I'll agree with you on "pitiful" -- this is one of the most embarrassing crashouts I've seen on this site.
You couldn't just acknowledge that it is disinformation and move on with your life. — Mijin

I missed that entire exchange a while back, but agreed. Embarrassing. I was thinking about doing a thread about this, and it’s a good example: “if anything contradicts me, it’s biased.”

So my citations are complete bullshit? YOU are to blame somehow: you don’t read carefully enough, you misunderstood, you’re biased, you’re a bad “interlocutor.” Basically, you’re doing something wrong, not me.

It’s not that common, and not as blatantly obvious as in this example, but it’s common enough to warrant a little reflection.

Please don’t apologise, I welcome the interest.

I thought the issue about Grok should be included here because it has been treated as a free speech issue in the press. It was the lead story in the U.K. yesterday, after Iran.

I’m not sure what to think about that, but I do think it’s a publication issue. Because People are using Grok to alter images with skinny bikinis on X, which are immediately posted on a public forum. Meaning embarrassing pictures of people which are non consensual are being published. This seems to fall foul of the U.K. online safety act.

Interestingly the two main political party’s are in agreement that it should be stopped. While only Elon Musk and Nigel Farage are claiming censureship, or a free speech issue.

Oh, right - cool, thanks. Yeah, I get that and I agree. i think that, though, can be considered a privacy issue. Publication being the trigger, so I totally agree.

I think if you, in the privacy of your own technological world, create AI images of someone public you have a crush on for sexual gratification, as long as that never leaves your technological bubble, I don't see the harm. But making anything of this kind public immediate violates several things that we don't even need to look at digital communications legislation for, i think.

Yes, agreed, it seems a clear cut to me.
But this shines a light on what Musk and Farage are doing. They are claiming it is censorship, a free speech issue. So they are claiming that free speech includes the right to publish embarrassing, or defaming images of anyone on public forums, without their consent.
This looks like an overreach of the free speech narrative, exposing it as a false populist narrative, or culture war.

Yeah, overall I agree with your sentiment - on defamation, that's a bit nuanced - I think publishing embarrassing pictures of someone is entirely legal, where they do not enjoy an expectation of privacy right? Paparazzi can publish nude photos of public figures, if taken in public. But for AI, there's nothing 'real' to adjudicate in that normal way the legal system would. There as no public v private, or any real privacy concerns. So one could claim to be embarrased by an Ai image getting into the public, but I highly doubt this would be the same "embarrassment" meant by that claimed when the image is a real, private image.

I think Musk, at least, is clumsily trying to point out the amorphous nature (and this is somewhat corroborated by the history of common law on the matter) of 'defamation' and the various ways that can be claimed. He's just both autistic and has a huge ego so it's difficult to parse anything that specific publicly.

We can draw a parallel with deepfakes, which have been going around for a few years now. The legal ramifications have been worked out and tested in the courts. What is different now is app’s like Grok make it possible to produce this kind of material in seconds as an alteration to a photo, which can be accessed by anyone on the platform.

There as no public v private, or any real privacy concerns. So one could claim to be embarrased by an Ai image getting into the public, but I highly doubt this would be the same "embarrassment" meant by that claimed when the image is a real, private image.

This is an interesting angle, maybe it doesn’t matter if the image is of the actual body of the person in the photo. As long as it is believable, or the public can be persuaded that it is. Also there is that visceral reaction people have to indecent, or explicit material. This can increase the impact and where it is used maliciously to blackmail, or abuse a vulnerable person, it is a serious issue.

There have been reports in the U.K. of a rapid increase in the amount of pedophilia related material. Where the line between real images and AI generated images is becoming blurred. I heard reports that the photo’s of Renee Good were micro bikinied and spread in social media within hours of her murder last week.
Then there are people in the public eye being depicted with bruising, smeared in blood, or with tattoos. Where defamation may be involved.

It looks like Musk backed down yesterday and is taking down the facility. As there were indications of government action against it in most European countries.

As long as it is believable, or the public can be persuaded that it is. — Punshhh

This is essentially hte basis (and sometimes goes awry) for defamation proceedings in most jurisdictions - truly held belief is one of hte only get-out-of-it cards and that wont be available here, so you're probbaly right that this would cover the same sorts of behaviours in regard to currenty generative AI.

This can increase the impact and where it is used maliciously to blackmail, or abuse a vulnerable person, it is a serious issue. — Punshhh

Yep, 100%

here have been reports in the U.K. of a rapid increase in the amount of pedophilia related material. Where the line between real images and AI generated images is becoming blurred. I heard reports that the photo’s of Renee Good were micro bikinied and spread in social media within hours of her murder last week.
Then there are people in the public eye being depicted with bruising, smeared in blood, or with tattoos. Where defamation may be involved. — Punshhh

Yeah, this gets interesting (although, it's morbid and tragic for some - I don't mean to be entirely detached). I don't necessarily think that Goode situation is something worthy of legal ramification, but I do think, Like with many other types of images, the family should have the right to at least enforce take-down orders even if actual criminal prosecution isn't really on the cards.

The latter is definitely an issue - although I, and I presume many on this forum, can either spot, or intuit through context, a fake image in most cases. It seems a bit odd to cater to the less-discerning in that sense - but that's because I'm not in that group and I know many friends who've fallen for these things. So i think your caution is totally warranted.

You do not have the freedom to stand on a soap box with a megaphone or amplification without strict police approval who can at any time accuse you of hate crimes, inciting public disorder, or offending some termed minority group.

Freedom comes with responsibility. You are perfectly free to do anything within your physical and mental capacities.

People do not act out on the freedoms they have because people do not really want to take responsibility for their actions.

If you believe your statement you should go to speakers corner perhaps and voice this concern and see what happens?

Freedom comes with responsibility. You are perfectly free to do anything within your physical and mental capacities. — I like sushi

The free speech issue is about punitive laws, not about anyones actual ability to speak or act. That people face prison time for jokes or because some sucktit decides it offends them should concern us all.
Also, suppressing speech doesn't address the actual problem. Banning language (say some racist term or phrase) doesnt stop the views from being held it just pushes the folks who hold those views into the shadows. I prefer my racists, especially violent ones, right out in the open where I can see them.

He said "do not". That is what I was correcting.

Ok

I have been a political cartoonist (in my spare time) for over 30yrs. I knew that there were places you just don’t go as a cartoonist. This is for two reasons, firstly, you don’t create cartoons which are gratuitously insulting to protected groups, such as religions. Or create images which will incite hatred etc. Or stray into socially established taboo issues.
Secondly, you are publishing a cartoon and social media is a form of publishing.

Part of the problem with this debate is the difference between speech which is published and which isn’t published. If it is published there are greater restrictions, because it can potentially reach large numbers of people and be used by groups to incite further hatred etc.

So this whole issue is about conflating personal freedom of speech and published free speech. And the sheeple who follow the populists either propagate the conflation, or don’t understand it.

If you want to see a racist out in the open, just watch Farage on the BBC and not being challenged by the interviewers.

If you want to see a racist out in the open, just watch Farage on the BBC and not being challenged by the interviewers. — Punshhh

Globalists apparently express such polarity when the intersection and interests of national and regional democracy and tribal values don't facilitate the ease of their projects towards ideologies and abstract social utopia.

Globalists apparently express such polarity when the intersection and interests of national and regional democracy and tribal values don't facilitate the ease of their projects towards ideologies and abstract social utopia. — Alexander Hine

I wouldn't say that tribal values have to be racist. And being against racism isn't in my view an abstract social utopia.

Im not concerned about that distinction Im afraid, I don’t care whether its published or not. For me the issue is about arbitration, who gets to decide what I or anyone else is allowed to say. I certainly do not trust the government or some legion of self righteous twats to decide. Freedom of speech is about protecting your other rights, throughout history oppression always comes for speech first. The most effective way to combat bad or dangerous ideas is with good ideas, correcting ignorance with discussion. Suppressing it only shoves it under the surface like a festering cancer until one day a bunch of assholes in white hoods show up at someone's door. M
You want to learn how to actually combat racism? Google Daryl Davies. Single handedly done more to combat racism than all the speech control efforts combined.

If you believe your statement you should go to speakers corner perhaps and voice this concern and see what happens? — I like sushi

Are you not seeing that this is the exact problem? "See what happens" when you use your right to speak 'freely'? It's hard to understand what could support such an attitude, unless I've misunderstood.

True. But in-group bias is a Human standard. Racism is a somewhat direct consequence of tribal values. In modern times, we've had the privilege to construct tribes of multiple ethnicities. It wasn't so in the past.

I also think it's largely a cultural resistance, not an ethnic/racial one. But that will always mask actual racism.

I certainly do not trust the government or some legion of self righteous twats to decide. Freedom of speech is about protecting your other rights, throughout history oppression always comes for speech first. — DingoJones

Yep. Something the current strand of "Trump's a fascist' don't seem to understand, as compared to the swathes of undemocratic, 'liberal' protesters preventing many from speaking, even those on their own side.

True. But in-group bias is a Human standard. Racism is a somewhat direct consequence of tribal values. In modern times, we've had the privilege to construct tribes of multiple ethnicities. It wasn't so in the past. — AmadeusD

Racism is extremely illogical and basically is a result of bigotry, hubris of oneself and shows the lack of needed social cohesion in a society. So when the current American-style racism is marketed in Europe, it seems very odd at first, because the classic "Untermenschen" of the Nazis are White Europeans also, starting from the Poles and Russians.

Yet "Tribalism" shouldn't be so negative as we use it now. Things that tie strangers together are actually needed in any society. Just like if religion gives us fundamentalism, we shouldn't forget all the positive aspects that people get from religion and their faith.

So when the current American-style racism — ssu

I can't conceive of what you're talking about. The current claims about any kind of widespread racism in the US seem, factually, ridiculous. The tenuous connection you're making between Nazism and US policy is unserious, sorry to say. I can't really engage it.

we shouldn't forget all the positive aspects that people get from religion and their faith. — ssu

I disagree, but understand what you're saying - we should be able to extract them, not have to prop up the rest on their behalf. The aspects of tribalism that I think are good seem to me only 'good' in a naiive analysis. They necessarily lead to the types of out-group negativity which reduces social cohesion when taken beyond their immediate and tangible effect of, lets say easing the overall burden of children care and rearing. But that also means necessarily restricting children to certain social, political and moral precepts. That seems to be why places like the Mid East are how they are.

I think suggesting there's anything remotely close to this anywhere in the USA is tantamount to a lie. I understand we're probably going to have just wave and walk on by on this one, but the premise being that the US "is a racist country" is risible to me.

I can't conceive of what you're talking about. The current claims about any kind of widespread racism in the US seem, factually, ridiculous. The tenuous connection you're making between Nazism and US policy is unserious, sorry to say. I can't really engage it. — AmadeusD

I think you understood me incorrectly as this has nothing to do with US policy.
In "American racism" you have Caucasians, whites. In European racism you make difference with West-Europeans (Germans etc) and with Slavs for example. Well, Russians and Poles, Czechs etc. are white in the US. This just to show how illogical racism is.

And racism is something that every country has, btw. There's ample amounts of those here too.

It’s not about speech, that is as free as it ever was, it’s about publishing.
So are you saying everyone should have the freedom to publish anything they would say in private without any consequence?

Without legal consequences for sure, and not the consequences of a self righteous mob calling for your head to get fired etc

So laws around incitement and libel should be thrown out to defend free speech then?
You’ll be demanding we leave the ECHR next, presumably?

Good point. I should make a few exceptions for those things. I had in mind opinions but you’re right libel and incitement laws are important. Those aren’t just opinions, they are also attack vectors. Its a fairly clear distinction to me so I failed to consider them, thanks.

I think you're being unnecessarily combative.

"publication" is an amorphous concept. Standing in the town square, giving everyone around you a taste of your nonsense is protected (good). A badly worded joke on social media is not (bad). Publication usually requires a benchmark of dissemination to reach an actionable level. Usually, a non-public person is not going ot reach that. So the Online Safety Act (Harmful Digital Communications Act here in NZ - cant remember the analogous in the US) steps in to capture those who don't actually meet any establish criteria for causing harm. The multitudes of detentions along these lines are chilling. And are wrong, in principle imo. Anyway.. The initial delineation..

That's a serious problem (to me), and while Dingo is quite stepping on the right tiles here, that remains within your analysis, to be addressed. The ECHR does have problems. But that's an entirely different conversation and suggesting that's Dingo's next step is not good faith.

Definitely misunderstood. Sorry mate. I agree.

That's a serious problem (to me), and while Dingo is quite stepping on the right tiles here, that remains within your analysis, to be addressed. The ECHR does have problems. But that's an entirely different conversation and suggesting that's Dingo's next step is not good faith. — AmadeusD

What now? You suspect Im not acting on good faith?

Good point. I should make a few exceptions for those things. I had in mind opinions but you’re right libel and incitement laws are important.

No worries.
This is the issue which keeps coming up in this thread. That the row over free speech takes situations where incitement and racial prejudice are occurring in a public arena insisting that it is a free speech issue. It isn’t, it’s a public order issue.

Where it occurs in private, not in a public arena it is allowed (within reason) and there are no restrictions on what you can say. But in a public space, it can be amplified by group activity and bad actors can use it to stir up a crowd.

This can clearly be seen in relation to the Southport riots (Farage riots) last year. Where incendiary comments and ideology were used to stir up mass rioting across the country. Farage and his cronies had started spreading the idea of two tier policing over the preceding months. Causing a large cohort of Reform Party followers to think that the police were victimising (white) people expressing racially controversial views, while allowing people of ethnic minorities free rein to say whatever they liked. This just required a trigger to set of mass rioting.

And yet, no one challenges Farage about this in the media and no charges have been brought. The only convictions were for criminal damage and assault for some of the rioters.

I think you're being unnecessarily combative.

Yes, I’m being a bit of an attack dog here, I’ll try and tone it down a bit.

I think he was suggesting I was acting in bad faith, not you.

Where in NZ are you? I like visiting NZ, I have a few friends in Nelson and like going tramping.

. I had in mind opinions but you’re right libel and incitement laws are important. — DingoJones

Isn't it the case that the one, Libel, is clear cut, but the other, incitement, is highly politicised with indoctrination of controlling word and term codification even to the extent of censoring metaphor and language rallying to a cause through poetic speech evoking valiant determination and such like?