Rich people have staff that knows all their secrets; assistants, bodyguards, maids, drivers, … Their staff might abuse their position to steal, blackmail, or even sign book deals. They still have the staff.

When AI agents become useful for normal people, normal people will use them.

These ideas are all fundamentally misguided. Let’s take a step back what we are trying to do here: We want to create a system so that the government can withhold certain information from certain people. That’s both difficult and dangerous.

PornHub’s idea requires cooperation from the hosters. You are not likely to get global agreement on that. So you will still need to do something about those foreign sites, such as blocking them.

At that point, such a law would achieve 2 things:

1. Society has decided to create a technical censorship infrastructure.
2. Domestic porn providers have an incentive to support to it because it removes foreign competition.

Blocklists that parents can install on their devices already exist, so there would be no change in that regard.

Of course, minors have no trouble circumventing such software. They have plenty of time and they are horny. You can’t win. The only faint hope might be to include such features at deeper levels, similar to existing DRM schemes. This would be ripe for abuse by bad actors or governments. It certainly would be used against the consumer by the copyright industry and tech monopolies; just like existing DRM schemes.

So we really should ask why we would want to walk further down this expensive, hostile, and dangerous path. Are we afraid that masturbation causes blindness?

What is burnt toast, if not fascist propaganda?

There have been controversies about that sort of thing.

I know the Oscar-winning movie The Tin Drum as an example. The book by Günter Grass is a very serious, highly celebrated piece of German post-war literature. It takes place around WW2. The protagonist has the mind of an adult in the body of a child. I guess the idea is that he is the other way around from most people?

The movie was banned in Ontario and Oklahoma, for a time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum_(film)#Censorship

With European societies shifting right, I doubt such a movie could be made today, but we aren’t at a point where it would be outright illegal.

I see. I’ve looked up the details. Obscenity - whatever that means - is not protected by the first amendment. So where the material is obscene, it is still illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

It’s not a gray area at all. There’s an EU directive on the matter. If an image appears to depict someone under the age of 18 then it’s child porn. It doesn’t matter if any minor was exploited. That’s simply not what these laws are about.

Bear in mind, there are many countries where consenting adults are prosecuted for having sex the wrong way. It’s not so long ago that this was also the case in Europe, and a lot of people explicitly want that back. On the other hand, beating children has a lot of fans in the same demographic. Some people want to actually protect children, but a whole lot of people simply want to prosecute sexual minorities, and the difference shows.

17 year-olds who exchange nude selfies engage in child porn. I know there have been convictions in the US; not sure about Europe. I know that teachers have been prosecuted when minors sought help when their selfies were being passed around in school, because they sent the images in question to the teacher, and that’s possession. In Germany, the majority of suspects in child porn cases are minors. Valuable life lesson for them.

Anyway, what I’m saying is: We need harsher laws and more surveillance to deal with this epidemic of child porn. Only a creep would defend child porn and I am not a creep.

what is the law’s position on AI-generated child porn?

Pretend underage porn is illegal in the EU and some other countries. I believe, in the US it is protected by the first amendment.

Mind that when people talk about child porn or CSAM that means anything underage, as far as politics is concerned. When two 17-year-olds exchange nude selfies, that is child porn. There were some publicized cases of teens in the US being convicted as pedophile sex offenders for sexting.

Oh please. A tech-bro is just a male nerd who the cool kids don’t like.

Here’s a blast from the past:

See anyone you recognize?

Next you’ll tell me that people like Shawn Presser or Christoph Schuhmann aren’t tech-bros.

Why not? Because he’s dead and can’t protest against the distortion of his views?

Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. That was Snowden’s secret.

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, 1961

He’s a dead “tech bro”, so that makes him a good “tech bro”?

Perverting his memory to fight against everything he stood for is the most disgusting move yet, in the fight against fair use.

When you’re shilling for copyright, at least pick a lane. Are they bad for “pirating” or bad for not supporting “piracy”?

I guess it doesn’t matter as long as the owners collect their rent.

I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft.

That’s an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?

When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.

When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.

Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn’t require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?

I’m trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it’s stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that soviet states would have negotiated with owners of private property before using it for public benefit?

Still sounds like Ayn Rand and not socialism.

I assume you probably want to know how this kind of leftism is different from others or other ideologies calling themself leftist, rather than for me to write an essay on myself.

What confuses me is that you argue that property owners should be able to demand payment for the use of their property without any further consideration. That is a very conservative capitalist stance. It’s not compatible with any flavor of socialism that I am aware of. In fact, most pro-capitalists would reject it as too far right. The only ideologue, I can think of, that holds this stance even for copyrights is Ayn Rand. Your ideas seem compatible with hers. I don’t understand why you would think of that as socialist or even left.

When you call yourself a socialist, what do you mean by that term?

No. Seriously, why do you want to call yourself a socialist?

Calling property labor, doesn’t make you a socialist.