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

Technology

72647 readers
3706 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
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 146 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Lawmakers are grappling with how to address ...

Just a reminder that the government is actively voting against regulations on AI, because obviously a lot of these people are pocketing lobbyist money

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Oh I just assumed that every Conservative jerks off to kids

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (4 children)

A 99-1 vote to drop the anti AI regulation is hardly the government voting against. The Senate smashed that shit hard and fast.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 13 points 1 week ago

Even in countries a lot less corrupt than the US this is an issue.

Especially because the US government/companies doesn't do jack shit for people

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 75 points 1 week ago (3 children)

For example, Louisiana mandates a minimum five-year jail sentence no matter the age of the perpetrator.

That's just on it's face stupid. A thirteen year old boy is absolutely gonna wanna see girls in his age group naked. That's not pedophilia. It's wanting to see the girls he fantasizes about at school every day. Source: I was a thirteen year old boy.

It shouldn't be treated the same as when an adult man generates it; there should be nuance. I'm not saying it's ok for a thirteen year old to generate said content: I'm saying tailor the punishment to fit the reality of the differences in motivations. Leave it to Louisiana to once again use a cudgel rather than sense.

I'm so glad I went through puberty at a time when this kind of shit wasn't available. The thirteen year old version of me would absolutely have got myself in a lot of trouble. And depending on what state I was in, seventeen year old me could have ended listed as a sex predetor for sending dick pics to my gf cause I produced child pornography. God, some states have stupid laws.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In general, even up here in woke-ville, punishments have gotten a lot more strict for kids. There’s a lot more involvement of police, courts, jail. As a parent it causes me a lot of anxiety - whatever happened to school being a “sandbox” where a kid can make mistakes without adult consequences, without ruining their lives? Did that ever exist?

[–] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I can already picture that as an Onion headline:

New York Renames State to 'WokeVille'. NYC to follow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

As a father of teenage girls, I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, but I would personally see to it that anyone making sexual deepfakes of my daughters is equitably and thoroughly punished.

[–] seralth@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (9 children)

There is a difference between ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse and no expectations.

Vs scaring the shit out of them and making them work their ass off doing an ass load of community service for a summer.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yes, absolutely. But with recognition that a thirteen year old kid isn't a predator but a horny little kid. I'll let others determine what that punishment is, but I don't believe it's prison. Community service maybe. Written apology. Stuff like that. Second offense, ok, we're ratcheting up the punishment, but still not adult prison.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Punishment for an adult man doing this: Prison

Punishment for a 13 year old by doing this: Publish his browsing and search history in the school newsletter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 54 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Honestly I think we need to understand that this is no different to sticking a photo of someone's head on a porn magazine photo. It's not real. It's just less janky.

I would categorise it as sexual harassment, not abuse. Still serious, but a different level

[–] lath@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Schools generally means it involves underage individuals, which makes any content using them csam. So in effect, the "AI" companies are generating a ton of csam and nobody is doing anything about it.

[–] LostXOR@fedia.io 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Do deepfake explicit images created from a non-explicit image actually qualify as CSAM?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (18 children)

Yes, finding out that your peers have been sharing deep fake pornography of you is absolutely fine and a normal thing for young girls to go through in school. No girls have ever killed themselves because of this exact sort of thing, surely. This definitely will not add in any way to the way women and girls are made to feel entirely disgustingly dehumanized by every man or boy in their lives. Groups of men and boys reducing them and their bodies down to vivid sexual fantasies that they can quickly generate photo realistic images of.

If the person in the image is underaged then it should be classified as child pornography. If the woman who's photo is being used hasnt consented to this then it should be classified as sexual exploitation.

Women and girls have faced degrees of this kind of sexual exploitation by men and boys since the latter half of the 20th century. But this is a severe escalation in that behavior. It should be illegal to do this and it should be prosecuted when and where it is found to occur.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (26 children)

It's bullying with a sexual element. The fact that it uses AI or deepfakes is secondary, just as it was secondary when it was photoshop, just as it was secondary when it was cutting out photos. It's always about using it bully someone.

This is different because it's easier. It's not really different because it (can be) more realistic, because it was never about being realistic, otherwise blatantly unrealistic images wouldn't have been used to do it. Indeed, the fact that it can be realistic will help blunt the impact of the leaking of real nudes.

load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 44 points 1 week ago (2 children)

probably because there's a rapist in the white house.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To add to that. I live in a red area and since the election I’ve been cat called much more. And it’s weird too, cus I’m middle aged…. I thought I’d finally disappear…

the toxic manosphere/blogosphere/whatever it's called has done so much lifelong damage

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

God I'm glad I'm not a kid now. I never would have survived.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I’m sure the laws will focus on protecting IP - specifically that of AI companies or megacorps, the famous and powerful, but not the small creators of content or the rabble negatively affected by AI abuse.

The rest of us will have to suffer through presenting whatever damaging and humiliating video to a court. If you can even afford a lawyer to do so. Then be offered a judgement that probably won’t be paid or won’t cover the damage done by an image that will never be able to be erased from the internet. Those damages could include the suicide of young people bullied and humiliated by such deepfakes.

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (5 children)

So is this a way to take away rights by making it about kids?

I mean what the fuck. We did much less and got punished right? It didn't matter if we were on the property. Schools can hold students accountable for conduct with other students.

The leaded-gas adults of the time had no problem dealing with the emergence of cell phones. It was a distraction. They didn't need lawmakers to call it something specific. My Pokemon cards caused fights and were banned. No lawmakers needed.

The problem is surely with the interaction between parents and schools. Or maybe it's just the old way of thinking. Maybe it's better to have police and courts start taking over discipline in schools.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] vane@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe let's assume all digital images are fake and go back to painting. Wait... what if children start painting deepfakes ?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Or pasting someone's photo over porn...in their minds...

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Welp, if I had kids they would have one of those scramble suits like in a scanner darkly.

It would of course be their choice to wear them but Id definitely look for ways to limit their time in areas with cameras present.

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's just called the outside now. Assume you are on camera at all times the moment you step out the front door. To be safe in the surveillance we live in today, best act as though you are being recorded in your own home as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Jfc the replies here are fucking rancid. Lemmy is full of sweaty middle aged blokes in tech who hate it when anyone tells them that grown men who pursue teenage girls who have just reached an arbitrary age are fucking creeps, so of course they're here encouraging the next generation of misogynist scum by defending this shit, too.
And men (pretend to) wonder why we distrust them.

Ngl, I'm only leaving reply notifs on for this one to work on my blocklist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›