|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"AI is Awesome for Creating Pie Vids!"
Love you, too
You can use subjects such as people in scanned photos, yearbooks, and social media! (Celebs aren't allowed).
Gross. Just gross.
Also, a good illustration of the commodification of people. "Yeah, let me scan a pic of that person I creeped on back in high school and create niche kink scenes of them without their consent!" Sure, we can do that, but touching the face of that precious (and rich and powerful) celebrity, who at least to some limited extent HAS made their money by selling their image to the public for entertainment? No way Jose. But all those regular little people? Sure, make all the fetish content of them without their consent that you want.
How would you feel if some rando were making, like, r*pe fetish stuff with YOUR yearbook picture? Jerking it to the idea of YOU getting violently assaulted against your will? Is that the digital environment that you want to praise? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're probably not too comfortable with that idea. Even if you want to argue that they TECHNICALLY are allowed to do so, I'm betting the thought of it makes your skin crawl. As it should.
CytheSplatPuppy said:
Gross. Just gross.
Also, a good illustration of the commodification of people. "Yeah, let me scan a pic of that person I creeped on back in high school and create niche kink scenes of them without their consent!" Sure, we can do that, but touching the face of that precious (and rich and powerful) celebrity, who at least to some limited extent HAS made their money by selling their image to the public for entertainment? No way Jose. But all those regular little people? Sure, make all the fetish content of them without their consent that you want.
How would you feel if some rando were making, like, r*pe fetish stuff with YOUR yearbook picture? Jerking it to the idea of YOU getting violently assaulted against your will? Is that the digital environment that you want to praise? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're probably not too comfortable with that idea. Even if you want to argue that they TECHNICALLY are allowed to do so, I'm betting the thought of it makes your skin crawl. As it should.
You can use subjects such as people in scanned photos, yearbooks, and social media! (Celebs aren't allowed).
Gross. Just gross.
Also, a good illustration of the commodification of people. "Yeah, let me scan a pic of that person I creeped on back in high school and create niche kink scenes of them without their consent!" Sure, we can do that, but touching the face of that precious (and rich and powerful) celebrity, who at least to some limited extent HAS made their money by selling their image to the public for entertainment? No way Jose. But all those regular little people? Sure, make all the fetish content of them without their consent that you want.
How would you feel if some rando were making, like, r*pe fetish stuff with YOUR yearbook picture? Jerking it to the idea of YOU getting violently assaulted against your will? Is that the digital environment that you want to praise? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're probably not too comfortable with that idea. Even if you want to argue that they TECHNICALLY are allowed to do so, I'm betting the thought of it makes your skin crawl. As it should.
In a thread with a few disappointing posts, the one you're responding to is the worst of the bunch. Truly horrific.
Ask me about WAM stories
CytheSplatPuppy said:
Gross. Just gross.
Also, a good illustration of the commodification of people. "Yeah, let me scan a pic of that person I creeped on back in high school and create niche kink scenes of them without their consent!" Sure, we can do that, but touching the face of that precious (and rich and powerful) celebrity, who at least to some limited extent HAS made their money by selling their image to the public for entertainment? No way Jose. But all those regular little people? Sure, make all the fetish content of them without their consent that you want.
You can use subjects such as people in scanned photos, yearbooks, and social media! (Celebs aren't allowed).
Gross. Just gross.
Also, a good illustration of the commodification of people. "Yeah, let me scan a pic of that person I creeped on back in high school and create niche kink scenes of them without their consent!" Sure, we can do that, but touching the face of that precious (and rich and powerful) celebrity, who at least to some limited extent HAS made their money by selling their image to the public for entertainment? No way Jose. But all those regular little people? Sure, make all the fetish content of them without their consent that you want.
Retweet. Disney has the financial firepower to sue to protect their precious iconography, but the everyday people are left in the cold.
Zx Stories said:
In a thread with a few disappointing posts, the one you're responding to is the worst of the bunch. Truly horrific.
CytheSplatPuppy said:
Gross. Just gross.
Also, a good illustration of the commodification of people. "Yeah, let me scan a pic of that person I creeped on back in high school and create niche kink scenes of them without their consent!" Sure, we can do that, but touching the face of that precious (and rich and powerful) celebrity, who at least to some limited extent HAS made their money by selling their image to the public for entertainment? No way Jose. But all those regular little people? Sure, make all the fetish content of them without their consent that you want.
How would you feel if some rando were making, like, r*pe fetish stuff with YOUR yearbook picture? Jerking it to the idea of YOU getting violently assaulted against your will? Is that the digital environment that you want to praise? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're probably not too comfortable with that idea. Even if you want to argue that they TECHNICALLY are allowed to do so, I'm betting the thought of it makes your skin crawl. As it should.
You can use subjects such as people in scanned photos, yearbooks, and social media! (Celebs aren't allowed).
Gross. Just gross.
Also, a good illustration of the commodification of people. "Yeah, let me scan a pic of that person I creeped on back in high school and create niche kink scenes of them without their consent!" Sure, we can do that, but touching the face of that precious (and rich and powerful) celebrity, who at least to some limited extent HAS made their money by selling their image to the public for entertainment? No way Jose. But all those regular little people? Sure, make all the fetish content of them without their consent that you want.
How would you feel if some rando were making, like, r*pe fetish stuff with YOUR yearbook picture? Jerking it to the idea of YOU getting violently assaulted against your will? Is that the digital environment that you want to praise? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're probably not too comfortable with that idea. Even if you want to argue that they TECHNICALLY are allowed to do so, I'm betting the thought of it makes your skin crawl. As it should.
In a thread with a few disappointing posts, the one you're responding to is the worst of the bunch. Truly horrific.
Lighten up!!! As long as one doesn't put "it out there" and just keeps it themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. I think its common sense (for quite a long time) before AI, not to post unapproved content or digitally manipulated content. In essence, its no different than taking that year book and doing whatever one feels like in private. Get off your sanctimonious high horse!!!
Get off your sanctimonious high horse!!!
Sure thing! Send me a couple of your yearbook pictures; I got some ideas. And they're private, so there's nothing wrong with it.
Breslowlab said:
Lighten up!!! As long as one doesn't put "it out there" and just keeps it themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. I think its common sense (for quite a long time) before AI, not to post unapproved content or digitally manipulated content. In essence, its no different than taking that year book and doing whatever one feels like in private. Get off your sanctimonious high horse!!!
Lighten up!!! As long as one doesn't put "it out there" and just keeps it themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. I think its common sense (for quite a long time) before AI, not to post unapproved content or digitally manipulated content. In essence, its no different than taking that year book and doing whatever one feels like in private. Get off your sanctimonious high horse!!!
See, this is where you are wrong. Sure, it's always been possible to alter images with photoshop for last couple of decades but ethics aside it took time and effort to do so.
Recent AI models make it a touch of the button to create something indistinguishable from a real image. That's a dangerous amount of power and is becoming a huge legal and moral issue.
I know several schools that have had blackmail and extortion attempts after images of students were downloaded from their website and altered.
Kids are already creating deepfakes and sharing photos of other students.
What you are saying is producing the material is fine as long as it's for your private wank. I'd argue respectively that you are wrong on every level.
The new Sora2 model prevents users from creating videos from uploaded real images and requires the user to scan and verify their face if they are to be used in videos. I can see other platforms doing the same not just for videos but also image editing to prevent exactly the usage you seem to be defending.
Breslowlab said: Lighten up!!! As long as one doesn't put "it out there" and just keeps it themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. I think its common sense (for quite a long time) before AI, not to post unapproved content or digitally manipulated content. In essence, its no different than taking that year book and doing whatever one feels like in private. Get off your sanctimonious high horse!!!
Which yearbook photos are you referring to? We need to make sure per the rules of decency and the rules of the website, plus the threat of the credit card boogiemen that we are not discussing creating spank bank from the yearbook pictures of underage people.
dalamar666 said:
Which yearbook photos are you referring to? We need to make sure per the rules of decency and the rules of the website, plus the threat of the credit card boogiemen that we are not discussing creating spank bank from the yearbook pictures of underage people.
Breslowlab said: Lighten up!!! As long as one doesn't put "it out there" and just keeps it themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. I think its common sense (for quite a long time) before AI, not to post unapproved content or digitally manipulated content. In essence, its no different than taking that year book and doing whatever one feels like in private. Get off your sanctimonious high horse!!!
Which yearbook photos are you referring to? We need to make sure per the rules of decency and the rules of the website, plus the threat of the credit card boogiemen that we are not discussing creating spank bank from the yearbook pictures of underage people.
Unfortunately there are quite a few outright nonces posting and worse, making, wam content online. There are a few channels on youtube that upload videos of children from tv shows etc, but the worst I've come across has been this guy:
[[admin] details removed to prevent giving publicity or traffic to the channel in question]
Blatant paedophile running events and filming it to post online later, absolutely 100% a wammer.
zimmerman23 said:Unfortunately there are quite a few outright nonces posting and worse, making, wam content online.
Sad thing is people have been banned from this site for less.
Sponsors
VIP Coupons
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In