118
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
118 points (100.0% liked)
News
37431 readers
305 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So AI images of underaged nude girls being reported to police does not warrant any form of investigation?
And AI generation vendors get a free pass for generating child porn
They absolutely should not.
That would affect the economy, and profits, which as we know are much more important than morals, so unfortunately, we must allow it.
The Trump Administration is trying to make preventing this illegal.
Easy answer, we make unflattering AI porn of Ivanka. Make it impossible for her dad to enjoy.
I fear you're underestimating his depravity.
Your question was answered in the article but you clearly stopped at either the outrage bait headline or the outrage bait summary.
"Ultimately, the weeks-long investigation at the school in Thibodaux, about 45 miles (72 kilometers) southwest of New Orleans, uncovered AI-generated nude images of eight female middle school students and two adults, the district and sheriff's office said in a joint statement."
That was the investigation by the police not the school.
What we're asking is why the school didn't investigate given that the police had already been contacted.
Because a school can't compell Snapchat to release "disappeared" images and chat logs. So perhaps in this case it was best left to the police.
The article states that the police investigated but found nothing. The kids knew how to hide/erase the evidence.
Are we really surprised, though? Police are about as effective at digital sleuthing as they are at de-escalation.
The article later states that they continued investigating, and found ten people (eight girls and two adults) who were targeted with multiple images. They charged two boys with creating and distributing the images.
It’s easy to jump on the ACAB bandwagon, but real in-depth investigation takes time. Time for things like court subpoenas and warrants, to compel companies like Snapchat to turn over message and image histories (which they do save, contrary to popular belief). The school stopped investigating once they discovered the kids were using Snapchat (which automatically hides message history) but police continued investigating and got ahold of the offending messages and images.
That being said, only charging the two kids isn’t really enough. They should charge every kid who received the images and forwarded them. Receiving the images by itself shouldn’t be punished, because you can’t control what other people spontaneously send you… But if they forwarded the images to others, they distributed child porn.
Behold
your child pornography/child sexual abuse material. These stick figures are definitely underage in someone's imagination.
What is the penalty?
This isn't any different than busting someone for selling fake drugs, which is an actual crime. Even if the bodies are AI generated, they're still attaching the faces of real girls to them and then distributing them amongst their peer group. The fact that you want to make your stand on this specific situation says a lot about you.
Seems like vacuous bullshit. At least there, a fraud is technically committed.
A real face is there in someone's imagination. And it's distributed to you. Are you going to excuse lesser skill?
So, again, what's the penalty?
The stand against sensational irrationality is always a good cause.
How so? Is there not fraud committed in this case as well?
We're not talking about someone's imagination or stick figures, but an actual digital image depicting a nude human body with the faces of real children. What skill are you referring to and how is this "skill level" relevant to the argument?
Is that what you're doing? Your comments are devoid of reasoning, logic, or nuance and just relies on a cartoon picture to do all the talking all while you claim everyone who disagrees with you is "showing a lack of thought or intelligence" and being irrational. You've done the equivalent of walking into a crowded room, farting, and walking away thinking "heh, heh, I showed those morons."
Was there a transaction?
That is "an actual digital image depicting a nude human body with the faces of real children". Both digital images, both depictions of nude human bodies with faces, both faces of real children as far as some viewer is concerned. Where's your objective legal standard?
You're just going to let people commit purported crimes with impunity due to weaker skill in synthesizing the images they're sharing? Seems unjust.
That's you. You lack an argument to draw a valid legal distinction & are just riding sensationalism. You were given a counterexample & have yet to adequately address it. It's bankrupt.
Its literally none of those things apart from being digital. The fact that you have to dance around including the word "imagination" for your scenario to be even remotely equivalent gives away how weak your argument is.
Good one
Oh, so now it's about legality and not "vacuous bullshit" or making a "stand against vapid irrationality?" The law isn't rigid and immutable. It changes all the time. There weren't any laws about drunk driving in 1810 either, so having those today must be irrational and lacking intelligence, right? Do you think any of those girls think this is sensationalism? Do you think this is isolated to this one group of kids in this one school?
I've addressed your counterexample (BTW thanks for the wiki link. You must not be aware that this term is common knowledge) in literally every single comment, but perhaps your reading comprehension skills are a bit vacuous.
There's absolutely a legal distinction between a drawing or other depiction versus a deepfake based on a person's likeness.
I don't get it. Are you saying the victim's age is imaginary? Or are you lashing out because you live in fear that you'll go prison if anyone ever opens your phone?
You should have kept reading.
"Ultimately, the weeks-long investigation at the school in Thibodaux, about 45 miles (72 kilometers) southwest of New Orleans, uncovered AI-generated nude images of eight female middle school students and two adults, the district and sheriff’s office said in a joint statement.”
Oh, shit! Did they shoot the computer?
No it doesn't say that.
Unless they can pull out their gun and shoot at something or someone ... or tackle someone ... they aren't very good at doing anything else.
What? RTFA. 2 boys were charged by the Sheriff's department. They didn't face any punishment from the school, but law enforcement definitely investigated.
Must be a majority republican police department.
I think you may have read the wrong article.
Correct. They will not investigate it further than threatening the victims with persecution. The goal is that the victim doesn't pursue it further.
They don't know how to properly investigate it, and they are not interested in knowing. The see it as both 'kids being kids' and 'if this gets out it will give our town a bad name'.
I'm glad the kid and her family aren't letting this go!
Read.The.Whole.Article.
Yes, after the kid had to take matters into her own hands.
She asked for help. The officer said no. She didn't let it go/escalated the issue as the sexual harassment progressed. Only when forced did they investigate
No they didn't and if they did that information is not in this article. She went to the Guidance Councilor at 7AM then to the onsite Sheriff's Deputy after. She texted her father and sister about 2PM. The SD couldn't immediately find anything but it appears that they didn't stop looking because 3 weeks later they were charging the boys.
So unless you have another source with a different timeline or more information your originally comment was inaccurate. Sort of like the ragebait headline and the ragebait summary.
You're simping hard for the police in here. There is no proof that any of the charges would have occurred had people not become outrage. The school definitely need this pressure.
You have a lot of cops in your family because I can't think of a reason anyone would be such a massive cheerleader for professional thugs without some personaon relationship.