’s already enough muppets like you: assumptive pieces of shit lacking basic reading comprehension, but still eager to screech at others — not because of what the others actually said, but because of what they assumed over it. You’re dead weight in any serious discussion, probably in some unserious ones too, and odds are you know it.
Also, I’m not wasting my time further with you, go be functionally illiterate elsewhere.