What game? Love me some old HL/source mods.

I honestly believe it was a mistake not releasing the footage with the screaming.

The fact that they were all standing around doing fuck all is bad, but you have to actively remember there are kids screaming. While mr punisher walpaper is pulling his phone out there are kids screaming. While they were all grouped together in the hall there are kids screaming.

Instead of having to actively place the sound you would have to actively ignore it like those shitbags in blue were. It would make their inaction all the more inexcusable. Release the edited footage so the news can play and so people who (understandably) can’t stomach the sound can still watch it, but have the unedited footage to show how monsterously uncaring those subhumans were.

My family is black you ding dong that’s not “having a black friend” that’s having people related to you that are effected. But i guess people like you literally only care about things that personally effect them

And only self inflated idiots care that much about grammar

Following my replies lmao you’re literally pathetic. It doesn’t matter if i do or don’t, you don’t need to be personally effected to be an ally, but I do have black relatives and mentally ill relatives if that makes you feel better

Same which means I know that being latino doesn’t mean you can’t be racist as fuck. Please tell me how you saying “dei” in assassins creed has nothing to do with the black guy being a main character.

You don’t have to say dei. You can just say the n-word like we all know you want to

It’s the next logical step for the pearl clutchers and amounts to “thought crime.”

I seriously doubt they would create any more surveillance for that than there already is for real CSAM.

The geek squad worker could still report these people, and it would be the prosecution’s job to prove that they were acquired or created in an illegal way.

That would just make it harder to prosecute people for CSAM since they will all claim their material was just ai. That would just end up helping child abusers get away with it.

Possession itself isn’t the problem, the problem is how they’re produced.

I think the production of generated CSAM is unethical because it still involves photos of children without their consent

No, because that increases demand for child abuse. Those pictures are created by abuse of children, and having getting access to them encourages for child abuse to produce more content.

There is evidence to suggest that viewing csam increases child seeking behavior. So them viewing generated CSAM would most likely have the same if not a similar result. That would mean that even just having access to the materials would increase the likelihood of child abuse

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/01/online-sexual-abuse-viewers-contacting-children-directly-study

The survey was self reported so the reality is probably higher than the 42% cited from the study

I likewise want a legal avenue for these people who would otherwise participate in child abuse to not abuse children.

The best legal avenue for non-offending pedophiles to take is for them to find a psychologist that can help them work through their desires. Not to give them a thing that will make them want to offend even more.

Oh 100% give Linux a try. I run pop-os on my 10 year old gaming laptop and it runs way better than it ever did on windows. I’m sure if I put Linux on my desktop it would be even better. I just play too much dbfz and the console version has way too much latency for me to have fun on it anymore

Give pop-os a try if you’re running an nvidia. It was very much plug and play with my laptop and it works great.

I got a new machine and put windows on it and the amount of registry tweaks to get it even close to my windows 10 is ridiculous. Significantly more than what I had to do to 10 to make it a bit more like 7 back in the day. (I know i know get linux, but you can’t play Dragon Ball FighterZ online with linux and that’s the game I play the most)

Even if the person is a porn star, the damage is that the porn is coming from somewhere other than the approved channels, thus the damages

The damages would be the mental harm done to the victim. Most porn stars have content available for free so that wouldn’t be a reason for damages

That’s the reasonable expectation of privacy standard (that applies inside houses when in bedrooms, bathrooms, etc, even if it’s not your house). If you’re doing it in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy, so I think a court would consider filming in that context to be legal.

The expectation of privacy doesn’t apply to one party consent States but they still can’t record sexual activities of someone without their consent

If you want control over how how content is used, don’t make it available for personal use.

I don’t think people who uploaded pictures on Facebook consider that making it available for personal use

I really don’t want to live in a society with the surveillance necessary to prosecute such a law.

Did i say anything about surveillance? Just because something is made illegal doesn’t make it actively pursued, it just makes it so if someone gets caught doing it or gets reported doing it they can be stopped. Like you’d be able to stop the person from doing that to your children. Or if someone gets their house raided for something else they can be charged for it. Not every person who has real csam creates it or shares it, many times they just get caught by another charge then it gets found. Or the geek squad worker sees it on their computer and reports them.

It would give people avenues to stop others from using photos of their children in such a way. You wouldn’t need any extra surveillance

Freedom means letting people do creepy things that don’t hurt anyone else.

Do you think it’s okay for someone to have real csam? Let’s say the person who made it was properly prosecuted and the person who has the images/videos don’t share it, they just have it to use. Do you think that’s okay?

It can be, if that constitutes defamation or libel. A passing statement wouldn’t, but a post on a popular website absolutely could. It all comes down to the damages that (false) statement caused.

If the person is a slut it wouldn’t be libel but it would still damage reputation. The person being a slut is true but calling them one still damages their reputation. If you release a home made video of a pornstar it would still be illegal even though it’s not something that would damage their reputation.

The reason for the illegality is the lack of consent not the reputation damage.

That depends on whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it’s in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Even in a 1 party consent state recording someone while you are having intercourse with them is illegal without their consent, because we make exceptions for especially sensitive subjects such as sex.

To go along with that I also believe that people who uploaded photos of themselves/their children did not consent to having their photos used to make sexual content. If they did it would be another matter to me entirely.

Edit: I also would like to say (and I really am sorry for bringing them into this) but from what you said you think it would be okay (not socially acceptable but okay/fine) for someone to take pictures of your kids while they’re at the park and use that to make porn. Really think about that. Is that something you think should be allowed? Imagine someone taking pictures of them at walmart and you ask what they’re doing and they straight up tell you “I like how they look I’m going to add them to my training data to make porn, don’t worry though I’m not sharing it with anyone” and you could do jack shit about it without facing legal consequences yourself. You think that is okay?

Thanks for sharing! I’m going to disagree with pretty much everything, so please stop reading here if you’re not interested.

I’m not one to stop because of disagreement. You’re in good faith and that’s all that matters imo

Revenge porn damages someone’s reputation, at the very least, which is a large part of why it’s illegal.

Someone keeping those images for private use doesn’t cause harm, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal.

I believe consent is a larger factor. The person who made it consented to have their photos/videos seen by that person but did not consent to them sharing it.

That’s why it’s not illegal to call someone a slut (even though that also damages reputation)

Someone doing something creepy for their own use should never be illegal.

What if the recording was made without the person’s consent. Say someone records their one night stand without the other person’s knowledge but they don’t share it with anyone. Should that be illegal?

I think it should be illegal to make porn of a person without their permission regardless of if it was shared or not. Imagine the person it is based off of finds out someone is doing that. That causes mental strain on the person. Just like how revenge porn doesn’t actively harm a person but causes mental strafe (both the initial upload and continued use of it). For scenario 1 it would be at step 2 when the porn is made of the person. For scenario 2 it would be a mix between step 3 and 4.

I would argue that the person using the model for that purpose is further victimizing the children. Kinda like how with revenge porn the worst perpetrator is the person who uploaded the content, but every person viewing it from there is furthering the victimization. It is mentally damaging for the victim of revenge porn to know that their intimate videos are being seen/sought out.

So is the car manufacturer responsible if someone drives their car into the sidewalk to kill some people?

Your analogy doesn’t match the premise. (Again assuming there is no csam in the training data which is unlikely) the training data is not the problem it is how the data is used. Using those same picture to generate photos of medieval kids eating ice cream with their family is fine. Using it to make CSAM is not.

It would be more like the doctor using the nazi experiments to do some other fucked up experiments.

(Also you posted your response like 5 times)

Real children are in training data regardless of if there is csam in the data or not (which there is a high chance there is considering how they get their training data) so real children are involved

The images were created using photos of real children even if said photos weren’t CSAM (which can’t be guaranteed they weren’t). So the victims were are the children used to generate CSAM

The difference between the things you’re listing and SAM is that those other things have actual utility outside of getting off. Were our phones made with human suffering? Probably but phones have many more uses than making someone cum. Are all those things wrong? Yea, but at least good came out of it outside of just giving people sexual gratification directly from the harm of others.

You ignored the second part of their post. Even if it didn’t use any csam is it right to use pictures of real children to generate csam? I really don’t think it is.