Weldphoto wrote:
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the wording of SOSTA/FESTA, Does it define what it means by sex trafficking, if in fact it uses that term? I find it not to be a helpful term as it really doesn't define what it means. It's too broad and is tossed around far too loosely. I also don't see that nude or porn is at all curtailed. Twitter or X has more explicit porn than I ever could have imagined being allowed (I'm 77) to be published.

We, as a nation are somewhat fad driven and our laws sometimes seem to stem from the latest outrage by whomever is the most vocal. The moral pendulum swings back and forth driven by the loudest voices of the era. Hard to keep up with at times!

It makes it a federal crime to assist in sex trafficking, or facilitate, or support. and usually enforcement of this was blocked by "Section 230", that gives immunity to website operators so they don't have to police what their users post, but now website operators are liable under state and federal laws only in the enforcement of sex trafficking laws

so because website operators can't tell who is being sex trafficked, and SWERFs already have impossible standards that suggest even independent women are incapable of consent for broadcasting their sexuality in any way, the website operators often take skittish views.

its just random interpretations by whoever the corporation happens to have as a lawyer, and happens to have as an executive. Twitter/X takes one view because they told the SWERFs in tech to pound sand and had a lot of capital, other platforms already had SWERFs in decision making positions or were more beholden to advertisers or otherwise didn't find it worth it to deal with the liability.

but neither direction really represents public opinion or the state of cultural norms or the law

Roaring 20s wrote:
But here's the kicker, and it won't help those women that have sexy photos, SOSTA/FESTA's liability can only apply to humans depicted, as models produced by generative AI cannot be sex trafficked, due to being entirely ephemeral.

Ephemeral means lasting for a short time, as with an ephemeral plant. AI generated imagery will stay around I think.

JSouthworth wrote:

Ephemeral means lasting for a short time, as with an ephemeral plant. AI generated imagery will stay around I think.

whoops, picked better description

JSouthworth wrote:

Don't you mean, unrepresentative? non-representational?

not really my edit was to convey that the purpose of language is to convey a shared concept, which you've demonstrated that I've done successfully.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
This is a good question to ask an attorney who is a specialist in Intellectual Property and Internet laws.

I think it will be a recurring theme and is a topic to breathe life into this forum. Right now it might be too obtuse for the remaining crowd here, but I think its something worth watching

if the AI producers have a monopoly on content that human want to see, because human content creators are barred from paranoid platforms, then its something people should be aware of and react to, shift how they spend their time, shift what they learn, or simply go do something else.

JSouthworth wrote:
Conversely, if images resembling a person who is regarded as a possible victim of sex trafficking appear on the web, a court may consider that as evidence of sex trafficking.

Highly unlikely scenario in the real world. Maybe UK courts are different, but in the US courts of law, depictions of questionable authenticity "resembling" a "possible" victim of sex trafficking would not likely be admissible as "evidence" of sex trafficking.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
““Your child was never assaulted, your child was never exploited, but their likeness is being used as if they were,” he said. “We have a concern that our laws may not address the virtual nature of that, though, because your child wasn’t actually exploited — although they’re being defamed and certainly their image is being exploited.”

The argument [against restrictions] would be, ‘well I’m not harming anyone — in fact, it’s not even a real person,’ but you’re creating demand for the industry that exploits children,” Wilson said.

https://apnews.com/article/ai-child-por … ba9748f38a



"In a first-of-its-kind case in South Korea, a man was sentenced in September to 2 1/2 years in prison for using artificial intelligence to create 360 virtual child abuse images, according to the Busan District Court in the country’s southeast.

In some cases, kids are using these tools on each other. At a school in southwestern Spain, police have been investigating teens’ alleged use of a phone app to make their fully dressed schoolmates appear nude in photos.

Sexton said IWF analysts discovered faces of famous children online as well as a “massive demand for the creation of more images of children who’ve already been abused, possibly years ago.”

https://apnews.com/article/ai-artificia … b6177138d2

the article mentions the possibility about people that don't even exist, and also imagine consensual circumstances, with the likeness of an adult

even what those 50 states and korean municipality are aiming for, it would only enshrine that adult likenesses are granted a state-sanctioned monopoly that humans are not afforded