Fuck. Good point. Guess I'll just have to come to peace with me being a hypocrite when it comes to what I find acceptable.

Satire is already legal and right wingers have already called for her to be shot or worse and gotten away with it. Pandora's box isn't closed, it's long been open.

There's already multiple LoRA of her on civitai.

I am standing on the wire😅 what is the problem with satire and AOC (whatever that is)?

Either involuntary AI generated pornography is wrong or it isn’t.

Agree. Laws have to be applied evenly, or else they are not Laws.

This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

It's satire, and yeah, I think satire of Harris skipping the primary process through "backroom deals" could be criticized with a similar video.

As long as there's a point to the video, it's speech. Make it clear that it's AI gen satire and I think it's fine, just don't make more explicit than necessary to get the point across.

That's a really thin line. I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power. The prime minister visiting a school is a world away from AI generated content of something that never actually happened. Leaving nuance out of these policies isn't some corporation pulling wool over our eyes, it's just really hard to do nuance at scale without bias and commotion.

Exactly.

Content featuring public figures should be given extra lenience, because if we can't openly criticize our leaders, we aren't free. So as long as it's either factually correct or clearly parody/satire/etc, it should be allowed. Defamation and libel rules should have a very high bar for conviction when it comes to public figures.

This was obviously satire, and well done at that. Good on BlueSky for restoring it, I hope they fix whatever process got it pulled.

So if I'm into words, are libraries considered porn?

I guess "obviously Elon Musk would never go for a guy like me" would be the wrong answer

That sounds fair, though I could still see an argument to be made for not always protecting the rich fucks the same way. Either way, we know that anything that comes out that's too incriminating would be declared AI-generated anyway, lol

Though mentioning the utopia... having porn of anyone anywhere might be some people's idea of a utopia! Haha

You're the one who used the loaded, connotative "porn" word first bud. To recap, I disagreed with your flippant, facile use of the word in this particular instance. We all know what porn is when we see it, and that wasnt it.

Sometimes when you try to jump the shark you fall short. Now you know.

not claiming private organizations don't have to the right to regulate speech on their platforms. was responding to statement

I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.

which to me implies some sort of state censorship on this type of material

Really, I just wanted to understand the rationale behind the desire to ban this type of material.

On the topic of Judge Roberts, on a similar although different legal issue

He wrote the Court’s opinion in United States v. Stevens (2010), invalidating a federal law that criminalized the creation or dissemination of images of animal cruelty. The government had argued that such images should be a new unprotected category of speech akin to child pornography. Roberts emphatically rejected that proposition, writing that the Court does not have “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.” Roberts also wrote the Court’s opinion in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), ruling that the First Amendment prohibited the imposition of civil liability against the Westboro Baptist Church for their highly offensive picketing near the funeral of a slain serviceman.

In oft-cited language, Roberts wrote:

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

If Judge Roberts were to be consistent, and I make no such claims that he will ever be consistent, I believe he would likewise not support banning fake AI porn.

so is that the key differentiating issue here? whether someone can mistake it for a real photo?

what if I'm a really talented artist and make a realistic drawing of you posing in a sexually suggestive way. Should that be criminalized?

if I put a watermark "AI generated" on some of this AI porn, does that make it OK? if the issue is someone mistaking it, then the watermark would remove that doubt.

i'm trying to get a sense for the rationale here. basically- does this issue at its core really have anything to do with AI?

They don't believe anything they aren't experiencing first hand is actually a problem.

As much as I don't like it, they have clearly made their own personal suffering a prerequisite for any solutions being allowed to move forward

but we should never want them to suffer

No, we should, actually. It's what they want for others and is the only way they might come to an understanding with what's wrong with them.

Sympathy for the fascists is almost equal to support of them afaic

It is true that fascism cannot be beat peacefully, but we should never want them to suffer

This is true. We should rapidly give them a lead injection, rather than have them suffer.

Yes, exactly this. Like something might be technically better but unless it's doing its main job of actually connecting people it's not going to work.

I wish more FOSS nerds understood this.

We do need better onboarding. I wonder if you could make an equivalent of the "discovery" feed that wasn't abusive to the user

The sad truth is that the vast majority of people WANT an algorithm to tell them what they like.

Mastodon requires you to actually have your own opinions going in, and follow material based on that.

Honestly, that ship has sailed, I think. When Musk first took over Twitter and everyone was bailing, if Mastodon was a viable alternative it could have taken off.

Now that Bluesky has overtaken them, and is seen as the alternative to Twitter, I think the opportunity has been lost.

oh it WILL happen on both sides. it's just going to be part of our lives now, and social media is fully justified in removing it from their platforms.

If it's actual satire, it should be allowed, but to be satire, it needs to criticize something instead of just being offensive. Satire is free speech, the latter is defamation or libel (not a lawyer, so not sure which it is).

I feel like it’s a balancing act and you can’t make everyone happy. I, personally, don’t hang around unmoderated communities because they are often worse: hostile, full of spam and questionable content… so basically /b/. But even 4chan is moderated to an extent shrug

I guess I don't really consider AnCaps to be Anarchists because Anarchy is generally leftist philosophy. Traditional anarchy is like small government socialism: empowered local unions and city governments.

People against ancaps usually only disagree with them in the way institutions are being dismantled.

In any case looking through the eyes of an ancap you might get valuable insights, and this thought should be obvious for an intelligent person of any school in regards to any other.

Solution involves answers where to get energy to dig in the gods, masters and idols. They are well-armed and those seeking solutions are not.

A perfect breeding ground for growing localized power structures that aren't bound to anything holding them back. A power vacuum will always fill itself. To gain control over it as a society (i.e. democracy) is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. We have to keep improving it (by reforming how economical powers can or can not exercise power or grow), not moving to something that's so obviously disregarding how power structures form and behave in human societies.

Dude, you do realize I didn't endorse centralized moderation with a single word, let alone social algorithms or any of the other trash? I'm just not ignorant enough to believe the internet wouldn't become an utter pile of trash without any kind of moderation of oversight, especially with such an abundance of ways to spread nonsense fully automatically. Want to get a glimpse of how that would look like? Look at Nostr. Given you're literally starting off with ad hominem any discussion with you is pointless anyway though.

Moderation should be optional .

Say, a message may have any amount of "moderating authority" verdicts, where a user might set up whether they see only messages vetted by authority A, only by authority B, only by A logical-or B, or all messages not blacklisted by authority A, and plenty of other variants, say, we trust authority C unless authority F thinks otherwise, because we trust authority F to know things C is trying to reduce in visibility.

Filtering and censorship are two different tasks. We don't need censorship to avoid seeing CSAM. Filtering is enough.

This fallacy is very easy to encounter, people justify by their unwillingness to encounter something the need to censor it for everyone as if that were not solvable. They also refuse to see that's technically solvable. Such a "verdict" from moderation authority, by the way, is as hard to do as an upvote or a downvote.

For a human or even a group of humans it's hard to pre-moderate every post in a period of time, but that's solvable too - by putting, yes, an AI classifier before humans and making humans check only uncertain cases (or certain ones someone complained about, or certain ones another good moderation authority flagged the opposite, you get the idea).

I like that subject, I think it's very important for the Web to have a good future.

This guy censored the POTUS (Granted it was Trump)

Mod actions propagate though, no? So you'd have to post to a separate community, not just another server. I guess your admin could override a mod, but that's quite rare.

It is, for them.

Fucking crazy you think this is making them sweat at all

all you're doing is giving them completely valid ammo that liberal 'virtue signaling' is completely hollow because look at your hypocritical behavior

not to mention telling all the queers you snarl at every 2-4 years to vote for you exactly how you feel about them

I don’t know, man. Seems to me conservatives let shit like that fester, while ignoring it (or further festering it) while they do the real dirty work in buried headlines.

They let us have the fun while they quietly pull everything out from under us.

But, at the same time, it’s just going to happen. People are frustrated with very little perceived outlet.

Yeah, .world gonna .world

A protest is throwing a brick through a window. This ain't no protest.

No, they literally make a choice to make it about being gay and I honestly don't think that many people even thought about that aspect. I don't even know that they aren't gay for all I know, I don't care.