No an image that is shared and distributed is not the same as a fantasy in someone’s head. That is deranged. Should CSAM also be legal because making it illegal is like criminalizing the fantasies of pedophiles? Absolutely insane logical framework you have there.

This isnt fantasy. It is content. It is media. It is material. It is produced without the consent of the girls and women being sexualized and it commodifies their existence, literally transforming the idea of them into sexual media consumed for the gratification of boys and men.

It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic, so impassive, so detached from the real world and the consequences of this, that you could even make this comparison. You have seemingly no idea what youre talking about if you believe that pornography is the same thing as mental fantasies.

And even in the case of mental fantasies, are those all good? Is it really a good thing that boys see the mere existence of the girls around them as inherently some kind of sexual availability?

This is just apologia for the sexual commodification and exploitation of girls and women. There literally is no girl being sexually liberated here, she has literally had the choice taken from her. Sexual liberation does NOT mean “boys and men can turn all women into personal maturation aids”. This ENFORCES patriarchy and subjugation of women. It literally teaches girls that their bodies do not belong to them, that its totally understandable for boys to strip them of humanity itself and turn them into sex dolls.

It’s sexually objectifying the bodies of girls and turning them into shared sexual fantasies their male peers are engaging in. It is ABSOLUTELY different because it is more realistic. We are talking about entire deep fake porngraphy production and distribution groups IN THEIR OWN SCHOOLS. The amount of teenage boys cutting pictures out and photoshopping them was nowhere near as common as this is fast becoming and it was NOT the same as seeing a naked body algorithmically derived to appear as realistic as possible.

Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls? You clearly don’t understand the kinds of long term psychological harm that is caused by being exploited in this way. It was also exploitative and also fucked up when it was in photoshop, this many orders of magnitude more sophisticated and accessible.

Youre also wrong that this is about bullying. Its an introduction to girls being tools for male sexual gratification. It’s LITERALLY commodifiying teenage girls as sexual experiences and then sharing them in groups together. It’s criminal. The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form. It should be against the law and it should be prosecuted very seriously wherever it is found to occur.

Yes, finding out that your peers have been sharing deep fake pornography of you is absolutely fine and a normal thing for young girls to go through in school. No girls have ever killed themselves because of this exact sort of thing, surely. This definitely will not add in any way to the way women and girls are made to feel entirely disgustingly dehumanized by every man or boy in their lives. Groups of men and boys reducing them and their bodies down to vivid sexual fantasies that they can quickly generate photo realistic images of.

If the person in the image is underaged then it should be classified as child pornography. If the woman who’s photo is being used hasnt consented to this then it should be classified as sexual exploitation.

Women and girls have faced degrees of this kind of sexual exploitation by men and boys since the latter of the 20th century. But this is a severe escalation in that behavior. It should be illegal to do this and it should be prosecuted when and where it is found to occur.

Idk how its been disproven. America has moved right every single election over the past 3 decades, even when dems have won.

What are you anticipating for the automated driving adoption rate? I’m expecting extremely low as most people cannot afford new cars. We are talking probably decades before there are enough automated driving cars to fundamentally alter traffic in such a way as to entirely eliminate human driving culture.

In response to the “humans are fallible” bit ill remark again that algorithms are very fallible. Statistically, even. And while lots of automated algorithms are controlling life and death machines, try justifying that to someone who’s entire family is killed by an AI. How do they even receive compensation for that? Who is at fault? A family died. With human drivers we can ascribe fault very easily. With automated algorithms fault is less easily ascribed and the public writ large is going to have a much harder time accepting that.

Also, with natural gas and other systems there are far fewer variables than a busy freeway. There’s a reason why it hasn’t happened until recently. Hundreds of humans all in control of large vehicles moving in a long line at speed is a very complicated environment with many factors to consider. How accurately will algorithms be able to infer driving intent based on subtle movement of vehicles in front of and behind it? How accurate is the situational awareness of an algorithm, especially when combined road factors are involved?

Its just not as simple as its being made out to be. This isnt a chess problem, its not a question of controlling train cars on set tracks with fixed timetables and universal controllers. The way cars exist presently is very, very open ended. I agree that if 80+% of road vehicles were automated it would have such an impact on road culture as to standardize certain behaviors. But we are very, very far away from that in North America. Most of the people in my area are driving cars from the early 2010s. Its going to be at least a decade before any sizable amount of vehicles are current year models. And until then algorithms have these obstacles that cannot easily be overcome.

Its like I said earlier, the last 10% of optimization requires an exponentially larger amount of energy and development than the first 90% does. Its the same problem faced with other forms of automation. And a difference of 10% in terms of performance is… huge when it comes to road vehicles.

Exactly. Bring back trams, build less suburbs, better apartment housing. If we want a society reorganized around accessibility then let’s actually build that.

I never did say it wouldn’t ever be possible. Just that it will take a long time to reach par with humans. Driving is culturally specific, even. The way rules are followed and practiced is often regionally different. Theres more than just the mechanical act itself.

The ethics of putting automation in control of potentially life threatening machines is also relevant. With humans we can attribute cause and attempted improvement, with automation its different.

I just don’t see a need for this at all. I think investing in public transportation more than reproduces all the benefits of automated cars without nearly as many of the dangers and risks.

I am entirely opposed to driving algorithms. Autopilot on planes works very well because it is used in open sky and does not have to make major decisions about moving in close proximity to other planes and obstacles. Its almost entirely mathematical, and even then in specific circumstances it is designed to disengage and put control back in the hands of a human.

Cars do not have this luxury and operate entirely in close proximity to other vehicles and obstacles. Very little of the act of driving a car is math. It’s almost entirely decision making. It requires fast and instinctive response to subtle changes in environment, pattern recognition that human brains are better at than algorithms.

To me this technology perfectly encapsulates the difficulty in making algorithms that mimic human behavior. The last 10% of optimization to make par with humans requires an exponential amount more energy and research than the first 90% does. 90% of the performance of a human is entirely insufficient where life and death is concerned.

Investment costs should be going to public transport systems. They are more cost efficient, more accessible, more fuel/resource efficient, and far far far safer than cars could ever be even with all human drivers. This is a colossal waste of energy time and money for a product that will not be par with human performance for a long time. Those resources could be making our world more accessible for everyone, instead they’re making it more accessible for no one and making the roads significantly more dangerous. Capitalism will be the end of us all if we let them. Sorry that train and bus infrastructure isnt “flashy enough” for you. You clearly havent seen the public transport systems in Beijing. The technology we have here is decades behind and so underfunded its infuriating.

Its very convenient that corporations can both be people and not be people depending on whatever outcome is best for them.

I’m considering this and how best we can implement a practical solution to this. One possibility would be to add a rule asking that timeline posts add some or all pictures not in the main post but in the comments. Another would be to remove image posts entirely and direct that traffic towards other communities.

I think the NSFW tag is a good idea, if our community didnt already have a rule banning NSFW image posts. I also would prefer to keep the NSFW tag connected with NSFW content cause I think starting to use it for other things would diminish its use for actually filtering out NSFW content.

“Moderate genocide and gay marriage”

Genuinely beyond parody. And your problem isnt that that was the only alternative lmao. Neoliberals say the wildest things

Its working, horrifyingly. In several communities lately ive seen moderators start to treat violent racism and antisemitism as personal beliefs that do not on their own necessitate banning. This in private progressive leaning communities too. Eugencist christian white nationalism is becoming a normal tolerated ideology to have.

Instagram is especially bad too. I see a lot of people talking about Twitter, but not enough about Instagram.

We don’t have to talk in hypothetical. The democratic party ran on a campaign of kicking immigrants out of the country, continuation of the declining state of late stage capitalism, and state sponsored slaughter of Palestinian children overseas.

They could have not done that. Its as simple as that. Straight forward. They could have run a campaign standing up for human rights and a platform of workers rights. Thats it. Thats the problem. The problem is a far right conservative party vs a fascist party and those are the only 2 parties. Democrats lost the election. If they had campaigned differently, they wouldn’t have lost. Demand better from politicians, not for people to vote for the murder of their own families.

Wild how in one breath you call for a complex nuanced web of cause and effect for why voting for Harris was a morally good choice despite her committing genocide, then in the next breath absolve of her of all responsibility for her defeat 😂 you are the exact reason the democratic party loses again and again and again. You are either a truly passionate neoliberal conservative who genuinely believes in the democratic party platform of western colonialism and unbounded American capitalism, or else you are so horrified by the prospect of actually doing anything to change the system that you’d actually vote for a fascist candidate if the democratic party ran with one.

How can you absolve Harris of all responsibility for her own loss when she campaigned on far right anti-immigration politics and literal genocide?? You seriously don’t believe she could’ve done anything differently to not lose the election? Youre furious some Palestinian Americans wouldn’t vote for her because she enthusiastically pledged to participate in the genocide of their people, but youre not mad at her for enthusiastically pledging to participate in genocide in the first place? Are you a zionist? I’m starting to think none of what you have to say makes any sense unless you yourself are a zionist.

If dems run a fascist next election against Trump, the trend has been “they move right we move right” since the Reagan administration, are you gonna vote for them? Will you speak up? Will you say “the blue antisemite is better than the red one”? Do you have any moral values whatsoever? Is your only moral qualm with Donald Trump that he’s crass?

You do you, and keep on punching down on those Palestinian Americans. You know, with an attitude like you’ve got you could probably swing that into a lucrative career at ICE. They love people who devote themselves to punching down on the marginalized.

Right, which the Harris campaign did by being more committed to zionism than to keeping Donald Trump out of power. Similarly to how she completely eschewed a working class first platform in favor of appealing to corporate sponsors. Maintaining American capitalism was more important to the Harris campaign than keeping Donald Trump out of power. That’s all her. No one did that to her.

Correct. She is at fault in this situation for being an enthusiastic supporter of genocide. Not the Palestinian Americans who demanded better from the democratic party.

Okay were going in circles but sure I will reiterate again, why not. Its incredible you can repeat it so many times and still not see how you’re just punching down on Palestinian Americans at this point for literally no reason but western spite towards an ethnic minority group.

1. The election is over. Your rage at them is based on a hypothetical alternate reality that does not and cannot exist.

2. An equally possible hypothetical alternate reality is one where Kamala denounced Israel for committing the Palestinian genocide and committed to ending American involvement in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

3. In that hypothetical reality the people who wouldn’t vote for her due to her support of genocide would have instead voted for her.

It is therefore ludicrous that your best possible solution to this situation is for the genocide to persist but for Palestinian Americans to vote for it to continue. Instead of Kamala changing her stance of enthusiastic support for genocide. Which she could’ve done at any time. And which would’ve gotten all those people to vote for her. Your rage should be directed at her placing support for Zionism over the defeat of a fascist candidate. It was more important to her that the Palestinian genocide continued than it was for Donald Trump to lose the election.

And, again, the election is over. We could have had a “no genocide” candidate if Kamala Harris had chosen to do so. So ill ask again, why are you spitting at Palestinian Americans for refusing to support someone participating in the ethnic cleansing of their people, instead of the woman who refused to commit to ending American participation in the Palestinian genocide? If she had done that, those people would have voted for her.

We’re talking about hypotheticals in either case. Your rage is fixated solely on people who wouldn’t vote for her because of her support for the Palestinian genocide, instead of at her for supporting it in the first place. It doesn’t make any sense. The end outcome wouldve been those people voting for her in either hypothetical scenario, so why are you so angry at them and not her when she had just as much of a say in this situation?

I mean I’m not really referring to the specifics of her station presiding over the senate but she was the second most powerful political figure in the Biden administration. Directly involved in the national security council (which would have definitely meant her involvement in decision making with regards to the Palestinian genocide). The Vice President also often provides ideological support to the president in functions of state. She more than had a platform to speak out if she thought what Israel was doing was wrong. She couldn’t his overrule his executive authority, but she was not under an obligation to support and agree with his actions in participating in the Palestinian genocide.

Nor was she obligated to campaign on continuing that genocide.