this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
378 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

72764 readers
1478 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
378
Kids are making deepfakes of each other, and laws aren’t keeping up (19thnews.org)
submitted 1 week ago by Pro@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
174 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (15 children)

When someone makes child porn they put a child in a sexual situation - which is something that we have amassed a pile of evidence is extremely harmful to the child.

For all you have said - "without the consent" - "being sexualised" - "commodifies their existence" - you haven't told us what the harm is. If you think those things are in and of themselves harmful then I need to know more about what you mean because:

  1. if someone thinks of me sexually without my consent I am not harmed
  2. if someone sexualises me in their mind I am not harmed
  3. I don't know what the "commodification of one's existence" can actually mean - I can't buy or sell "the existence of women" (does buying something's existence mean the same as buying the thing, or something else?) the same I can aluminium, and I don't see how being able to (easily) make (realistic) nude images of someone changes this in any way

It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic,

I am not unempathetic, but I attribute the blame for what makes me feel bad about the situation is that girls are being made to feel bad and ashamed not that a particular technology is now being used in one step of that.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

The harm is:

  • Those photos now exist in the world and can lead to direct harm to the victim by their exposure
  • it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
  • The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.
  • your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.
[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

No, but the harm certainly is not the same as CSAM and it should not be treated the same.

  • it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
  • The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.

as far as I know there is no good evidence that this is the case and is a big controversy in the topic of fake child porn, i.e. whether it leads to more child abuse (encouraging paedophiles) or less (gives them a safe outlet) or no change.

your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

If someone fantasises about me without my consent I do not give a shit, and I don't think there's any justification for it. I would give a shit if it affected me somehow (this is your first bullet point, but for a different situation, to be clear) but that's different.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hm. I wasn’t expecting the pro-child porn argument. All I can say is that’s absolutely legally and morally CSAM, and you’re fuckin nasty. Oof. Not really gonna bother with the rest because, well, yikes.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Hey, it's OK to say you just don't have any counter-argument instead of making blatantly false characterisations.

load more comments (11 replies)