• Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is almost as sus as the the specific preferred age range terminology for pedophiles that comes up now and again in the most uncomfortable of scenarios

    • andybytes@programming.devBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Maybe we are the only people that don’t f kids. Maybe this is "H’ “E” Double Hockey Sticks.

  • Ledivin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Tim Sweeney vocally supports child porn and deep fake porn? He certainly looks like the type of creeper, so I guess I’m not that surprised.

    I wonder how many times he’s been to Trump and Epstein’s Pedophile Island 🤔

    • fonix232@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It is when one side of the political palette is “against” it but keeps supporting people who think CSAM is a-okay, while the other side finds it abhorrent regardless who’s pushing it.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      What exactly have I lied about?

      I’ve never once tried to even insinuate that what grok is doing ok. Nor that it should be. What I’ve said. Is that it doesn’t even matter if there are an actual real person being victimized or not. It’s still illegal. No matter how you look at it. It’s illegal. Fictional or not.

      Your example of Bart in the Simpsons movie is so far out of place I hardly know where to begin.

      It’s NOT because he’s fictional. Because fictional depictions of naked children in sexually compromised situations IS illegal.

      Though I am glad you don’t have a dog. It would be real awkward for the dog to always be the smartest being in the house.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read a comment properly.

        Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted

        This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated

          • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.”

            • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

                • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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.

        • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite since you above, reiterated

          The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.

          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.

            • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Ok. You’re right. You saying it’s ok to depict CSAM if there isn’t a victim is not you arguing the opposite. It’s me lying.

              You’re so smart. Good job.

          • dantel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Is it so hard to admit that you misunderstood the comment ffs? It is painfully obvious to everyone.

  • BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is SO SURPRISING that in a Country run by JEFFREY EPSTEINS BEST FRIEND who’s using YOUR TAX DOLLARS to Protect Pedophiles and Child Sex Traffickers that people would call the CREATION OF CHILD PORN A PROTECTED ACT!

    • Rose@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      He’s wrong because he’s not Gabe Newell. On a more serious note, the 404 report cited by the PCGamer article basically supports your point, though with the caveats that X and Musk are bad for other reasons and that those generated images make it into people’s feeds:

      The major, uhh, downside here is that people are using Grok for the same reasons they use AI elsewhere, which is to nonconsensually sexualize women and celebrities on the internet […]

      The situation on other platforms is better because there are fewer Nazis and because the AI-generated content cannot be created natively in the same feed, but essentially every platform has been polluted with this sort of thing, and the problem is getting worse, not better.

  • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Im not going to comment on whatever he’s commenting on.

    Im just going to re-affirm that Tim Sweeney is a fucking moron. in any and all cases

  • andybytes@programming.devBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    HAHAHAHA Just stop the corn bro… IS everything the lowest common denominator… beatin meat… I don’t eat when I sh!+… Like time and place… Tim you a straight arse ladder pulling enshittificating boomer reprobate. This pud skims the surface like the scum that he is. One day the master race will get all the gold coins and build a circus that no one can afford. Finger crossed!!! Nukes_2026