Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or unwilling to enforce their policies about who can buy ads on their platforms.
While parent company Meta’s Ad Library, which archives ads on its platforms, who paid for them, and where and when they were posted, shows that the company has taken down several of these ads previously, many ads that explicitly invited users to create nudes and some ad buyers were up until I reached out to Meta for comment. Some of these ads were for the best known nonconsensual “undress” or “nudify” services on the internet.
Can you articulate why, if it is for private consumption?
Consent.
You might be fine with having erotic materials made of your likeness, and maybe even of your partners, parents, and children. But shouldn’t they have right not to be objectified as wank material?
I partly agree with you though, it’s interesting that making an image is so much more troubling than having a fantasy of them. My thinking is that it is external, real, and thus more permanent even if it wouldn’t be saved, lost, hacked, sold, used for defamation and/or just shared.
To add to this:
Imagine someone would sneak into your home and steal your shoes, socks and underwear just to get off on that or give it to someone who does.
Wouldn’t that feel wrong? Wouldn’t you feel violated? It’s the same with such AI porn tools. You serve to satisfy the sexual desires of someone else and you are given no choice. Whether you want it or not, you are becoming part of their act. Becoming an unwilling participant in such a way can feel similarly violating.
They are painting and using a picture of you, which is not as you would like to represent yourself. You don’t have control over this and thus, feel violated.
This reminds me of that fetish, where one person is basically acting like a submissive pet and gets treated like one by their “master”. They get aroused by doing that in public, one walking with the other on a leash like a dog on hands and knees. People around them become passive participants of that spectactle. And those often feel violated. Becoming unwillingly, unasked a participant, either active or passive, in the sexual act of someone else and having no or not much control over it, feels wrong and violating for a lot of people.
In principle that even shares some similarities to rape.
There are countries where you can’t just take pictures of someone without asking them beforehand. Also there are certain rules on how such a picture can be used. Those countries acknowledge and protect the individual’s right to their image.
Just to play devils advocate here, in both of these scenarios:
The person has the knowledge that this is going on. In he situation with AI nudes, the actual person may never find out.
Again, not to defend this at all, I think it’s creepy af. But I don’t think your arguments were particularly strong in supporting the AI nudes issue.
Traumatizing rape victims with non consentual imagery of them naked and doing sexual things with others and sharing it is totally not going yo fuck up the society even more and lead to a bunch of suicides! /s
Ai is the future. The future is dark.
tbf, the past and present are pretty dark as well
Though just like your thoughts, the AI is imagining the nude parts aswell because it doesn’t actually know what they look like. So it’s not actually a nude picture of the person. It’s that person’s face on a entirely fictional body.
But the issue is not with the AI tool, it’s with the human wielding it for their own purposes which we find questionable.
An exfriend of mine Photoshopped nudes of another friend. For private consumption. But then someone found that folder. And suddenly someones has to live with the thought that these nudes, created without their consent, were used as spank bank material. Its pretty gross and it ended the friendship between the two.
You can still be wank material with just your Facebook pictures.
Nobody can stop anybody from wanking on your images, AI or not.
Related Louis CK
Thats already weird enough, but there is a meaningful difference between nude pictures and clothed pictures. If you wanna whack one to my fb pics of me looking at a horse, ok, weird. Dont fucking create actual nude pictures of me.
Louis CK has also sexually harassed a number of women( jerking off in front of unwilling viewers)…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Related Louis CK
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If you have to ask, you’re already pretty skeevy.
And if you have to say that, you’re already sounding like some judgy jerk.
The fact that you do not even ask such questions, shows that you are narrow minded. Such mentality leads to people thinking that “homosexuality is bad” and never even try to ask why, and never having chance of changing their mind.
Mhmm. Cool.
They cannot articulate why. Some people just get shocked at “shocking” stuff… maybe some societal reaction.
I do not see any issue in using this for personal comsumption. Yes, I am a woman. And yes people can have my fucking AI generated nudes as long as they never publish it online and never tell me about it.
The problem with these apps is that they enable people to make these at large and leave them to publish them freely wherever. This is where the dabger lies. Not in people jerking off to a picture of my fucking cunt alone in a bedroom.
It’s creepy and can lead to obsession, which can lead to actual harm for the individual.
I don’t think it should be illegal, but it is creepy and you shouldn’t do it. Also, sharing those AI images/videos could be illegal, depending on how they’re represented (e.g. it could constitute libel or fraud).
I disagree. I think it should be illegal. (And stay that way in countries where it’s already illegal.) For several reasons. For example, you should have control over what happens with your images. Also, it feels violating to become unwillingly and unasked part of the sexual act of someone else.
That sounds problematic though. If someone takes a picture and you’re in it, how do they get your consent to distribute that picture? Or are they obligated to cut out everyone but those who consent? What does that mean for news orgs?
That seems unnecessarily restrictive on the individual.
At least in the US (and probably lots of other places), any pictures taken where there isn’t a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. in public) are subject to fair use. This generally means I can use it for personal use pretty much unrestricted, and I can use it publicly in a limited capacity (e.g. with proper attribution and not misrepresented).
Yes, it’s creepy and you’re justified in feeling violated if you find out about it, but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal unless you’re actually harmed. And that barrier is pretty high to protect peoples’ rights to fair use. Without fair use, life would suck a lot more than someone doing creepy things in their own home with pictures of you.
So yeah, don’t do creepy things with other pictures of other people, that’s just common courtesy. But I don’t think it should be illegal, because the implications of the laws needed to get there are worse than the creepy behavior of a small minority of people.
Can you provide an example of when a photo has been taken that breaches the expectation of privacy that has been published under fair use? The only reason I could think that would work is if it’s in the public interest, which would never really apply to AI/deepfake nudes of unsuspecting victims.
I’m not really sure how to answer that. Fair use is a legal term that limits the “expectation of privacy” (among other things), so by definition, if a court finds it to be fair use, it has also found that it’s not a breach of the reasonable expectation of privacy legal standard. At least that’s my understanding of the law.
So my best effort here is tabloids. They don’t serve the public interest (they serve the interested public), and they violate what I consider a reasonable expectation of privacy standard, with my subjective interpretation of fair use. But I disagree with the courts quite a bit, so I’m not a reliable standard to go by, apparently.
Fair use laws relate to intellectual property, privacy laws relate to an expectation of privacy.
I’m asking when has fair use successfully defended a breach of privacy.
Tabloids sometimes do breach privacy laws, and they get fined for it.
Would you like if someone were to make and wank to these pictures of your kids, wife or parents ? The fact that you have to ask speaks much about you tho.
The fact that people don’t realize how these things can be used for bad and weaponized is insane. I mean, it shows they clearly are not part of the vulnerable group of people and their privilege of never having dealt with it.
The future is amazing! Everyone with apps going to the parks and making some kids nude. Or bullying which totally doesn’t happen in fucked up ways with all the power of the internet already.
There are plenty of things I might not like that aren’t illegal.
I’m interested in thr thought experiment this has brought up, but I don’t want us to get caught in a reactionary fervor because of AI.
AI will make this easier to do, but people have been clipping magazines and celebrities have had photoshops fakes created since both mediums existed. This isn’t new, but it is being commoditized.
My take is that these pictures shouldn’t be illegal to own or create, but they should be illegal to profit off of and distribute, meaning these tools specifically designed and marketed for it would be banned. If someone wants to tinker at home with their computer, yoipl never be able to ban that, and you’ll never be able to ban sexual fantasy.
I think it should be illigal even photoshops of celebs they too are human and have emotions.