• klingelstreich@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It depends on whether you hold a world view where every person is valuable and needs help and understanding to become their best self or one where there are good and bad people and the baddies need to be punished and locked away so everyone else can live their life in peace.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        involving minors

        But if it’s just generated by AI there might be no involvement

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not saying it’s better alternative, I’m saying it might not make sense to talk about it “involving minors”.

              • Norgur@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not picky about wording.
                While I agree that stuff like that should not exist at all in no way whatsoever, there is a vast difference between it existing because someone abused a child, recorded that and thus scarred the child for life, or if someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting.

                • bleistift2@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting

                  I like that take. It lends itself to comparison: The Saw movies were well-received (at first), even though most people would abhor hurting others in this way.

          • Norgur@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a rather useless contribution to the discussion. The initial argument was a line of reasoning why artificial csam might be a benefit so people can vent their otherwise harmful behavior without harming actual people. You just flat out responded “it is enabling and doesn’t stop distribution”. So you just responded with “no, u wrong”. Care to tell us you reasons behind your stance?