Yes sorry. My original statement was too vague. I was talking specifically about scenarios where there is no victim and the action was just a drawing/story/etc.
I’m not a free speech absolutist. I think that lacks nuance. There are valid reasons to restrict certain forms of speech. But I do think the concept is core to a healthy democracy and society and should be fiercely protected.
The issue with child porn is how you specify victim. One could argue easily available pornographic images of fake children increases the market and desire for pornographic images of real children and as such can result in more victims. Especially if someone can argue that images of real victims are “fake and AI generated.”
In regards to X and Grok however, my understanding is it is taking images of real children and producing naked images of those children. So there are real victims and Tim Sweeny is saying that shouldn’t be censored.
One could argue easily available pornographic images of fake children increases the market and desire for pornographic images of real children and as such can result in more victims
Not speaking to any realistic images (which, if nothing else, make it harder for real investigations into child abuse to happen), only cartoon drawings and the like, but it’s hard for me to separate this logic from all of the calls about video game violence.
That moves things into ‘pre crime’ territory. “We’re going to jail you for having fake drawn images because we think those will cause you to commit a real crime in the future”. That’s also extremely problematic and has been rightly criticized when it’s used to censor violent games, movies and music.
Okay, but the original post is how Grok is taking pictures of children and removing their clothes. That’s not cartoons and not fictional people, so I don’t know why the conversation is being shifted this far away from the actual issue at hand here.
Yes sorry. My original statement was too vague. I was talking specifically about scenarios where there is no victim and the action was just a drawing/story/etc.
I’m not a free speech absolutist. I think that lacks nuance. There are valid reasons to restrict certain forms of speech. But I do think the concept is core to a healthy democracy and society and should be fiercely protected.
The issue with child porn is how you specify victim. One could argue easily available pornographic images of fake children increases the market and desire for pornographic images of real children and as such can result in more victims. Especially if someone can argue that images of real victims are “fake and AI generated.”
In regards to X and Grok however, my understanding is it is taking images of real children and producing naked images of those children. So there are real victims and Tim Sweeny is saying that shouldn’t be censored.
Not speaking to any realistic images (which, if nothing else, make it harder for real investigations into child abuse to happen), only cartoon drawings and the like, but it’s hard for me to separate this logic from all of the calls about video game violence.
That moves things into ‘pre crime’ territory. “We’re going to jail you for having fake drawn images because we think those will cause you to commit a real crime in the future”. That’s also extremely problematic and has been rightly criticized when it’s used to censor violent games, movies and music.
Okay, but the original post is how Grok is taking pictures of children and removing their clothes. That’s not cartoons and not fictional people, so I don’t know why the conversation is being shifted this far away from the actual issue at hand here.