Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#51

Post by numpad0 »

kg wrote: post #48
numpad0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"CSAM" is a codeword for anime. Users of this term routinely reject focusing on real kids and abuses. I assume "privacy" must be therefore a codeword too, especially considering that nonconsensual shocking images can be handled by defamation laws than privacy laws and principles.

I would hope we can agree that aggressive policing of anime and cartoons is a bad thing without denying the real existence of CSAM - the actual thing - or denying the bad things that have to occur for it to exist

I never denied the real existence of CSAM, I'm just saying that there are people who use "CSAM" to specifically mean anime and anime related photos and avoids discussion of actually detecting or preventing sexual abuses. I think I've seen it blatantly said on organizational blog posts somewhere that trying to move focus to kids is disingenuous or something.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#52

Post by numpad0 »

kg wrote: post #50
totetsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the terminology here can confuse the issue a bit. And because its such a socially pernicious and stigmatized topic, it's hard to even talk about the phrasing without without raising doubts as to why you would get caught up in the weeds on such an issue. But, I would say there is use in making the distinction between something that is CSAM, where its a record of abuse that has happened to a real child, and sex…

A problem you'd probably run into here is that it would be rather difficult to prove that no real CSAM was involved in the process of making the somehow-okay fake CSAM. Image generation models require training sets, after all. Do the companies training these models have the necessary data and evidence to prove every individual in every training image was over 18? Is generating fake CSAM okay if you trained the model…

> like an adult who looks 'too young' having their freedoms curtailed because any photos or videos would Look Like CSAM - but I don't think they're common enough harms

It is extremely common in some parts of the world. Age from visual appearance basically doesn't work inter-culturally, with or without AI, and ... there are people amassing something like 1/3 of the world that look like kids until they must retire from all work including use of gas stoves to boil water. Said people just literally look like kids, attracts wrong kinds of the rest 2/3, wrongly reject them if others come over, and gets banned on social media as being underaged, all the time.

edit: I have feeling that the concept of "adults by appearance" might be the case of suspicious discontinuities created by industrial revolution; it is often said that the modern concept of binary child/adults dichotomy is the result of industrialization though the concept of child always existed. For this reason, there might have been selective pressure towards attaining "definitely adult" appearances at younger ages in forerunner regions, and less such pressure at regions that followed it. IMO that makes more sense than assuming people from some regions are obsessed with certain things.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#53

Post by vlian2088 »

Stefan-H wrote: post #42
vlian2088 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"We only build and operate the orphan crushing machine, it's people that line up to turn the crank".

your phone, your browser, and the Internet itself are orphan crushing machines too, then.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#54

Post by totetsu »

kg wrote: post #50
totetsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the terminology here can confuse the issue a bit. And because its such a socially pernicious and stigmatized topic, it's hard to even talk about the phrasing without without raising doubts as to why you would get caught up in the weeds on such an issue. But, I would say there is use in making the distinction between something that is CSAM, where its a record of abuse that has happened to a real child, and sex…

A problem you'd probably run into here is that it would be rather difficult to prove that no real CSAM was involved in the process of making the somehow-okay fake CSAM. Image generation models require training sets, after all. Do the companies training these models have the necessary data and evidence to prove every individual in every training image was over 18? Is generating fake CSAM okay if you trained the model…

Personally I think that even if the training data, is made of images of people who are over 18, the state of the adult industry is that there is a lot of harm and exploitation involved in that even. Do we have the evidence necessary to prove every over 18 person who's images are in the training data are okay with that use? So there is no somehow-okay anything. But if were dealing with models that can combine concepts .. then "adult" + "sex" = "sexualized adult" so "child" + "sex" = "sexualized child" .. this is just a fundamental capability of the technology. Without even getting into nudity where its easy to see how non CSAM, non-sexualize medical images etc, can fill in the gaps for the model. This is why I think just calling it CSAM is confusing the arguments. I see the base harm as being the promotion of sexualization of children. And this is more a harm and risk to society and to people consuming these images. Of course if you extend this to "real childs image" + "sex" to get a sexualized deepfake then there is a kind of harm to that individual too, but its still a disctint thing from physical abuse.. This is just my instincts on this but I'd be really interested to see some real discussion between people with actual extensive understand and experience of all these areas.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#55

Post by croes »

charcircuit wrote: post #9

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.

Their are two kinds of freedoms, freedom to and freedom from.

And they often contradict.

People should have freedom from abuse of their images, your freedom to abuse them

Edit: fixed "freedom of" to "freedom from", thanks to Alpha3031

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#56

Post by vlian2088 »

numpad0 wrote: post #46
vlian2088 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There was a small number of crazy anime nerds rotating accounts tokenmaxxing Grok image generation to generate anime and cosplayer porn shorts with egregiously low yields and no intention of even publishing the results let alone monetizing, something like look to be below legal ages to some to the point that said some thinks it can be banned as willfully depicting underaged entities, so maybe this is a push coming fr…

[flagged]

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#57

Post by ssl-3 »

Stefan-H wrote: post #42
vlian2088 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"We only build and operate the orphan crushing machine, it's people that line up to turn the crank".

There's a lot of machines in the world that can be used to crush orphans, but I'm not aware of any that are designed for that purpose.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#58

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

kg wrote: post #50
totetsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the terminology here can confuse the issue a bit. And because its such a socially pernicious and stigmatized topic, it's hard to even talk about the phrasing without without raising doubts as to why you would get caught up in the weeds on such an issue. But, I would say there is use in making the distinction between something that is CSAM, where its a record of abuse that has happened to a real child, and sex…

A problem you'd probably run into here is that it would be rather difficult to prove that no real CSAM was involved in the process of making the somehow-okay fake CSAM. Image generation models require training sets, after all. Do the companies training these models have the necessary data and evidence to prove every individual in every training image was over 18? Is generating fake CSAM okay if you trained the model…

Hand drawings and photoshopping a minor's face onto an adult body are already illegal. Having a machine do the work automatically doesn't change that.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#59

Post by Alpha3031 »

croes wrote: post #55
charcircuit wrote: post #9

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.

Their are two kinds of freedoms, freedom to and freedom from. And they often contradict. People should have freedom from abuse of their images, your freedom to abuse them Edit: fixed "freedom of" to "freedom from", thanks to Alpha3031

Not really that important but I think the latter is more commonly referred to as "freedom from" rather than "freedom of"? I'm not 100% sure if I parsed that correctly.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#60

Post by dang »

Terretta wrote: post #22
ChrisArchitect wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can update the link to the blog post; no need for this to be an arstechnica PDF

It didn't let me edit, I tried.

Done now! (Submitted URL was https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/EFF-l....)
Post reply on HN