this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
284 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59652 readers
4823 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago (2 children)

No reason not to ban them entirely.

The problem is enforcing the ban. Would it be a crime to have access to the software, or would they need to catch the criminals with the images and video files? It would be trivial to host a site in a country without legal protections and make the software available from anywhere.

[–] 520@kbin.social 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Would it be a crime to have access to the software, or would they need to catch the criminals with the images and video files?

Problem with the former is that would outlaw any self hosted image generator. Any image generator is capable of use for deep fake porn

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Right, this is my point. The toothpaste is out of the tube. So would simply having the software capable of making deepfake porn be a crime?

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I'd be fine with that. I have yet to see a benefit or possible benefit that outweighs the costs.

[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The problem is the cat's out of the bag.

Open source image generators already exist and have been widely disseminated worldwide.

So all you'd end up doing is putting up a roadblock for legitimate uses. Anybody using it to cause harm will not be seriously impeded. They can just pick up the software from a Russian/Chinese/EU host or less official distribution methods.

It would be as effective as the US trying to outlaw the exporting of strong encryption standards in the 90s. That is to say, completely ineffective and actually harmful. Enemies of the US were still using strong encryption anyway.

[–] mynamesnotrick@lemmy.zip 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I feel like a sensible realistic course of action with this is it needs to be in the act of sharing/distributing. It would be way to broad otherwise as the tools that generate this stuff have unlimited purposes. Obvious child situations should be dealt with in the act of production of but the enforcement mechanism needs to be on the sharing/distribution part. Unfortunately analogy is blame the person not the tool on this one.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

Right. And honestly, this should already be covered under existing harassment laws.