293
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
293 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
66067 readers
4930 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's play devils advocate. You find Bob the pedophile with pictures depicting horrible things. 2 things are true.
Although you can't necessarily help Bob you can lock him up preventing him from doing harm and permanently brand him as a dangerous person making it less likely for actual children to be harmed.
Bob can't claim actual depictions of abuse are AI generated and force you to find the unknown victim before you can lock him and his confederates up. If the law doesn't distinguish between simulated and actual abuse then in both cases Bob just goes to jail.
A third factor is that this technology and the inherent lack of privacy on the internet could potentially pinpoint numerous unknown pedophiles who can even if they haven't done any harm yet be profitably persecuted to societies ultimate profit so long as you value innocent kids more than perverts.
Good arguments. I think I am convinced that both cases should be illegal.
If the pictures are real they probably increase demand, which is harmful. If the person knew, then the action therefore should result in jail and forced therapy.
If the pictures are not, forced therapy is probably the best option.
So I guess it being illegal in most cases simply to force therapy is the way to go. Even if it in one case is "victimless". If they don't manage to plausibly seem rehabilitated by professionals, then jail time for them.
I would assume (but don't really know) most pedophiles don't truly want to act on it, and don't want to have those urges. And would voluntarily go to therapy.
Which is why I am convinced prevention is the way to go. Not sacrificing privacy. In Norway we have anonymous ways for pedophiles to seek help. There have been posters and ads for it a lot of places a year back or something. I have not researched how it works in practice though.
Edit: I don't think the therapy we have in Norway is conversion therapy. It's about minimizing risk and helping deal with the underlying causes, medication, childhood trauma etc. I am not necessarily convinced that conversion therapy works.
Therapy is well and good and I think we need far more avenues available for people to get help (for all issues). That said, sexuality and attraction are complicated.
Let me start by saying I am not trying to state there is a 1:1 equivalence, this is just a comparison, but we have long abandoned conversion therapy for homosexuals, because we've found these preferences are core to them and not easily overwritten. The same is true for me as a straight person, I don't think therapy would help me find men attractive. I have to imagine the same is true for pedophiles.
The question is, if AI can produce pornography that can satisfy the urges of someone with pedophilia without harming any minors, is that a net positive? Remember the attraction is not the crime, it's the actions that harm others that are. Therapy should always be on the table.
This is a tricky subject because we don't want to become thought police, so all our laws are built in that manner. However there are big exceptions for sexual crimes due to the gravity of their impact on society. It's very hard to "stand up" for pedophilia because if acted upon it has monstrous effects, but AI is making us open this can of worms that I don't belive we ever really thought through besides criminalizing and demonizing (which could be argued was the correct approach with the technology at the time).
There's nothing particularly complicated about it not being ok to rape kids, or to distribute depictions of kids being raped.
Nobody here has at all suggested it's ok to rape kids. I hope you can understand the difference between thinking something and doing something.