New Mexico is seeking an injunction to permanently block Snap from practices allegedly harming kids. That includes a halt on advertising Snapchat as “more private” or “less permanent” due to the alleged “core design problem” and “inherent danger” of Snap’s disappearing messages. The state’s complaint noted that the FBI has said that “Snapchat is the preferred app by criminals because its design features provide a false sense of security to the victim that their photos will disappear and not be screenshotted.”

  • Erasmus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    13 days ago

    I believe that cartoon images depicting sex of underage kids is still illegal. At least in the US.

    Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but seems like I remember this from a news article a while back. Maybe it was just a specific state.

    I am not going to Google that one though to find out though.

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      Yeah don’t Google it hahaha

      It what makes it a child? There’s some creepy anime girls who definitely fall into that questionable category. And if I label a stick figure with an age… does that make it illegal? What about an ai image with bubble text that says “I’m not real. I’m 18, I have a magical curse on me etc etc” now it’s fiction?

      Since it isn’t actually real… what is the line, and how can that line be measured? Since this is just going to keep being a problem, this awkward conversation needs to happen in a logical, calm manner.

        • ravhall@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 days ago

          I definitely don’t want to sound as if I’m promoting this material, but I agree. Fake things are fake and real things are real. Yeah, it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to think about it and I totally understand.

          Fake images of murder seem to be perfectly fine! And that’s arguably the worst crime possible. We show that shit to our kids.

            • ravhall@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 days ago

              Yeah. But you know how it is here, you’re either against it or you’re one of them. Make a logical comparison between two nearly identical things and you’re whatabouting. I appreciate you recognizing the difference.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      I think the bar is whether it could be reasonably mistaken for a real child. Which makes quite a lot of disgusting content legal.

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 days ago

        I also find it to be repugnant, but if the images are not based on real people and the ai was not trained on real csam(good luck proving this either way), then it shouldn’t be illegal. The laws were made to protect kids, and drawings of purly fictional characters are not hurting the kids.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          Pretty much every law ever made in the history of humanity that was ostensibly to protect children is actually about control of the population.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 days ago

            This is just plain wrong.

            Obviously, there are loads of laws and very good legislation that does indeed protect children.

            Just one example: child labour laws.

            I suspect that what you really mean is that whenever a politician says whatever police powers are required to protect children, they really just want more power to violate privacy to make it easier to prosecute various crimes.