- cross-posted to:
- legalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- legalnews@lemmy.zip
New Mexico is seeking an injunction to permanently block Snap from practices allegedly harming kids. That includes a halt on advertising Snapchat as “more private” or “less permanent” due to the alleged “core design problem” and “inherent danger” of Snap’s disappearing messages. The state’s complaint noted that the FBI has said that “Snapchat is the preferred app by criminals because its design features provide a false sense of security to the victim that their photos will disappear and not be screenshotted.”
I think the bar is whether it could be reasonably mistaken for a real child. Which makes quite a lot of disgusting content legal.
I also find it to be repugnant, but if the images are not based on real people and the ai was not trained on real csam(good luck proving this either way), then it shouldn’t be illegal. The laws were made to protect kids, and drawings of purly fictional characters are not hurting the kids.
Pretty much every law ever made in the history of humanity that was ostensibly to protect children is actually about control of the population.
This is just plain wrong.
Obviously, there are loads of laws and very good legislation that does indeed protect children.
Just one example: child labour laws.
I suspect that what you really mean is that whenever a politician says whatever police powers are required to protect children, they really just want more power to violate privacy to make it easier to prosecute various crimes.
Exception that proves the rule.
What about child support paid by parents who are separated?
What about welfare laws ensuring a minimum standard of care for children?
What about social security for families?
What about minimum age of consent?
What about this one particular gain of sand I found that’s blue? Look, here’s another and another. Clearly, all sand is blue and beaches are blue. Don’t argue, or I’ll show you the 6 grains of sand I found.
What a silly thing to say.
You’ve made an assertion, I’ve provided examples to the contrary, and the best you’ve got is a grain of sand metaphor?
Obviously, it depends how many laws purported to protect children actually do. The examples I’ve provided form the bedrock of the modern family structure. They’re not insignificant grains of sand.
I’m not going to do a survey of every law in human history to satisfy your autistic contrarianism. I’m just gonna make fun of you.