283
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
283 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
73878 readers
3252 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not their point and you know it. Get your bad faith debating tactics out of here.
She isn't living "every woman's nightmare" because a woman without the wealth and influence Taylor has might actually suffer significant consequences. For Taylor, it's just a weird Tuesday. For an average small town lady, it might mean loss of a job, loss of mate, estrangement from family and friends... That's a nightmare.
So she’s less a victim because she’s wealthy? My god you people can justify anything, can’t you?
That is exactly it. She will suffer less compared to someone else this might have happened to, an dif you define victimhood on a spectrum, she's less victim than Housewife Community leader preschool teacher Margaret from Montana.
Gross dude. Very gross. Blocking you now as someone who thinks the wealthy can’t be victimized can’t possibly have anything of value to contribute.
Do better.
The guy said less victimized and you conclude he meant cannot be victimized. Can you be any more stupid?
Since you have nothing worthwhile to say, I’m going to go ahead and block your annoying ass.
Lol, can't even bother to address such a simple point, so pathetic.
You just keep shifting your argument to create some sort of sympathy. I guess. No one says a rich person isn't a victim. The point is is being a victim as a wealthy and influential woman like Taylor is a lot different than being a victim in a working class context. If you disagree with that, then you're either being intellectually dishonest or living in a dream world.
Even the law agrees. It's a lot harder as a celebrity to win a defamation lawsuit than it is being a normal person. You typically have to show actual malice. Frankly, that's the legal standard that would probably apply to any lawsuit involving the deep fakes anyway.
The wealth of the victim doesn’t change the crime.
It's not a crime.
So, creating nude AI deepfakes isn’t a crime? Then there’s no victims at all. What’s everyone talking about then?
It can't be a crime unless there is a criminal statute that applies. See if you can find one thst applies.
So there’s no victims. Rich or poor. Why is this a problem?
Your response doesn't logically respond to my comment. It attempts to reframe the argument by setting up a "strawman," and shows that you fail to understand (or choosing to ignore because it doesn't support your new reframed argument) the difference between civil and criminal law in the United States.