Lionir [he/him]

About me on lionir.ca

  • 7 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 29th, 2022

help-circle



  • It’s a basic curl command, that shouldn’t be “arcane” if you’re setting up a server.

    This is the equivalent of saying that any instance admin needs to know how to use curl while most people have never used a commandline. Not only that but you need machine access to know the api key which I would wager instance admins do not necessarily have.

    I think this is the result of not prioritising work that makes moderation possible by non-technically inclined people and it is genuinely a failure of the system.

    The priorities of development on Lemmy are decided by developers and the people who are not are simply pushed away. Most community leaders and moderators are not developers. The mental gymnastics to justify this lack of tooling is tiring.








  • I mean maybe calling it evil is part of the problem ?

    I call it evil because it is intentional and premeditated.

    There are degrees in everything. Punching somebody is less bad than killing somebody.

    Trying to put everything on degrees is bound to show ignorance and imply that certain things are more acceptable than others.

    I don’t want to hurt people with my ignorance and I do not want to tell someone that what they experienced is less bad than something else. They are bad and we’ll leave it at that.

    Btw its totally humane because we invented the shit.

    I am working with this definition : “Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion”. There is a difference between human-made and humane.


  • No. I think that it would still be bad if it were self-use because it is ultimately doing something that someone doesn’t consent to.

    If you were to use this on yourself or someone consenting, I see no issues there - be kinky all you want.

    Consent is the core foundation for me.

    The reason why imagining someone is different is that it is often less intentional - thoughts are not actions.

    Drawing someone to be similar to someone you know is very intentional. Even worse, there is a high likely chance that if you are drawing someone you know naked, you likely never asked for their consent because you know you wouldn’t get it.



  • Does imagining a different partner while having sex or masturbating count? I would imagine most people would say, “no”.

    You can’t share that though so while I still think it is immoral, it is also kind of impossible to know.

    Now a highly skilled portrait artist paints a near replica of somebody he knows, but has never seen in the nude. They never mention their friend by name, but the output is lifelike and unmistakably them.

    Maybe a digital artist finds a few social media pictures of a person and decided to test drive Krita and manipulates them into appearing nude.

    Those would be immoral and reprehensible. The law already protects against such cases on the basis of using someone’s likeness.

    It’s harmful because it shares images of someone doing things they would never do. It’s not caricature, it’s simply a fabrication. It doesn’t provide criticism - it is simply erotic.

    Taking that a step further, is it illegal to find somebody’s doppelganger and to dress them up so that they look more like their double?

    If the goal is to look like you, I would imagine it is possible to defend by law. Otherwise, it is simply coincidence. There’s no intent there.

    I don’t think it is a stretch or slippery slope. Just as a picture is captured by a camera, a drawing is captured by a person or a machine.

    Both should be the same and it is often already the case in many jurisdictions around the world when it comes to CSAM.



  • Everybody gets horny, idiot.

    Please don’t call people idiots needlessly.

    Does it matter if someone jerks off to JaLo in the Fappening or some random AI generated BS?

    The issue is that this technology can be used to create pornographic material of anyone that has some level of realism without their consent. For creators and the average person, this is incredibly harmful. I don’t want porn of myself to be made and neither do a lot of creators online.

    Not only are these images an affront to the dignity of people but it can also be incredibly harmful for someone to see porn of themselves they did not make with someone else’s body.

    This is a matter of human decency and consent. It is not negotiable.

    As mentioned by @ram@lemmy.ca, this can also be used for other harmful things like CSAM which is genuinely terrifying.







  • I might be confused but Lunduke doesn’t mention neoliberalism or left-wing ideology in that article - I did.

    Of course neoliberalism is to the right of what I’d consider to be left-wing and it works very much hand in hand with conservatism but it’s usually socially liberal. I think Mozilla definitely fits a weird bill, it’s hard to pinpoint because the principles are largely about individual rights yet the addendum definitely feels atleast socially liberal. That said, it seems most of the causes they support are left-wing.