This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.
Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.
It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
Despite my wording it doesn’t mean that you specifically should to produce such a video, it was more of a thought experiment. My take is that if such video were produced and published on any of Meta’s platforms it would remain very little time online, unlike the mentioned roasted baby video FTA.
No but it’s probably against their ToS so I don’t know why an AI generated gore video gets a pass.
The only footage that’s illegal from what I understand are sexual assault videos (including obviously csam) and snuff films (which are different because they are specifically made for distribution and generating revenue compared to “accidental” gore films)
Depends where you are as well and this is mostly from memory.
What does guide your morality? I personally like the idea of virtue ethics, but so far I haven’t had time to properly familiarize myself with the concept. My understanding is that a virtue is a character trait that promotes human flourishing, and actions are good if they align virtues.
What? How? I mean… there are quite a lot of violent and graphic movies out there. So this should not be illegal. However, it has to be made sure that those videos cannot be seen by non-adults.
Well, I know what you are trying to say, you just put it in a very extreme way. This is like saying that there are smokers who are 90yo, so it must be not affecting your health. A skewed view, because you don’t see the affected people, because they are six feet under. Same with traumatized people, who choose suicide because of all their experiences.
Is a video of a baby roasting in an oven even illegal? In general, are videos of violent crime illegal?
This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.
Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.
It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
the video of the Christchurch mosque shootings is illegal in NZ and Australia.
A cartoon of Bart and Lisa having sex is classified as child pornography in Australia.
and a zillion other examples
And now we are back on topic!
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
Amen.
Try to make a video of Zuckerberg roasting and see how fast it will be taken down. Double standards much?
That would honestly be hilarious. Would he be trussed and basted?
I’ve never mastered Blender to a degree where I would be able to produce such a video.
Despite my wording it doesn’t mean that you specifically should to produce such a video, it was more of a thought experiment. My take is that if such video were produced and published on any of Meta’s platforms it would remain very little time online, unlike the mentioned roasted baby video FTA.
No but it’s probably against their ToS so I don’t know why an AI generated gore video gets a pass.
The only footage that’s illegal from what I understand are sexual assault videos (including obviously csam) and snuff films (which are different because they are specifically made for distribution and generating revenue compared to “accidental” gore films)
Depends where you are as well and this is mostly from memory.
Legality (or religion etc etc) doesn’t guide my morality, decency, or basic difference between right and wrong.
What does guide your morality? I personally like the idea of virtue ethics, but so far I haven’t had time to properly familiarize myself with the concept. My understanding is that a virtue is a character trait that promotes human flourishing, and actions are good if they align virtues.
i think the point isn’t that they should have to take it down but that they should take it down. not taking it down is a choice.
What? How? I mean… there are quite a lot of violent and graphic movies out there. So this should not be illegal. However, it has to be made sure that those videos cannot be seen by non-adults.
children watched beheading videos all the time and tutned out fine, why would this slop be any different?
Well, I know what you are trying to say, you just put it in a very extreme way. This is like saying that there are smokers who are 90yo, so it must be not affecting your health. A skewed view, because you don’t see the affected people, because they are six feet under. Same with traumatized people, who choose suicide because of all their experiences.
A bit of survivorship bias never hurt anyone that survived
Oh right, that was the term. Thanks for reminding me 😄