As teens await sentencing for nudifying girls, parents aim to sue school
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I'm not so sure about that. Barclay was a special case using it as escapism, but for the rest of the crew, all popular well loved and being their best future selves, the holodeck is just a different flavor of the adventure that is their every single day. Frankly, I'm not sure I COULD get bored of all the stuff they run into, and would probably instead want to go screaming back to Paradise where I'm not getting my blood turned to plastic or some messed up thing.
Plus, frankly the holodeck is exhausting. I'm not the most physically active person. I keep in shape due to my strict diet but I'm not exactly doing well for stamina. I think after a few kayaking adventures I'd be down for just simulating an 80's wood paneled basement full of my old video games where I can just lay back in a bean bag chair to play my stories. In fact, screw that, I'd just replicate all of that for my quarters, because the holodeck is one clipping glitch away from beheading me.
Edit: Oh right the sex thing... No thanks.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Just an FYI, it isn’t “porn” or “child pornography”. It’s “CSAM” or “child sex abuse material”.
Upvote
6
(15
/
-9)
Did the terminology change recently? I mean I'll go with whatever, I'm just a little confused as to the reasoning behind it.
Upvote
-14
(4
/
-18)
Pre-internet, this is the same story as “beloved sports hero rapes the homecoming queen, town sides with hero”
Upvote
29
(30
/
-1)
I agree, this situation is the age old problem of assholes being assholes with a technological force multiplier
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
"Porn" is not necessarily abusive/coercive (though often has been); when the material involves children, it is always abusive/coercive (even that which was originally willingly produced by the subject to a peer, but then distributed broadly)
Ethical phonography is produced by consenting adults; "consenting" has been historically tenuous regarding the broader definition of porn.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
I'm not sure it's possible to form a well-considered opinion about this case, and what would be a proper reaction, without a lot more details about the images and the perpetrators.
As a society, we chose to let this fester loooong after a lot of well-informed people saw it coming. Certain billionaires actively encourage it with a wink. Young people with immature brains should not be the only to blame.
I would also say there's a wide spectrum available both in terms of the personalities, intentions and group dynamics involved, and also when it comes to the exact images. Were they ultra-realistic both in quality and context, or stylized, over-the-top, clearly identifiable as fake on superficial scrutiny?
I don't trust the media or the genral public opinion in this, without a lot more specific information.
As a society, we chose to let this fester loooong after a lot of well-informed people saw it coming. Certain billionaires actively encourage it with a wink. Young people with immature brains should not be the only to blame.
I would also say there's a wide spectrum available both in terms of the personalities, intentions and group dynamics involved, and also when it comes to the exact images. Were they ultra-realistic both in quality and context, or stylized, over-the-top, clearly identifiable as fake on superficial scrutiny?
I don't trust the media or the genral public opinion in this, without a lot more specific information.
Upvote
-18
(5
/
-23)
They absolutely need to be punished and learn their lesson once and for all...but they do NOT deserve to go to prison. Ive been there. It will turn them into even worse criminals and they'll do it again. Right now, it was a very bad idea thay spun out of control. If they go to prison, it will become who they are. Lmao. Society is so gd naive when it comes to putting people away with other criminals.
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
I'm very curious as to what that "loophole" looked like. We normally hear "loophole" and think it has to be something you're reading in bad faith to exploit, but sometimes a "loophole" is confusing or doesn't leave its weird logic up to the reader's discretion. Many people will follow weird and poorly written rules to the letter with a good faith assumption that the system has placed a certain duty on someone else's desk.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Similar to holding bars/pubs/restaurants accountable for serving too much alcohol to drivers who cause accidents that kill people?
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Upvote
-15
(1
/
-16)
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
My public high school newspaper staff did a deep dive on sexting at school 9 years ago. Students were pretty nonchalant it during interviews with other students because we had to keep their names our of the interviews as they didn't care. We also published all of the state and federal penalties they could be prosecuted for sexting. It had next to no impact. This series of stories was done with the full cooperation of my principal and district superintendent. In this case it would seem that this private school administration had the same attitude as the students about it, or maybe the offending students had some sort of extra influence on administration.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Under the loco parentis theory championed by Justice Antonin Scalia, the public school is the parent while the child is on campus. If this was going on in school then the school should have handled it from that perspective. This being a private school maybe there are different rules, so tell me again why private schools are better?
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
It's not universal, but several states will hold the establishment liable when the driver was underage, so the analogy kind of works.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The school may have not been obligated to report, but EVERY victim added AFTER they were informed is completely on them! And the insult added by the reenrollment terms?? What the hell?? I know corporations that tried that path and it didn't end well for them...hope this follows the same.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Like they had to see all the AI images, not just theirs? There had to be a better solution than that right? FFS!
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I assumed the images had been cut down to faces only, so maybe still drugdework but nothing offensive.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
At the risk of starting a larger fight, not having to be subject to standardized requirements is exactly the point of the broader movement away from standardized, public education, however much it's cloaked in the language of "freedom" or "choice".
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
LLM's still have training data that generated the model. In order for it to generate something, it has to be in the training data to pull from. Not sure how having the data in the training set is not an equivalent to possession.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
Why? The perpetrators have been caught and admitted to using an app to nudify their classmates and pass around the images. Without consent. The school ignored a tip that this was an ongoing thing. How much more do you need to know?
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
There is a book called Code Dependent that goes into this (and other topics) in some detail. The book makes it plain the harm this causes women (of all ages, not just women). I think the book is just old enough that everyone was still calling this 'deepfake' technology, though where children are involved CSAM is the appropriate term.
According to the book, there are many AI programs that can be downloaded, and at the time of publishing at least, many could be run on personal computers, so it doesn't require a major AI company to enable this. I've also seen it explained that with a modern gpu or two you can created your own AI to do deepfakes fairly easily (if you know what you are doing). Many deepfake/CSAM operations are run through programs like Telegram from third-world countries where it's impossible to identify or prosecute the people doing it.
Laws GLOBALLY remain in urgent need of improving, as well as resources to support victims.
As for the boys who used the software, I have at least a degree of sympathy - depending on whether or how much they really understood the harm they would cause. I'll be honest - if in the 1980s or early 90s someone gave me a magic doodad that let me see what a girl looked like naked I would have wanted to try it, simply because I was a horny teenager. You would have had to explain to me the harm caused, because 'just looking at a picture' wasn't obviously harmful by itself. The idea of sharing is another matter of course, and the internet is what I think truly amplifies the original harm. And makes it almost impossible to remove CSAM and other deepfakes. So anyway, I wonder what education had been provided to that date to warn young people of the dangers of the technology they will encounter. Dangers both to victims and to themselves. I think every kid for the last 40 years knew the dangers of narcotics but the risks of digital imagery and generative AI?
According to the book, there are many AI programs that can be downloaded, and at the time of publishing at least, many could be run on personal computers, so it doesn't require a major AI company to enable this. I've also seen it explained that with a modern gpu or two you can created your own AI to do deepfakes fairly easily (if you know what you are doing). Many deepfake/CSAM operations are run through programs like Telegram from third-world countries where it's impossible to identify or prosecute the people doing it.
Laws GLOBALLY remain in urgent need of improving, as well as resources to support victims.
As for the boys who used the software, I have at least a degree of sympathy - depending on whether or how much they really understood the harm they would cause. I'll be honest - if in the 1980s or early 90s someone gave me a magic doodad that let me see what a girl looked like naked I would have wanted to try it, simply because I was a horny teenager. You would have had to explain to me the harm caused, because 'just looking at a picture' wasn't obviously harmful by itself. The idea of sharing is another matter of course, and the internet is what I think truly amplifies the original harm. And makes it almost impossible to remove CSAM and other deepfakes. So anyway, I wonder what education had been provided to that date to warn young people of the dangers of the technology they will encounter. Dangers both to victims and to themselves. I think every kid for the last 40 years knew the dangers of narcotics but the risks of digital imagery and generative AI?
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Children can't consent, and not just as a matter of law. They are quite unable to understand consequences or handle the pressures, manipulations etc of abusive adults. It's not JUST a matter of the law. This is why people are saying the phrase 'child porn' is deprecated. And not only because of the non-concensual nature but because it glosses over the true harm - and crime - revealed in the imagery. CSAM calls it what it IS. NCII (Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery) is what you call it when it's not children who are being deepfaked without their consent (and who consents to it???).
People will know what you 'mean' by the phrase child porn but it's a bad phrase to use. The world has moved on quite some time ago.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
Ask yourselves: how much difference is there between these boys opportunism and Trumps?
Nothing more than a whole lot of lawyers.
Nothing more than a whole lot of lawyers.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
I was a sexually frustrated teenager and adult and yet, somehow, incredibly, I never creeped on my classmates. I certainly never took creep shots of them. This stuff wasn't available then, but I can't see myself using it, either.
Cut out the 'boys will be boys' bullshit (which this absolutely is, even if you don't say those specific words). Boys are that way because they are allowed to be. They are told it's normal, and they are often excused when it happens. As long as we pretend this is something natural that can't be avoided, it will be unavoidable.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
However, any action that could be interpreted as concealing the crime is a Federal offense. For example, telling someone else "Don't look. Someone just had their brains blown all over your shoes."
Upvote
-11
(0
/
-11)
I will NEVER understand how that happens. How does someone take that side without feeling like such a piece of human garbage that I can't finish this sentence about what they should do?
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Nothing in your third paragraph matters in the least. If a kid was drawing pictures of one of their classmates naked and passing them around, I would want very similar consequences.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I have to strongly disagree. This case involved kids. Obviously not excusing them, but they were still kids.
Trump just acts like one.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This always strikes me as a weird and clunky amount of semantic effort to defend pornography's honor that only sex-worker advocates would care about strictly delineating. It's not like "child porn" didn't sound abhorrent enough to people.
Upvote
5
(9
/
-4)
Preppies are the only subgroup who obviously need more prison time. Instead of going from some prep school directly to Undersecretary of DOGE, these guys need to get beat up, repeatedly.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)