(no title)
tropdrop | 1 year ago
Several reasons:
1) time – a fraction of the time per victim means exponentially many more
2) skill – no photorealistic drawing skill required
3) a live referent – a genuine (here, shockingly genuine seeming) nude photograph implies that someone undressed and let themselves be photographed
4) even in the presence of a referent, a drawing is not a carbon copy ("freeze frame") of a moment in real life, and is proof of nothing
godelski|1 year ago
I think there are deeper questions here that can have many adverse consequences. There is no perfect solution here. If you ban the software I'm pretty sure that'll just end up creating a large market for generating this kind of material (there's already a decent market for photo nudifiers and these seem to be advertised in quite a number of places where I'm pretty certain this is already illegal). Spying on people and their outputs is not a great solution either, it is easy to bypass, and generates new security holes that can and will put children at risk too. But also we don't want these types of images to be floating around and it definitely does real harm to the people being nudified.
But what is the solution here? Regulation seems very difficult and I think we should take the question seriously. No matter what we do, there is some compromise. Even inaction compromises. So what are we willing to give up and to reduce the problem by how much?