- cross-posted to:
- Betteroffline
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- Betteroffline
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
TIL Tim Sweeny is into child porn. Not surprising tbh.
The fall of rome… The fall of the perverse…
If you can be effectively censored by the banning of a site flooded with CSAM, that’s very much your problem and nobody else’s.
Yet another CEO who’s super into child porn huh?
Maybe we are the only people that don’t f kids. Maybe this is "H’ “E” Double Hockey Sticks.
I’ll keep in mind Tim think child porn is just politics.
It is when one side of the political palette is “against” it but keeps supporting people who think CSAM is a-okay, while the other side finds it abhorrent regardless who’s pushing it.
I mean the capitalist are the ones calling the shots since the imperial core is no democracy. This is their battle we are their dildos.
Literally this meme again
It helps that Tim Sweeney seems to always be wrong about everything.
If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by
I believe it’s called Let Them.
It’s called being so effective at marketing and spending so much money on it that people believe you don’t do nothing.
Somebody is in a certain set of files
His opinion is as trash as his gaming storefront that insists its a platform.
Someone beat this man for attempting to defent AI csam
I wonder which AI companies he’s invested in
Did Covid-19 make everyone lose their minds? This isn’t about corporate folks being cruel or egotistical. This is just a stupid thing to say. Has the world lost the concept of PR??? Genuinely defending 𝕏 in the year 2026… for Deepfake porn including of minors??? From the Fortnite company guy???
Unironically this behaviour is just “pivoting to a run for office as a Republican” vibes nowadays.
Its no longer even ‘weird behaviour’ for a US CEO.
For some reason Epic studios just let Tim Sweeney say the most insane things. If I was a shareholder I’d want someone to take his phone off him.
They could learn a lesson from Tesla.
Trump has shown these oligarchs that they don’t have to pretend to not be arrogant oligarchs anymore. They can speak their minds without suffering any kind of repercussion or censure for their insane narcissistic greed.
Did Covid-19 make everyone lose their minds?
Every day further convinces me we all died of COVID, and this is The Bad Place.
inb4 “In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that AI-generated CSAM is constitutionally protected speech”
Imagine where Epic would be if they had just censored Tim Sweeney’s Twitter account.
It’s like he’s hell bent on driving people away from Epic. I’m not sure I could be more abrasive if I tried, without losing the plausible deniability of not trying to troll.
Not just asshole. Nonce asshole.
steam
does nothing
wins
Absolutely insane take. The reason Grok can generate CP is because it was trained on it. Musk should be arrested just for owning that shit.
We all live in a two tier justice system.
The one tier is for the capital class. Generally, as long as they don’t commit crimes against the government or others in the capital class. These offenders get the slap on the wrist justice system. The Government had enough evidence between witnesses and documentary evidence from the Epstein files to atleast open investigations and charge some of the people. The only people to be arrested and charged were Epstein and Maxwell. It took a long time before either of them faced any serious consequences for their actions.
Everyone else gets the go fuck yourself justice system.
That doesn’t stop everyone from directly calling elon musk a pedophile for creating a CP generating machine.
And nor should it.
You know those signs at roller coasters that say “you must be this tall to ride”? The US is that, except the sign says “you must be this rich to play”.
IMO commenters here discussing the definition of CSAM are missing the point. Definitions are working tools; it’s fine to change them as you need. The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.
Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted, because it violates the person’s rights over their own body — including its image. Plus it’s ripe material for harassment.
This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated, and the sexual acts being depicted did not happen. Like the sort of thing Grok is able to generate. This is what Timothy Sweeney (as usual, completely detached from reality) is missing.
And it applies to children and adults. The only difference is that adults can still consent to have their image shared as porn; children cannot. As such, porn depicting children will be always non-consensual, thus always victimising the children in question.
Now, someone else mentioned Bart’s dick appears in the Simpsons movie. The key difference is that Bart is not a child, it is not even a person to begin with, it is a fictional character. There’s no victim.
EDIT: I’m going to abridge what I said above, in a way that even my dog would understand:
What Grok is doing is harmful, there are victims of that, regardless of some “ackshyually this is not CSAM lol lmao”. And yet you guys keep babbling about definitions?
Everything else I said here was contextualising and detailing the above.
Is this clear now? Or will I get yet another lying piece of shit (like @[email protected]) going out of their way to misinterpret what I said?
(I don’t even have a dog.)
What exactly have I lied about?
I’ve never once tried to even insinuate that what grok is doing ok. Nor that it should be. What I’ve said. Is that it doesn’t even matter if there are an actual real person being victimized or not. It’s still illegal. No matter how you look at it. It’s illegal. Fictional or not.
Your example of Bart in the Simpsons movie is so far out of place I hardly know where to begin.
It’s NOT because he’s fictional. Because fictional depictions of naked children in sexually compromised situations IS illegal.
Though I am glad you don’t have a dog. It would be real awkward for the dog to always be the smartest being in the house.
Supporting CSAM should be treated like making CSAM.
Down into the forgetting hole with them!
Nobody here is supporting CSAM. Learn to read, dammit.
He implicitly is.
EDIT: Wait, what is this about? Did I missphrase something?
They mistook your comment as disagreeing with their take on how there are real victims of Grok’s porn and CSAM and saying that they themselves were supporting CSAM, rather than saying that you agree and were saying Sweeney is supporting CSAM.
Gasp “Lvxferre! You damn Diddy demon! How could youuuu!”
At this rate I’m calling dibs on your nickname 🤣
Fuck! I misread you. Yes, you’re right, Tim Sweeney is supporting CSAM.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, undeserved crankiness, and defensiveness; I thought you were claiming I was the one doing it. That was my bad. (In my own defence, someone already did it.)
Now, giving you a proper answer: yeah, Epic is better sent down the forgetting hole. And I hope Sweeney gets haunted by his own words for years and years to come.
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.
Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content.
There ARE victims, lots of them.
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read a comment properly.
Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted
This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated
The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.
Which they then talk about and point out that victims are absolutely present in this case…
If this is still too hard to understand i will simplify the sentence. They are saying:
“The important thing to talk about is, whether there is a victim or not.”
It doesn’t matter if there’s a victim or not. It’s the depiction of CSA that is illegal.
So no, talking about whatever or not there’s a victim is not the most important part.
It doesn’t matter if you draw it by hand with crayons. If it’s depicting CSA it’s illegal.
Nobody was talking about the “legality”. We are talking about morals. And morally there is major difference.
I wish I was as composed as you. You’re still calmly explaining things to that dumb fuck, while they move the goalposts back and forth:
- first they lie I was saying there were no victims;
- then they backpedal and say “It doesn’t matter if there’s a victim or not. It’s the depiction of CSA that is illegal.”;
- then they backpedal again and say what boils down to “talking about morals bad! Also I’ll talk about MY morals. I don’t see moral difference when people are harmed and when they’re not” (inb4 I’m abridging it)
All of that while they’re still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called “never play defence”: make dumb claim, waste someone else’s time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.
Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.
There’s no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You’ve already failed.
But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.
I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.
But you said there’s a major moral difference? For you maybe.
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.
Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content.
There ARE victims, lots of them.
You’re only rewording what I said in the third paragraph, while implying I said the opposite. And bullshitting/assuming/lying I didn’t read the text. (I did.)
Learn to read dammit. I’m saying this shit Grok is doing is harmful, and that people ITT arguing “is this CSAM?” are missing the bloody point.
Is this clear now?
Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite since you above, reiterated
The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.
Which has never been an issue. It has never mattered in CSAM if it’s fictional or not. It’s the depiction that is illegal.
Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite
No, it does not. Stop being a liar.
Or, even better: do yourself a favour and go offline. Permanently. There’s already enough muppets like you: assumptive pieces of shit lacking basic reading comprehension, but still eager to screech at others — not because of what the others actually said, but because of what they assumed over it. You’re dead weight in any serious discussion, probably in some unserious ones too, and odds are you know it.
Also, I’m not wasting my time further with you, go be functionally illiterate elsewhere.
Ok. You’re right. You saying it’s ok to depict CSAM if there isn’t a victim is not you arguing the opposite. It’s me lying.
You’re so smart. Good job.
Is it so hard to admit that you misunderstood the comment ffs? It is painfully obvious to everyone.
