Why aren't AI-generated deepfakes illegal?

Why aren't AI-generated deepfakes illegal?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >12 hours
      Not a reasonable timeframe for someone to learn from scratch how to buy and send bitcoin without a tutorial. Not to mention the time it takes to find this dm among the other dms.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        asking sub 70 iq people to come up with something believable

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What the frick did you just fricking say about me, you little b***h? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the frick out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fricking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fricker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fricking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fricking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fricking dead, kiddo.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >using btc in 2024 for illegal shit
      what a fricking moron

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All this shit can be fixed by killing those people.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We literally can't until we have artificial wombs

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm talking about the scammers, ransomware parasites, etc.

        • 1 month ago
          bump

          I meant killing pajeets who make the deepfakes you imbecile

          scams don't justify you to commit murder you iMbECilE

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But it should.
            Torture and murder. Complete removal.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            oh they do

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >scams don't justify you to commit murder
            It should.
            At the very least it could justify putting them in the streets forever as a contrapasso.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Scamming and all other criminal activity that is done completely voluntarily should at the very least result in expulsion from the country.
            There is no morally justifiable reason to make a living out of scamming others. At the very least there is no defense that can be made as to why you shouldn't just be thrown out of the society you are trying to scam.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              People with opinions like yours have no concept of nuance. Recycling is a scam. Taxation is a scam. Should we exile the people who perpetuate these practices? Literally communist brainrot
              >I NEED the state to garnish my wagies in the name of protecting me from bad actors who would otherwise garnish my wages!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You are correct, recycling and taxes are exactly the same as Pajeeto calling up 85 year old Betty and convincing her to send him her life savings. I can't believe I never realized it, you've totally convinced me Rasheed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Every intentional crime should guarantee capital punishment.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, you described most women. They're scammers and ransomware parasites.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I meant killing pajeets who make the deepfakes you imbecile

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        underrated

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Put me in the screencap

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes we can.
        (

        All this shit can be fixed by killing those people.

        I'm talking about the scammers, ransomware parasites, etc.

        )

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        my thought exactly

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        heh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He said people.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      unironically ending woman would solve all current problems in tech

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ending woman, traps, etc wouldn't fix morons and ransomware parasites

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      and what are you doing to bring about that? aside from screeching on an online imageboard that is

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why should they be?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why should they be?
      Because allowing third world scammers to run rampant targetting anybody they want with life-ruining photorealistic AI images is fricking insane.

      And it's best that we pass laws outlawing this shit before AI videos become widespread, because once that happens things will become much, much worse.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        no new laws are needed because blackmail, extortion, slander, and libel are all illegal right now moron.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        all the scams on the internet are already illegal and they dont change anything because its indians, africans, and russians doing it. stay on reddit you moronic simp.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >i-i-if we declare it NOT LEGAL then it just WON'T HAPPEN, right?
        blackmail is already illegal.
        the criminal isn't going to care that you've made other things he does illegal.
        he's already doing the things. he'll just do them anyway. you'll have accomplished nothing.
        you're moronic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          abolish all laws

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          All the people begging for the government to restrict AI are glowies or morons falling for the psyop. The government and corporations don't want people to have access to unregulated AI because it is a threat to their power and control on everything.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        by this logic, you should ban photoshop. you can certainly make pics more convincing than this with ease. should adobe be banned?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you should ban photoshop. you can certainly make pics more convincing than this with ease.
          No you can't. Photoshops are very easily identifiable as fake.

          The same may not hold true for AI images, especially as their realism is constantly improving. On top of that, there is literally zero skill barrier to producing AI deepfakes. Any moron with a capable device can shit out hyper-realistic fake images and audio (and, eventually, video) pretty much instantly.

          There is absolutely no way law and order can be upheld with this technology being completely unregulated. It will destroy people's reputations. It will destroy our ability to discern between what's real and what's fake. It will destroy the ability of the courts to prosecute criminals because all video/audio evidence will become unreliable. Why exactly do you think we shouldn't do anything about all of this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This looks like AI. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few deepfakes in my time

            >Why do you think we shouldn't do anything about this?
            point to where I said that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >with this technology being completely unregulated
            it's not possible. it's already out there.
            i'm not sure if you know this, but it's not just OpenAI that's running models people can access. people can run them on their home computers. i've done so. millions of copies of the software that can do this are already spread everywhere. advancements to it will be made and distributed similarly, illegal or not.
            making it illegal will mean only criminals use it, because they don't care about your laws.
            all the things you say, about it destroying reputations and discerning reality for fantasy and destroying our courts: all these things are not new problems. they're old problems being revealed by these tools. it was always possible to be a master image or video manipulator and blackmail someone with fake media, or submit to evidence fake media in the courts, or make people question reality with fake media.
            they aren't technological problems, they're social and societal problems. all this does is lower the barrier of entry for people to do it - and not by a lot, honestly, as it's probably as hard to make AI output genuinely convincing fakes as it would be to find and hire an expert at conventional media fabrication (aka: not).
            why exactly do you think we should not fix the actual underlying issues that you're noticing and instead focus on only perfunctorily cutting down the shiniest new tool that highlights the extent of our societal trust problems?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not op, but I promise the government will try to regulate hardware before it gets too powerful and convenient for people to run AI locally. Yeah sure SOME people might go through the effort of putting together clusters of older GPU to do stuff, but most people won't and that will be enough for it to not be a threat to the status quo. The AI that is in the public right now is virtually harmless; mostly just a parlor trick. When the really amazing stuff comes out or gets leaked, it won't matter if 99% of people don't have the hardware to use it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >regulate hardware
                not easy.
                if they regulate high-end AI accelerators cards and high-end workstation/compute GPUs, maybe that makes those more difficult to get, sure.
                consumer GPUs will never be regulated in that way without destroying several large industries, and even if they are, or if there's some kind of registration process like a gun, all these models will totally run fine on CPU alone. what are they gonna do, regulate owning a CPU of any kind? lol. that would be the death of the entire country's profitable tech sector. not a chance it happens. and if it does? people can still find a way.
                all that regulation will do is slow down the model runtime, not affect the quality. and that's until the hobbyists figure out how to run it on something faster or optimize or parallelize it.
                the genie is full and well out of the bag. the problems it reveals need to be addressed at the source of the problem, not at the source of the light shined upon it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but I promise the government will try to regulate hardware before it gets too powerful and convenient for people to run AI locally.

                So last year? lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There is absolutely no way law and order can be upheld with this technology being completely unregulated. It will destroy people's reputations. It will destroy our ability to discern between what's real and what's fake. It will destroy the ability of the courts to prosecute criminals because all video/audio evidence will become unreliable. Why exactly do you think we shouldn't do anything about all of this?

            So you're saying fake nudes is the least of our problems and we should be talking about real shit like fake evidence or imposters, agreed

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why should I feel sorry for people dumb enough to post their pics on social media? If anything, AI may be a good thing because it could kill social media.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        how would passing a law in the US have any effect on a third world country-based blackmailer?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >life-ruining
        It's fake. As in it's not real. It's not ruining anyone's life.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >hur I post fake nudes of you to your family
        "im not paying you anything *hangs up*

        what now indians?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >life-ruining
        "Hey, all, some scammers are trying to extort me with deepfakes; if you see any dick pics or audio of me yelling the N word or something, it's obviously bullshit and please let me know so I can file a DMCA to the hosting provider."

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Because allowing third world scammers to run rampant targetting anybody they want with life-ruining photorealistic AI images is fricking insane.
        But this affect only women and famous people, why should i care about that as a white, straight man? Did you miss whole "metoo" movement few years ago?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"life-ruining"
        You're delusional.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Because allowing third world scammers to run rampant targetting anybody they want with life-ruining photorealistic AI images is fricking insane.

        Anyone that knows how to computer at all can make those images of you. At least in one way it's better that it's accessible, because when those images emerge they can be assumed to be fake.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      my first thought

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are, moron.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why aren't AI-generated deepfakes illegal?
    They will be soon. More congress critters have to be embarrassed first. Thus far most congress deep fakes have been flattering, especially those of AOC.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cause it will disturb India's biggest branch of revenue(scammers)

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    in her mind: to take any power away from these threats and normalise
    in reality: nobody cares, they coom to it and move on

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this is just some promo for this prostitute
    she hired some clown to make the AI pics for her and come up with this ransom angle

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    and the shilling begins

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good. This is a discussion society NEEDS to be having right now, before things get even worse.

      It's absolutely fricking insane that literally no mainstream news outlets or politicians are talking about the issue of deepfakes. I can't tell if it's because they are being bought-off by big tech companies to not say bad things about AI, or if its just cause they're such boomers they don't even realise this is a problem.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        neurotic noseberg shit
        it's the oly kind of people talking about restrictions, power hungry weaklings

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >neurotic noseberg shit
          Reminder that Sam Altman is literally a homosexual israelite.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's absolutely fricking insane that literally no mainstream news outlets or politicians are talking about the issue of deepfakes.

        They did a long time ago when taylor swift fricking football teams and kermit the frog was commonplace on social media.

        I'm so bored with posters here that think they hear about everything on BOT. Oh,and this was on BOT, you just missed it. Because you miss 99.99% of things that happen

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you're falling for bait, anon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >no eggs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "These people threatened to post pics of me to make me look like a prostitute!"
      "That's terrible! What are you doing about it?"
      "Interview me for $50, tee hee!"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >sharing information online can have consequences
      we somehow knew this in the 90's, forgot it in the 00's, then reversed the blame in the 10's

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No tool should be made illegal. Doing something illegal with a tool is illegal (blackmail with AI, shooting someone unjustly). Banning a technology will never work.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. You can kill someone with a screwdriver or a pencil, we won't ban these, will we?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A screw driver does local isolated damage. They will focus on the person wielding it to do shenanigans.

        "AI" glorified chat bots can have restrictions put on them to not generate malicious content. When enough congress critters are embarrassed they will demand such controls. When tech companies fail to put fool-proof controls in place they will be fined, fined again, fined again, then sanctioned.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But how do you prevent people from making deepfakes with AI without either banning, or at least severely restricting, image/video/audio-generating AI altogether?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Making deepfakes shouldn't be illegal. Using them as blackmail or for other crime is.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Making deepfakes shouldn't be illegal.
          Why? How is it morally right to let people make photorealistic slanderous images of other human beings without consequences?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Free speech.
            The artist should not fear the censor.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We went over this in the 1910's. Making the content is not illegal. DISSEMINATING it as real content is.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >photoplay
              that really does sound like its from 1910
              but that font surey is not

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The text is from 1912; you can still find the disclaimer in most movies.

                Kind of amazed it's not used to create fake small dick pics to humiliate men.

                Men wouldn't do that to each other and women don't care enough.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Boomers already took notice of deepfakes. Soon, you'll need a license to buy a graphics card. moronic boomers and npcs do not care about finding an optimal solution they'll just ban whatever sways the status quo.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good game to her, that was the best thing to do.
    >Why aren't AI-generated deepfakes illegal?
    Depends where you live. In my country they are, as well as any kind of insulting picture someone may make about you, but thankfully it's the kind of illegal stuff no one will care about unless you file a complaint, then it will be up to a judge to decide if the author must be punished or not.
    But in this case the crime is not so much to produce the fakes, it's to blackmail the person threatening to release the pictures if the victims doesn't pay.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >But in this case the crime is not so much to produce the fakes
      Why is that not a crime?

      So do you think that if somebody produces AI deepfake porn of someone but DOESN'T blackmail the person with it, that should be perfectly legal?

      Why? How is that morally right?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would it be morally wrong?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that would explain why blackmail is illegal and doctoring photos isn't
        B following A doesn't make A equal B, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice the likes of which would make pol pot squirm

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >So do you think that if somebody produces AI deepfake porn of someone but DOESN'T blackmail the person with it, that should be perfectly legal?
        Yes, wtf.
        Nobody is harmed as long as the media isn't shared.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >How is a realistic drawing morally right?
        IDK anon... it just is, alright?
        Somehow it doesn't negatively impact others unreasonably and we have freedom of artistic expression and all of that???

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Did you get the consent of all the girls you've fantasized about in your head?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In the late 1800s a trained artist, and there were shitloads of them because there weren't many hobbies back then, could make photorealistic paintings of you naked and there was frick all you could do about it. The number exploded with photoshop

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    to be fair all this AI shit should have settled by our governments a LONG time ago. back when Nvidia was still making all this CUDA fricking software and hardware to make all this possible.

    but we have a president who's in his 80s and dying. they operate on slow time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but we have a president who's in his 80s and dying. they operate on slow time.
      The US government has long had a sycophantic relationship with Microsoft, who are the world's richest corporation and the #1 developer and funder of artificial "intelligence".

      Once you remember that, it's not hard to figure out why the American gov has no interest in regulating this stuff.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah honestly it fricking irritates me to no end that people see clear problems with government conflicts of interest and just blow by and invent some other random reason that's more in line with their worldview. That's real frickin neato that you hate the president, but the answer is actually just "money" 98% of the time

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I sure do heckin love it when the government limits the power that individuals have. It's perfect because that 100% prevents the government and giant corporations from using the same power as well!

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The pictures are really lame. Who would fall for this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Coomers have really, really low standards.

      She's blonde as well which instantly makes her 10/10 to every third worlder for some reason.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >for some reason.
        Blondes are literally absent from third world country. For them is like seeing a goddess.
        This is the same exact reason as why any blonde foreign guy can easily frick multiple girls in latin america.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >for some reason
        Imagine if a race of 8 foot tall supermen whose women looked like literal goddesses and whose men looked like Roman statues contacted Earth and a few have showed up to visit to improve ties between Earth and their home planet. They've quickly won every beauty contest and have given the world fusion power.

        You've never really met any, but you've seen a few around from a distance and they're really all that pretty. You see a lot of them on TV, too, and for some reason all the major papers claim they have found convincing evidence that they're actually not smarter than the average human (possibly dumber!) and in fact secretly crave sex with Earthlings, which is why they're here. Some human celebrities have gone to their planet and, while they haven't proven it, claim that these stories are true.

        That's how third worlders see blondes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus from his tone i expected something good but this shit is horrible, she is all deformed. Even my grandma with dementia would notice it's all fake. How this homosexual can program but cant see basic body proportions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It was a pajeet, they can't do anything right.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >from his tone
        *her
        It is obvious that she faked it herself.
        How can everyone here be so fricking moronic?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Who would fall for this.
      You'd be surprised.

      Part of me wants to think she made these so that when some ex comes around and posts her actual nudes online she has pretense to call them fake.

      I am also feeling particularly cynical this morning.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >billion indian scammers get their hands on AI tools
    >people value AI deepfakes at zero so even real porn pics being distributed no longer have any significance because no one cares

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this is the most likely outcome

      >neurotic noseberg shit
      Reminder that Sam Altman is literally a homosexual israelite.

      and that's also why he no longer shares his models
      the only people against democratization of ai want to hoard it for themselves to exert power over you

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What are likeness rights

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because women couldn't pretend it is AI when their nudes leak anymore

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is with women and "normalizing" things

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They operate on social consensus and can only tolerate holding beliefs or engaging in behaviors that are "normal" so anything they believe or do that does not currently fall within those constraints needs to be "normalized" urgently

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have many deep fakes of my crush but I keep them to my selves . I paid a lot for it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I paid a lot for it
      Was it worth it?

      I think we should own the rights to our likeness in public and can order pictures of us to be made inaccessible. So deepfakes would be allowed, but you can't publish them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It was worth it 🙂

        Had to pay in monero thought which I never done

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >monero
          i had to learn etherium wallets to buy a BOT pass. its nice to have something you care about as a reason to learning something. too bad it was literally the only thing ive used crypto for

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            BOT pass doesn't use crypto, you connect to goybase and they send dollars to hiromoot. If they actually accepted crypto it would be a simple XMR transaction.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Force women to wear burkas. Simple as

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is it illegal to draw a nude likeness of someone without their permission?
    No, this "deepfakes bad!" thing is an intersection of luddism, radical feminism, and women thinking their pussy is made of gold and israeliteels

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      to be fair, every random Indian on the planet can't draw

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If she hasn't generated these images and sent the email to herself, other women will.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >if I post my own nudes on the internet and claim they're AI generated then people will believe me!

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I swear it is AI
    Is this going to be the bawds' new motto ?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Kind of amazed it's not used to create fake small dick pics to humiliate men.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because funny.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why aren't AI-generated deepfakes illegal?
    "The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      *unless it victimises women, then it's your fault you misogynist

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't [thing I don't like] illegal?
    Because the whole world doesn't revolve around you, you fricking narcissistic psychopath.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Looking at the past few years, it might actually revolve around people like her.

      Well, until trannies showed up.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      doesn't it?
      that's gotta be near the top of maslows hierarchy, but it's still a higher priority than things on the bottom tier

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As if women have any genuine shame about there being porn of them when they celebrate a culture of selling photographs of their dicky for 3.99 a month. Deepfakes are just additional publicity for these prostitutes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Femanon here, she's not mad at there being porn of her online. She's mad she isn't getting a cut.

      And be honest; you would do the same. Imagine if someone leaked your amazing code to GitHub and didn't give you attribution or payment. You'd be pretty steamed too. Our bodies are prime (and depreciating!) assets.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The analogy is wrong. A woman's value is in their sexuality, if their nudes are leaked they give up the game and their value plummets. If you steal my code, my life isn't based around a singular code base. Even basic new features and bugfixes of that code are still valuable, not to mention I can just write a new program. In fact my code is so generally worthless I post snippets online for free.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If you steal my code, my life isn't based around a singular code base.
          You spent large amounts of time and effort writing an incredible driver; MS forked it because your dumb ass used the MIT license, didn't attribute you, and now 90% of people use the MS fork and don't even know you or your code exist. How does that make you feel?

          >I can just write a new program
          I can always send more nudes.
          >I post snippets online for free.
          Yeah, I post on insta.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't spend large amounts of time to write a driver that someone could steal, nice try. I was doing that code I would be being paid. And again, even if you steal my driver it's basically useless the second I do a major update, you'll have to steal it again.

            Women can't just send more nudes, once they're out it's over and the majority of men will lose interest. You'll notice the strategy generally is teasing if you want the big bux. Otherwise you're just yet another woman making $100/mo exposing her pussy.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I was doing that code I would be being paid.
              Yes, and the point for this woman is that she ISN'T being paid for this stuff.
              >Women can't just send more nudes, once they're out it's over
              Exactly, which is why it's all the more important for them that they get a cut of the attention/money for them however they can.

              This is also part of why I hate only fans. Women are encouraged to basically give away their #1 asset for free and then that scumbag company charges lonely guys exorbitant fees for those assets instead of allowing peer-to-peer sales (be that dating/romance or something more transactional)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes because novelty is the value of a woman's nudes, if they're stolen the base value of the woman's nudes go down. The value of my code does not go down because it's leaked.

                Sorry to burst your bubble ma'am. Your pussy isn't that valuable. Oh and don't tell anyone you want a long term relationship with you sold pictures of your pussy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The value of my code does not go down because it's leaked.
                That's because the value of your code is based on ubiquity and the value of my body is based on scarcity. That doesn't change that there is a valid fear for both of being cheated out of compensation for your inherent value, or having that value automated.
                >don't tell anyone you want a long term relationship with you sold pictures of your pussy
                I'm not an idiot; I don't take pictures of my pussy for this exact fricking reason.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If the value of your body is scarcity every single picture you take depreciates you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Very much so. And if the value of your code is ubiquity, every useful line you write that gets taken, misattributed, or taken from you depreciates you.

                We're not so different, anon. We just have different roles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, the value in my code is it gives companies value. They ask me to make new code because new code gives them more value. It's not the same at all.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The value in my body is that it can give men children. They want access to it because it's a finite resource.

                I'm not saying we provide value in the same way (although I do code as well but that's not germane to this discussion) but I am saying that we both would jealously guard that in us which others value, even if that value is manifested differently.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Images can't make children. Maybe devaluing the naked-pictures market would be a net positive for society? There are young girls who feel peer pressured into the cheap kickback from onlyfans, it feels like maybe this isn't a healthy market in the first place.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In a sane society OnlyFans would be illegal and its CEO shot. It's a disgusting combination of the bad parts of porn and the bad parts of pyramid schemes and the bad parts of ad tracking with absolutely no redeeming qualities of any of those things.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The onlyfans ceo would be nothing without the prostitutes and their simps. The problem cannot be contained by targeting somebody facilitating this interaction.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Women have sold sex for thousands of years. OnlyFans exists solely because it's protected from laws against human trafficking.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                As far as I'm concerned prostitution should be legal anyway so we don't have to go through all these larps

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly. In a system with legal prostitution, OnlyFans would still be on the hook for invasive tracking, deceptive marketing, multi-level marketing fraud, encouraging human trafficking...

                People act like allowing prostitution means you have to encourage it. The opposite is true.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >OnlyFans exists solely because it's protected from laws against human trafficking.
                where is the human trafficking charge in this?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It has virtually no verification procedures, demands essentially full time employment through abusing the "independent contractor" loophole (see: Uber, DoorDash) and directly incentivizes marks to drag in new people like a pyramid scheme.

                It also takes such exorbitant pay cuts that it's essentially profiting off continued sunk cost.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It has virtually no verification procedures
                onlyfans and most other platforms have extensive verification processes. try making an AI onlyfans model and see how far you get
                >demands essentially full time employment through abusing the "independent contractor" loophole (see: Uber, DoorDash)
                onlyfans models aren't independent contractors. it's more like an etsy store or a youtuber, you get paid for what you put in
                >It also takes such exorbitant pay cuts that it's essentially profiting off continued sunk cost.
                20% cut isn't "exorbitant". most online platforms and stores charge around 10-20% for using their services. hosting and credit card payment processing isn't cheap

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >try making an AI onlyfans model and see how far you get
                that's content moderation, not verification; make a 17 year old OF and it'll stay up for months
                >onlyfans models aren't independent contractors. it's more like an etsy store or a youtuber
                these are both "independent contractors"
                >20% cut isn't "exorbitant"
                it is to a pimp, which is what OF is

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, and Chinese baby formula manufacturers who adulterate their products with melamine would be nowhere without poor people needing baby formula; that still doesn't make it OK.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They probably will be in a lot of places

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    WHY
    AREN'T
    DRAWING
    OF
    MY
    FAVORITE
    CELEBRITIES
    AND
    CARTOONS
    ILLEGAL??????????????

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why should they be illegal in the first place
    i don't see the issue

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they are in the uk but they got the terminology wrong on what a "deepfake" is so technically its not if you have a good lawyer unless you make videos.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I learned the easy solution to this in health class when I was in middle school. Do not post pictures of yourself or share personal information on the Internet. There is no value in doing so in the first place and incredible risks associated with it even without AI. The Internet is for sharing useful information - photos of random people are information but not useful in anyway. I suggest e-thots find another activity to satiate their desire for a dopamine rush.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this is not a deepfake, it's stable diffusion

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    hollywood uses deepfake in movies and tv now. it can't be illegal since it's just vfx

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its impossible to enforce these things legally

    but if cryptographic identification systems are utilized you can stop the inflows of this shit from the outset without having to deal with it after the fact

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    lmao, are you new to the internet?
    Not because something is illegal mean people will stop doing it.
    You should grown up and learn how the world works

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why did she post her picture online? Our parents all told us not to do that constantly growing up. Is she moronic?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a woman. Ofcourse shes moronic.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a scammer tried
    >reading messages from people you don't know
    >responding to people you don't know

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It is already illegal to use it to extort someone. As far as I know it's still legal to make them just for your own enjoyment though.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't banning viruses make them disappear?
    Bootlickers must die

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If America’s military genuinely existed to protect the country we would be drone striking scam centers in India, Nigeria, and Asia.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >0.05btc
    if she is on linkedin and can buy bitcoin she can afford 0.1btc so she can afford 0.25btc.
    guy is just scattershooting and bullshitting. unless there are different values of extortion which change the penalties he is a bad criminal

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >another thread full of incels thinking something isn't a problem because they've never encountered it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >another thread full of seething normies from reddit full of impotent rage over things nobody is capable of changing but think that da LAW can do it

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *