The Epestien defenders do not care about raped women and children in real life.. cmon. 100% This happened because that website had one of their celebrity friends pics.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
We didn't need all that Margaret Thatcher stuff anyway
Speak for yourself dude.
I thought we didn't yuck people's yums here? I'm glad I saved the series with her and Gorbachev, at least.
I heard there's a fabled "trickle down set" featuring Ronald Reagan but it was too raunchy for the Economist.
I’m just curious what law this violates. You can argue it’s weird or creepy or morally bad, and I’m not going to dispute it, but I’m just wondering how it’s against the law?
TAKE IT DOWN Act - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act
Just post the real link next time. Every time you use one of those quick share links you are being tracked by Google/Facebook/etc
This seems like it violates the first amendment. This means that it's illegal now to create a satirical image of Trump getting raped by Vance. Or vice versa.
Edit:
Come to think of it, that South Park episode with a naked AI trump is illegal.
How about we ban AI from making child porn please
Also, ban AI from also falsely accusing people of having CSAM. Such as what Google and Meta do when it comes to innocent family photos.
How about we ban AI?
Or that
Nice, maybe we should also seize any AI sites being used to generate sexual images of minors.
Oh no wait, it’s okay if you’re a trillionaire, carry on.
especially a trillionaire that hangs out of with ms "kungfu lady", who arranges "sessions" with minors.
Aaw damn. And here I was hoping that they had seized Twitter.
Good. Great. Awesome.
Yet only the rich get protection, the everyday girls and women have to see their artificial nudes on X while trying to avoid their coworkers and classmates laughing about it. Two tiered justice.
That's just not true, though. This case involves famous people, yes. But the first conviction under the TAKE IT DOWN act, which was passed in May 2025, was only passed down just two months ago in April. It involved no famous people at all. It was an Ohio man who was using AI to make pornographic images of local people in his neighborhood, adults and children, and posting them online on a CSAM promoting site.
Link to related article: https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local/columbus-man-first-convicted-take-it-down-act-pleads-guilty-cybercrimes/530-fff42eac-4089-49ce-847b-0597c8a8fe39
Enforcement under this act is just getting the ball rolling. I expect there will be much more news of it soon.
Please tell me this applies to Grok
Well let's all have grok generate the same images, share them on x and find out.
"Deepfake" meaning low-effort Photoshop, generally.
Photoshop
What year do you think it is?
They are full on videos. Thats not just photoshop
Ive noticed they only take down stuff for politicians not underage actors or celebs or influencers or ppl in general, but anything nsfw about politicians is swiftly taken down even on reddit
It doesn't get much more performative than that.
Waste of resources
