• iAvicenna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      35 minutes ago

      I guess the point is this enables the mass production of revenge porn essentially at a person on the street level which makes it much harder to punish and prevent distribution. when it is relatively few sources that produces the unwanted product then only punishing the distribution might be a viable method. But when the production method becomes available to the masses then the only feasible control mechanism is to try to regulate the production method. It is all a matter of where is the most efficient position to put the bottle neck.

      For instance when 3D printing allows people to produce automatic rifles in their homes “saying civil use of automatic rifles is illegal so that is fine” is useless.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      sort of. There are arguments that private ownership of these videos is also weird and shitty, however i think impersonation and identity theft are going to the two most broadly applicable instances of relevant law here. Otherwise i can see issues cropping up.

      Other people do not have any inherent rights to your likeness, you should not simply be able to pretend to be someone else. That’s considered identity theft/fraud when we do it with legally identifying papers, it’s a similar case here i think.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        But the thing is it’s not a relevant law here at all as nothing is being distributed and no one is being harmed. Would you say the same thing if AI is not involved? Sure it can be creepy and weird and whatnot but it’s not inhertly harmful or at least it’s not obvious how it would be.