Update: After this article was published, Bluesky restored Kabas’ post and told 404 Media the following: “This was a case of our moderators applying the policy for non-consensual AI content strictly. After re-evaluating the newsworthy context, the moderation team is reinstating those posts.”
Bluesky deleted a viral, AI-generated protest video in which Donald Trump is sucking on Elon Musk’s toes because its moderators said it was “non-consensual explicit material.” The video was broadcast on televisions inside the office Housing and Urban Development earlier this week, and quickly went viral on Bluesky and Twitter.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas obtained a video from a government employee and posted it on Bluesky, where it went viral. Tuesday night, Bluesky moderators deleted the video because they said it was “non-consensual explicit material.”
Other Bluesky users said that versions of the video they uploaded were also deleted, though it is still possible to find the video on the platform.
Technically speaking, the AI video of Trump sucking Musk’s toes, which had the words “LONG LIVE THE REAL KING” shown on top of it, is a nonconsensual AI-generated video, because Trump and Musk did not agree to it. But social media platform content moderation policies have always had carve outs that allow for the criticism of powerful people, especially the world’s richest man and the literal president of the United States.
For example, we once obtained Facebook’s internal rules about sexual content for content moderators, which included broad carveouts to allow for sexual content that criticized public figures and politicians. The First Amendment, which does not apply to social media companies but is relevant considering that Bluesky told Kabas she could not use the platform to “break the law,” has essentially unlimited protection for criticizing public figures in the way this video is doing.
Content moderation has been one of Bluesky’s growing pains over the last few months. The platform has millions of users but only a few dozen employees, meaning that perfect content moderation is impossible, and a lot of it necessarily needs to be automated. This is going to lead to mistakes. But the video Kabas posted was one of the most popular posts on the platform earlier this week and resulted in a national conversation about the protest. Deleting it—whether accidentally or because its moderation rules are so strict as to not allow for this type of reporting on a protest against the President of the United States—is a problem.
please stop being weird and gross
also please no more ‘look bad person do gay’ content
Yeah I hate Musk and Trump for lots of things. I don’t think using “haha they might be kissing each other! Musk sucks Trumps dick!” is somehow effective criticism of actual fascists in office.
Maybe we can criticize and protest and organize without using shit rooted in queerphobia. Might as well just say “Well Trump probably cross dresses, that shows him!”
I don’t think using “haha they might be kissing each other! Musk sucks Trumps dick!” is somehow effective criticism of actual fascists in office.
It is, for them.
Especially having Trump be “the bottom”.
Ever watch Shameless, the US version? Its along the same lines as Terry, Mickey’s dad. He only hated Mickey because he was catching, because “It aint gay if you’re doing the fucking, just if you get fucked”.
So, in this case, yes, making implications of gay sex happening, with Trump catching, is VERY effective at it.
Yeah. The means must absolutely align with the ends, and this video reeks of privileged white guy mad that he got his cushy desk job in DC ripped out from under him.
Whoever made this shit is no comrade and I’m sick of liberals sharing this everywhere
Here’s my take on it:
- I don’t care about AI being used on public figures, if you won’t want people to use you, don’t be in public, or ruin the government. No one has made AI featuring me.
- This is no different than a political cartoon, the only difference is no one made it directly by hand.
- Bluesky doesn’t have to host it, but I also would want it applied equally. If this was perma-removed, all AI or all political shit would be. I don’t like it, but selective moderating is what got us Trump in the first place with Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.
- I don’t like queerphobic shit being used to call out Trump and Musk. Use their actual actions and words, not “haha they gay”. It’s just wild how certain kinds of informal bigtry are okay when you use them on people who are evil. Like the people who constantly insult Trump’s weight because he’s evil. Maybe he’s just evil and happens to be fat.
- And let’s not pretend Jack Dorsey is somehow a saint when he only removed Trump from twitter after Jan 6. Nothing before despite how horrid Trump was. I credit Jack Dorsey to enabling Trump, and it’s why I refuse to join “Twitter 2 made by the guy who enabled Twitter to be the shit place it was”.
This is no different than a really well drawn political cartoon.
Politicians shouldn’t have the power to control the kinds of things you say about politicians.
I’m not here to discuss how we need to be ethical in response to a fascist takeover. So we gotta play by the rules but they don’t?
Resistance need not be ethical. This isn’t resistance.
I made account on bluesky to post drawings and no seeing AI slop. I hate Elon Musk, but I don’t consider seeing AI generated lemon party as funny thing. It’s one of the reason why I don’t use Twitter anymore. I think AI is tool for disinformation.
In case of Trump it’s orange party
Yeah guys, fuck bluesky.
Already showing its true colors of “We’ll abuse our power when we want to and only reneg if there’s sufficient backlash.”
Recommend MASTODON, NOT BLUESKY.
If you allow it for people you don’t like, where the bar for others.
Not a fan of the AI video but this kind of thinking is very very stupid. Take that cop out of your head.
Amazed people saying it is correct decision! This is two public figures and doing art or any form of expression material with their image should be protected under freedom of speech.
I don’t believe Bluesky is a part of the government. Legally, they are allowed to censor as they please on their own platform.
Correct. this is indeed the correct decision to remove the thing. BUT i have a feeling that this quick reaction does not compare to the speed of decision for normal people, especially women who get this kind of stuff made about them.
Also, note that I’m not saying it was bad to make the video, or have it run in public on hacked screens.
That is perfectly fine political commentary, by means of civil disobedience.Just that Bluesky is correct in it’s action to remove it from their service.
I seem to be in the minority here, but I am extremely uncomfortable the idea of non-consensual AI porn of anyone. Even people I despise. It’s so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
I think the important point in this case is not that the content is acceptable, but that it is newsworthy.
If somebody made the video and posted it, I could see it being permanently taken down. And it was at first, per the letter of their policy.
But the fact that government employees had it playing on government property inside government facilities, to protest some extreme and historical stuff going on, means it should be recorded for the public and for history.
I look at it much the same way as the photos of upside down American flags that various government employees put up. Just posting an upside down flag and saying how America is wrong is an opinion like any other that would get lost in the noise. But when it’s people inside the government intending it as a sign of distress, very much more newsworthy and important to record.
porn
Oh, saving the children are you.
Its a picture of trump sucking elons toes. Conflating that with the idea of “porn” is a bit of an overreach in light of how rare toe fetish people are. I imagine you can find a tiny popyulation of people who consider anything erotic. Wearing cotton. Having a roastbeef sandwhich in your hand. Styling hair a certain way. Being an asian female.
Want to ban all of that too?
I agree with you.
However…there’s an argument to be made that the post itself is a form of criticism and falls under the free speech rules where it regards political figures. In many ways, it’s not any different than the drawings of Musk holding Trump’s puppet strings, or Putin and Trump riding a horse together. One is drawn and the other is animated, but they’re the same basic concept.
I understand however that that sets a disturbing precedent for what can and cannot be acceptable. But I don’t know where to draw that line. I just know that it has to be drawn somewhere.
I think…and this is my opinion…political figures are fair game for this, while there should be protections in place for private citizens, since political figures by their very ambition put themselves in the public sphere whereas private individuals do not.
In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can’t be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.
For politicians, I would default to “literally everything is protected free speech”, with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
“I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia” is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.
Where do you draw the line for the rich fucks of the world? Realistic CGI? Realistic drawings? Edited photos?
This is what I was thinking about myself. Because we’re cool with political caricatures, right?
I guess the problem is that nobody wants to feature in non-consensual AI porn. I mean if you’d want to draw me getting shafted by Musk, that’d be weird, but a highly realistic video of the same event, that would be hard to explain to the missus.
I guess “obviously Elon Musk would never go for a guy like me” would be the wrong answer
Assuming you’re asking out of genuine curiosity, for me personally, I’d draw the line somewhere along “could this, or any frame of this, be mistaken for a real depiction of these people?” and “if this were a depiction of real children, how hard would the FBI come down on you?”
I understand that that’s not a practical way of creating law or moderating content, but I don’t care because I’m talking about my personal preference/comfort level. Not what I think should be policy. And frankly, I don’t know what should be policy or how to word it all in anti-loopholes lawyer-speak. I just know that this sucking toes thing crosses an ethical line for me and personally I hate it.
Putting it more idealistically: when I imagine living in utopia, non-consensual AI porn of people doesn’t exist in it. So in an effort to get closer to utopia, I disapprove of things that would not exist in an utopia.
That sounds fair, though I could still see an argument to be made for not always protecting the rich fucks the same way. Either way, we know that anything that comes out that’s too incriminating would be declared AI-generated anyway, lol
Though mentioning the utopia… having porn of anyone anywhere might be some people’s idea of a utopia! Haha
I agree. I’ve thought about it a lot and I still don’t have any sympathy for them after the harm they’ve caused. I see why it’s news worthy enough they might reverse it, and why it would be political speech.
But also I think they made the right choice to take it down. If blsky wants to be the better platform, it needs to be better. And not having an exception for this is the right thing.
In my country the laws about publishing photos etc are different for anyone an “people of public interest”. So yeah imo it should be okay to create cartoons or whatever of politicians without their permission - not porn ofc. Including ai generated stuff, but that one should be marked as such , given how realistic it is now
In this case, it’s clearly a form of speech and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.
I also don’t understand such a strong reaction to non-consensual AI porn. I mean, I don’t think it’s in good taste but I also don’t see why it warrants such a strong reaction. It’s not real. If I draw a stick figure with boobs and I put your name on it, do you believe I am committing a crime?
Nobody’s going to mistake that stick figure for the real me, though.
so is that the key differentiating issue here? whether someone can mistake it for a real photo?
what if I’m a really talented artist and make a realistic drawing of you posing in a sexually suggestive way. Should that be criminalized?
if I put a watermark “AI generated” on some of this AI porn, does that make it OK? if the issue is someone mistaking it, then the watermark would remove that doubt.
i’m trying to get a sense for the rationale here. basically- does this issue at its core really have anything to do with AI?
Protected from government censorship. Companies have strong protections allowing for controlling the speech on their platforms.
And if you asked Roberts he’d probably say since companies are people, as long as it’s used to protect conservatives they have protection for controlling their platforms speech as a 1st amendment right.
not claiming private organizations don’t have to the right to regulate speech on their platforms. was responding to statement
I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
which to me implies some sort of state censorship on this type of material
Really, I just wanted to understand the rationale behind the desire to ban this type of material.
On the topic of Judge Roberts, on a similar although different legal issue
He wrote the Court’s opinion in United States v. Stevens (2010), invalidating a federal law that criminalized the creation or dissemination of images of animal cruelty. The government had argued that such images should be a new unprotected category of speech akin to child pornography. Roberts emphatically rejected that proposition, writing that the Court does not have “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.” Roberts also wrote the Court’s opinion in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), ruling that the First Amendment prohibited the imposition of civil liability against the Westboro Baptist Church for their highly offensive picketing near the funeral of a slain serviceman.
In oft-cited language, Roberts wrote:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
If Judge Roberts were to be consistent, and I make no such claims that he will ever be consistent, I believe he would likewise not support banning fake AI porn.
Anything bad that happens to a conservative is good. The world will only get better if they are made to repeatedly suffer.
No, we cannot think like that. It is true that fascism cannot be beat peacefully, but we should never want them to suffer. We should always strive to crush their fascist oligarchy with as little suffering ss possible.
“Whoever would be a slayer of monsters must take heed, or they may become the very monsters they slay… For when one peers into the abyss, the abyss peers back into thee” -FN
but we should never want them to suffer
No, we should, actually. It’s what they want for others and is the only way they might come to an understanding with what’s wrong with them.
Sympathy for the fascists is almost equal to support of them afaic
They don’t believe anything they aren’t experiencing first hand is actually a problem.
As much as I don’t like it, they have clearly made their own personal suffering a prerequisite for any solutions being allowed to move forward
It is true that fascism cannot be beat peacefully, but we should never want them to suffer
This is true. We should rapidly give them a lead injection, rather than have them suffer.
Bluesky will become just the same az elonx…
It already is
Ah, the rewards of moderation: the best move is not to play. Fuck it is & has always been a better answer. Anarchy of the early internet was better than letting some paternalistic authority decide the right images & words to allow us to see, and decentralization isn’t a bad idea.
Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they’ll paternalize better without stopping to acknowledge how horribly broken, arbitrary, & fallible that entire approach is. Instead of learning what we already knew, social media keeps repeating the same dumb mistakes, and people clamor to the newest iteration of it.
You clearly never were the victim back in those days. Neither do you realize this approach doesn’t work on the modern web even in the slightest, unless you want the basics of both enlightenment and therefore science and democracy crumbling down even faster.
Anarchism is never an answer, it’s usually willful ignorance about there being any problems.
Anarchism is never an answer, it’s usually willful ignorance about there being any problems.
AnCaps drive me nuts. They want to dismantle democratic institutions while simultaneously licking the boots of unelected institutions.
I guess I don’t really consider AnCaps to be Anarchists because Anarchy is generally leftist philosophy. Traditional anarchy is like small government socialism: empowered local unions and city governments.
You know what’s funny about Stalinism that everyone forgets about?
Its structures were similar to what you describe on the lower level. Districts and factories and such all had their councils (soviet means council), from which representatives were elected to councils of the upper level. They still were pretty despotic most of that period, because crowd rule leads to despotism.
Democracy shouldn’t be made too small and too unavoidable. In some sense an imagined hillbilly village is democratic with that problem.
Point being that this didn’t look much like some people imagine anarchy.
Anyway, ancaps are not particularly attached to the name, and themselves prefer the words “voluntarism” and “agorism” and a few others. But it’s one of the most common names for the ideology.
People against ancaps usually only disagree with them in the way institutions are being dismantled.
In any case looking through the eyes of an ancap you might get valuable insights, and this thought should be obvious for an intelligent person of any school in regards to any other.
Anarchism is never an answer
This isn’t anarchism, as described. Anarchism, like actual anarchism, is the only likely solution, imo. No gods, no masters, no idols.
A perfect breeding ground for growing localized power structures that aren’t bound to anything holding them back. A power vacuum will always fill itself. To gain control over it as a society (i.e. democracy) is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. We have to keep improving it (by reforming how economical powers can or can not exercise power or grow), not moving to something that’s so obviously disregarding how power structures form and behave in human societies.
Solution involves answers where to get energy to dig in the gods, masters and idols. They are well-armed and those seeking solutions are not.
Elon acts like a new Reddit mod drunk on power. He is the guy screaming in the comments that he knows how to run a forum better and seized the chance, and now he cannot fathom why people hate him.
You need some kind of moderation for user generated content, even if it’s only to comply with takedowns related to law (and I’m not talking about DMCA).
I think there’s a huge difference between fighting bullying or hate speech against minorities. Another thing is making fun of very specific and very public people.
You do remember snuff and goatse and csam of the early internet, I hope.
Even with that of course it was better, because that stuff still floats around, and small groups of enjoyers easily find ways to share it over mainstream platforms.
I’m not even talking about big groups of enjoyers, ISIS (rebranded sometimes), Turkey, Azerbaijan, Israel, Myanma’s regime, cartels and everyone share what they want of snuff genre, and it holds long enough.
In text communication their points of view are also less likely to be banned or suppressed than mine.
So yes.
Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they’ll paternalize better
They don’t think so, just use the opportunity to do this stuff in area where immunity against it is not yet established.
There are very few stupid people in positions of power, competition is a bitch.
I’m weirded out when people say they want zero moderation. I really don’t want to see any more beheading or CSAM and moderation can prevent that.
Moderation should be optional .
Say, a message may have any amount of “moderating authority” verdicts, where a user might set up whether they see only messages vetted by authority A, only by authority B, only by A logical-or B, or all messages not blacklisted by authority A, and plenty of other variants, say, we trust authority C unless authority F thinks otherwise, because we trust authority F to know things C is trying to reduce in visibility.
Filtering and censorship are two different tasks. We don’t need censorship to avoid seeing CSAM. Filtering is enough.
This fallacy is very easy to encounter, people justify by their unwillingness to encounter something the need to censor it for everyone as if that were not solvable. They also refuse to see that’s technically solvable. Such a “verdict” from moderation authority, by the way, is as hard to do as an upvote or a downvote.
For a human or even a group of humans it’s hard to pre-moderate every post in a period of time, but that’s solvable too - by putting, yes, an AI classifier before humans and making humans check only uncertain cases (or certain ones someone complained about, or certain ones another good moderation authority flagged the opposite, you get the idea).
I like that subject, I think it’s very important for the Web to have a good future.
people justify by their unwillingness to encounter something the need to censor it for everyone…
I can’t engage in good faith with someone who says this about CSAM.
Filtering and censorship are two different tasks. We don’t need censorship to avoid seeing CSAM. Filtering is enough.
No it is not. People are not tagging their shit properly when it is illegal.
I can’t engage in good faith
Right, you can’t.
If someone posts CSAM, police should get their butts to that someone’s place.
No it is not. People are not tagging their shit properly when it is illegal.
What I described doesn’t have anything to do with people tagging what they post. It’s about users choosing the logic of interpreting moderation decisions. But I’ve described it very clearly in the previous comment, so please read it or leave the thread.
Fuck it is & has always been a better answer
Sure. Unless you live in a place that have laws and laws enforcement. In that case, it’s “fuck it and get burnt down”.
I miss the early days of the internet when it was still a wild west.
Something like I hate you myg0t 2 or Pico’s School would have gotten the creators cancelled if released in 2025.
Note on the term canceling. Independent creators cannot, by definition, get canceled. Unless you literally are under a production or publishing contract that gets actually canceled due to something you said or did, you were not canceled. Being unpopular is not getting canceled, neither is receiving public outrage due to being bad or unpopular. Even in a figurative sense, just the fact that the videos were published to YouTube and can still be viewed means they were not canceled. They just fell out of the zeitgeist and aren’t popular anymore, that happens to 99% of entertainment content.
I had to hack an ex’s account once to get the revenge porn they posted of me taken down.
There’s a balance at the end of the day.
Illegal content has always been unprotected & subject to removal by the law. Moderation policies wouldn’t necessarily remove porn presumed to be legal, either, so moderation is still a crapshoot.
Still, that sucks.
Bluesky had better take care that they not act like other cowardly tech media
So you don’t remember Jack Dorsey’s shenanigans ?
No. I don’t
This guy censored the POTUS (Granted it was Trump)
If they don’t it is only because they are waiting to obtain a higher share of the social media market.
Jumping ship from one corporate owned social media to another corporate owned social media isn’t a smart move. There is nothing about Bluesky that will prevent it from becoming X in the future. People joining now are only adding to the network effect that will make leaving more difficult in a decade or two.
The problem of social media won’t be solved by choosing which dictator’s rule you want to live under. You don’t have the freedom to speak and express yourself if you give someone veto power over what you write.
I guess I get it. They would not like to set precedent to allow non-consensual AI generated porn on the platform. Seems reasonable. That said, fuck Donny. The video is hilarious. It’s fine if Bluesky doesn’t host it though.
Holy shit. A reasonable take from someone who clearly leaves the house.
On Lemmy??? Blasphemy!
Well, looks like they put it back up. I think I agree with you though. It might be better for them to restrict this. Frankly republican incels excel at generating this kind of content and this sets the precedent that Bluesky will welcome such AI garbage. I’m not arguing that this stuff shouldn’t be made in good spirit, but for a serious platform to not moderate it out I think invites chaos.
There’s plenty of legal precedent for newsworthiness to supersede some rules in the name of the freedom of the Press. It makes sense that I’m not allowed (at least where I live) to post a non-consensual pictures of someone off the street. But it would not make sense if I was forbidden from posting a picture of the Prime Minister visiting a school for example. That’s newsworthy and therefore the public interest outweighs his right to privacy.
The AI video of Trump/Musk made a bunch of headlines because it was hacked onto a government building. On top of that it’s satire of public figures and – I can’t believe that needs saying – is clearly not meant to provide sexual gratification.
Corpos and bureaucracies would have you believe nuance doesn’t belong in moderation decisions, but that’s a fallacy and an flimsy shield to hide behind to justify making absolutely terrible braindead decisions at best, and political instrumentation of rules at worst. We should celebrate any time when moderators are given latitude to not stick to dumb rules (as long as this latitude is not being used for evil), and shame any company that censors legitimate satire of the elites based on bullshit rules meant to protect the little people.
That’s a really thin line. I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power. The prime minister visiting a school is a world away from AI generated content of something that never actually happened. Leaving nuance out of these policies isn’t some corporation pulling wool over our eyes, it’s just really hard to do nuance at scale without bias and commotion.
I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power
I have a hard time imagining a reasonable person being mad at satire of a politician. Like maybe it’s a cultural divide and I’m not American so I don’t view politics as team sports and my country has a stronger history of political satire than the often pathetically meek American political cartoons, but you can make a satirical deepfake of the politicians I voted in last election if you want.
If the deepfake was not obviously related to current political events or wasn’t obviously fake, the point could be arguable at least as a matter of good taste. As it stands, the satire is obvious, harmless, and topical. It is therefore terrifying that censoring it is even a question. How far the concept of free speech has fallen that it refers to Seig Heiling but a 2s gif of Trump sucking some toes apparently crosses a line.
Yeah I really don’t like that this is probably going to end up being used to argue that deepfake porn of public figures is ok as long as it is “satire”.
I don’t really care about the Trump x Musk one but I know for a fact that this will lead to MAGAs doing the same shit to AOC and any other prominent woman on the democrat side.
And that would be okay
Exactly.
Content featuring public figures should be given extra lenience, because if we can’t openly criticize our leaders, we aren’t free. So as long as it’s either factually correct or clearly parody/satire/etc, it should be allowed. Defamation and libel rules should have a very high bar for conviction when it comes to public figures.
This was obviously satire, and well done at that. Good on BlueSky for restoring it, I hope they fix whatever process got it pulled.
Only because I find these specific videos to be quite funny, maybe there can be a “satire/criticism of a public figure” exception that could exist
I’ll just explain why that is a horrible idea with three simple letters:
A. O. C.
I am standing on the wire😅 what is the problem with satire and AOC (whatever that is)?
The problem is the combination of AOC and nonconsentual explicit AI content. Overly broad rules might make that fall under satire, which is why caution is advised when devising such rules.
Fuck. Good point. Guess I’ll just have to come to peace with me being a hypocrite when it comes to what I find acceptable.
Satire is already legal and right wingers have already called for her to be shot or worse and gotten away with it. Pandora’s box isn’t closed, it’s long been open.
I don’t like AOC, but any threat of of call for violence is unacceptable regardless of the target. I don’t care if it’s despicable people like Trump, violence against an individual isn’t the answer. Violence against ideas, however, is fine.
There are politicians that I kind of like, and they should also not be above reproach. Bring all their bad takes into the light and let’s talk about them.
There’s already multiple LoRA of her on civitai.
That’s a pretty big loophole. I mean, imagine the same exact video with Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. It takes a significantly different subtext when the subjects are women. But the subtext doesn’t really matter to the morality of the act.
Either involuntary AI generated pornography is wrong or it isn’t. I think it’s wrong. Do Trump and Musk deserve it? Sure, but it’s still wrong. Do I feel bad for them? No, because they deserve it. But it’s still not something I would do, or suggest anyone else do, and if the creator is prosecuted, I’m not going to defend them.
It’s satire, and yeah, I think satire of Harris skipping the primary process through “backroom deals” could be criticized with a similar video.
As long as there’s a point to the video, it’s speech. Make it clear that it’s AI gen satire and I think it’s fine, just don’t make more explicit than necessary to get the point across.
Except you know that sexual exploitation has a different effect on women than men. Trump revels in his playboy reputation. Harris was accused of using sex to get ahead in politics. And you know that conservatives would believe that the video was real while they jerk off to it. Those dipshits still think Michelle Obama was a man.
Trump rapes women. He’s not entitled to the same level of respect as almost anyone. He is entitled to the same laws, on that we agree.
And you know that conservatives would believe that the video was real while they jerk off to it
It doesn’t matter what they believe, what matters is that it’s explicitly parody or satire. Idiots will be idiots despite your best efforts to prevent it.
Either involuntary AI generated pornography is wrong or it isn’t.
Agree. Laws have to be applied evenly, or else they are not Laws.
Good thing you put a permissive license on that so the whole of humanity can benefit.
These uh… aren’t laws. They’re community guidelines. I think one does not have to get so anal about preserving the rights of vulnerable people while also maintaining an “even application” because they’re two different situations.
Not even the law is black and white, it’s still tweaked and interpreted by judges and lawyers. It’s obvious that AI-generated pornography of women in political office is completely different from a video of a fascist dictator making out with the feet of another fascist. Get your head checked.
It’s not porn tho…not even a little bit.
It is if you are into feet, lmao
So if I’m into words, are libraries considered porn?
Your analogy doesn’t hold. Words aren’t human body parts.
Is this considered porn? I am certainly, along with at least hundreds of millions of people, into shirtless Ryan Gosling. Specifically his pecs and abs.
Look, I am taking the piss, but not everything that might turn someone on for one reason or another is porn. The AI video of Trump is clearly satire and meant to disgust. What’s next, we can’t make satirical drawings of him grovelling at Putin’s feet because some people have a humiliation fetish?
I’ll admit defeat when I’m defeated.
At least you haven’t been defeeted.
Tarantino nods in agreement
Are we about to delve into the legal status of squat cobbler
Put it on Facebook! Ol’ Zuck decided all the guardrails pretty much needed to go so. Post and do whatever. Plus, the people who should see it most are those still hanging around on Facebook 🤣
Ugh but then I’d have to use Facebook
Bluesky is BS
Their moderation has been garbage lately. They’re wrongly banning people for things they didn’t do. It’s just premusk twitter at this point. The real fediverse is a better vet medium and long term
It’s just premusk twitter at this point.
I mean, given that Jack Dorsey founded it as basically the “not Twitter Twitter” after musk bought the main one, I don’t think it’s surprising to see it face basically the same moderation issues in the name of being “even-handed”
