news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body.
If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include not just the twitter.com URL but also xcancle.org (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source (archive.today, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org). Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed.
Mass-tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken Markov chain bot will result in a comm ban.
Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.
Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned.
Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society.
view the rest of the comments
Seems like snuff kink to me. Shouldn't be on youtube because it's basically porn to these people but while it's shocking I don't think there is a problem with the AI being able to generate it. In particular because "woman gets shot" is a perfectly fine scene to have in a wider piece, plenty of movies have an 8 second scene of a woman getting shot so if it's ever going to be used for any legitimate art (lol) then preventing the AI from making it would just neuter the creative possibilities the AI has. We don't stop other artists from making shocking content, we shouldn't prevent AI from doing it.
What we should prevent is kink content on youtube though. Keep it in the niche holes where it's difficult to find and won't shock people by merely existing, alongside vore, scat and all the others that don't require any nudity but everyone understands they're still pornographic content that the vast majority of people find either shocking or visceral disgust at.
look this may be a wild take but I do not in fact think people should be allowed to share snuff films anywhere on the internet, simulated or not. I mean I assume you understand this take isn't okay with simulated csam, right? Snuff films are not in fact more acceptable than CP.
The two aren't comparable. It is perfectly acceptable to show people being killed on mainstream TV shows and movies. Child abuse is something that is only ever implied, never depicted directly. One is clearly more taboo than the other.
So if someone puts up a bunch of clips from movies of people being killed should we take those down too?
How long does a clip have to be before it crosses the threshold from being snuff to being a movie scene? What other criteria must it meet?
I mean this seriously. Because this is a very real barrier you're going to run into when dealing with this. I assume you don't want to prevent killing people from being in any movie or tv show?... Maybe you do?... Do you? Real question again. I don't know and I want to clarify this is not an argument, I'm not really judging or anything. I'm sincerely engaging.
EDIT: Oh and we have to talk about videogame killing too after the above questions I guess.
there's no way to know if the AI used acting movie scenes or actual snuf, it could've scraped a police body cam video of a woman getting shot who can't consent to being in the AI hallucination slop
That's a genuinely horrifying thought. One that should be used to stop AI from mass scraping their content or force them into some degree of transparency about what content they train on.
Just going off the thumbnails the article saved, it looks like schlocky B-movie effects. In particular it looks a whole lot like the famous head explosion from Scanners.
and a few years ago will smith was eating spaghetti from his eyes
That's nothing, you should've seen what he was doing in AI footage
My point was it looks like it's drawing on a specific sort of dramatic movie effect that's nicely in focus in the center of a shot, rather than the comparatively subdued or indistinct effects that real footage would impart.
Where do you draw the line between things like grindhouse or other schlocky horror genres and "simulated snuff films"? They're both doing the same thing, using the same digital or practical effects, to achieve the same crossed-wire response of mixing fear and arousal. You want some kind of "you must be backed by a company at least so and so big to be considered legitimate and thus allowed to produce violent fictional content that also involves or goes alongside some sort of sexualization" standard, the way Amazon does for novels? Maybe an "I trust a judge will know it when he sees it" standard?
Fuzzy subjective lines differentiating "acceptable" storytelling and content that you suspect someone might be enjoying a little too much aren't good, especially since the context they're in can wildly change that. There are people carefully documenting every time someone gets eaten in a movie with summaries and timestamped links to a clip of it: that's literally someone getting off to otherwise normal action/horror movies where someone is dying on screen. How do you deal with that context? Retroactively ban the films because you learned someone got off to it? Ban specifically snipping violent scenes for fear that someone might get off to it?
Like the person the article's about is shit because he was giving google money (bad), posting fetish content on youtube (bad), and was also openly a racist and presumably every other flavor of reactionary bigot too since those all go hand in hand (extremely bad), not because he was ~~making~~ purchasing highly ritualized fantasy fetish videos involving scary or violent themes.
And since I mentioned the horror genre: yeah a lot of horror movie writers/directors/producers were/are also complete shitbags, but so were/are the writers/directors/producers of a lot of every other genre of movie too. The problem is more with men and particularly men with any sort of influence or status than it is the genre, making all attendant problems entirely a matter of "look at the actual person involved and what they say and do, rather than the sort of content they're working with, because the worst people are usually doing the blandest stuff for all that you can find monsters everywhere", with the obvious caveat that someone making content that seems to sexualize children is an immediate red flag and requires closer scrutiny to differentiate legitimate non-sexualizing content (eg fiction about growing up queer and dealing with confusion and repression, or a work criticizing the ways patriarchal society sexualizes and grooms girls towards fulfilling their designated role) from illegitimate sexualizing content (eg Made in Abyss, one of the worst things anyone has ever made).
who is we
I think about this alot, On the Relationship Between The Arts and Politics (1989) - Xi Jinping
This is just the conclusion, you (everyone) should read the whole thing, its short and achievable
www.redsails.org/xi-on-art/
-
and of course, volcel policei am also kind of confused how it relates to my question lol
نحن شرطة VolCel.بناءا على تعليمات الهيئة لترويج لألعاب الفيديو و النهي عن الجنس نرجوا الإبتعاد عن أي أفكار جنسية و الحفاظ على حيواناتكم المنويَّة حتى يوم الحساب. اتقوا الله، إنك لا تراه لكنه يراك.
I'm using "we" here to refer to most societies as a generalisation. I guess that leans more heavily towards well developed ones over highly under developed ones that have much more serious priorities other than artistic freedoms.
in a lot of societies producing shocking content is not the norm, so to me you are generalising quite a bit on who "we" are and what "we" should do.
Kinks are weird. I know a guy who's really into vore art, but in real life he's an outspoken vegan.
What a lame ass comparison, you are not talking about an "auteur" expressing edgyness, if that were the case they could take a camera and film their own shitty C grade horror movie if they really care about gore.
What you are actually talking about is a literaly dipshit who I quote "The AI I use is paid, per account I have to spend around 300 dollars per month, even though 1 account can only generate 8-second videos 3 times. Woman Shot A.I’s owner claimed they have 10 accounts"
Someone who is using a paid service spending at least 3k a month to create violent oppressive slop. Something he very likely would never do on his own otherwise and something that is detrimental not just because your interpretation of "shocking" is entirely subjective but also because its fucking AI slop which comes bundled with the bad consequences for the environment and the economy.
To take all of this and frame as if the issue here is artistic freedom? Yes we should neuter the "creative possibilities of AI" because the cost is literaly the fucking planet and their defenders need to be taken out and shot in front of the burning datacenters they love so much.
Again to even begin to enter this discussion, have this genius take a pen and a paper or a fucking camera and let them actually create the slop they love so much. If they can't do it without AI they shouldn't be allowed to do it at all and that is already being very liberal.
Isn't this response more about the AI than the content? I totally understand and agree with finding AI shit and lazy, but you're literally saying you'll allow the content if it's made using better less-lazy tools so it doesn't actually sound like this is an argument for or against the content itself?
If you're too scared to post a reasoned position you're just being a dickhead.
What's there to reason about a dude making snuff films of women and saying "oh it's okay they just have a fetish about women dying". The fuck is wrong with you?
There's a lot to reason.
Snuff itself isn't really real. It's a made up thing that got a lot of media attention in the 70s capturing a lot of people's imaginations. Conservatives and anti-porn activists latched onto it and weaponised the idea that people were murdering others to produce snuff films to try and push anti-pornography legislation. Actual FBI investigations occurred and fuck all was ever found to substantiate the existence of the hysteria they produced at all. The fetishists of this topic came after it captured imaginations, these fetishists were mostly kink explorers who like pushing boundaries to find what the limits of what can be sexual are, these tends to be the groups that "develop" new kinks into something real by finding what works and what doesn't and pulling on the thread of what works to see where it goes.
The exact reaction you're having to it right now is a previously weaponised conservative reaction.
We are in the middle of a new anti-pornography movement being pushed by religious groups. These groups are having considerable success in lobbying payment providers to go after various platforms and pressure them into removing various things. They will expand this further.
It is extremely easy to stage this controversy and then use media reporting on them to generate hysteria and call for more legislation. How do we know that's not what is happening? How do you know you are not being manipulated by a fascist right now into an emotional reaction and future support for their attacks on pornographic and kink content?
Does it actually cause any real life harm?
If you're going to demand it all be removed everywhere. You need to provide some sort of framework for doing that. How are you differentiating between kink and not kink? And how are you differentiating between acceptable murder in art and people clipping that art for kink?
What is your reaction going to be when it's AI generated stranglings of women next? Go after everyone with an asphyxiation kink? That would be literally me. A woman with that kink. While I haven't directly explored the idea of being literally killed, there are definitely women who have and would say they're into it. Kink is not real violence... Well sometimes it is... but it's consensual real violence in those cases.
The vore people are into the idea of others or themselves literally dying as they're eaten by weird monsters and digested. Does that register similarly in your shocking content that should be banned emotional reaction despite being obviously literally impossible fiction?
There is SO MUCH to talk about in this topic we could go on for hours. That's why I goaded you. Because a 1 sentence "shut the fuck up" isn't enough at all.
I suspect most of your reaction boils down to "man on woman violence is bad and we should suppress it", multiplied by the fact that this particular man on woman violence is shocking and presented in the most base and shocking way possible by the obvious fascist making it. But you're forgetting that there are fuckloads of women who are into man on woman violence to various degrees. What quantity of man on woman violence is ok and is not ok? Half of women have an SA fetish.
All well said, I would add that after that period in the '70s you were speaking of those same forces in the 80s and 90s decided to grab kids and brow beat them that they were sexually abused until they agreed and then concocted elaborate devil worshiping child abuse ceremonies to convict their parents of.
Referred to as the satanic Panic it was born in LA and Bakersfield California and exported across the country. All bad faith prosecutions, not a single cop or prosecutor ever faced any consequence for it even as they hid evidence to prevent the cases from unraveling decades later.
There is nothing artistic about AI slop
Where's the consensuality and safe play-pretend-for-entertainment-purposes of films where women die like this? How many of people enjoying these or discovering they really enjoy these are going to be people you can trust and how many are going to be dangerous weirdos? Isn't there a big chance that the proliferation of this kind of content create a LOT of dangeorus weirdos?
Even if those british dipshits are restricting access to famous porn websites, or some yank worms are still pretending to want to do the same in yankland, some "porn" is sufficiently disturbing to deserve to be deleted forever. It's necesary to draw the line somewhere and I think "victims being killed" is a very reasonable one. Otherwise, for example, what if these videos were about black women being lynched? Do you really want that shit to exist?
Note: My use of freaky is not negative at any point in this comment, it's being used descriptively for kinks at the fringes.
I think you're making the dangerous assumption that the only viewers are men. You could have written exactly the same question for content that is SA.
I could easily find you some women that love the idea of complete and total loss of control, complete and total dominance, complete and total masochism. Literal death is the absolute limit and there are definitely people who would be into that as a fantasy. The depiction we're talking about (the AI slop) is crude and shit but that should not be relevant to whether snuff as a kink itself should be banned. The quality and legitimacy of AI doesn't matter here.
Do you think there are no black women that are into asphyxiation or race play? I haven't looked but this probably exists already and has freaky women who are into it and produce it. Should they be allowed to?
I think you have this idea that you're only policing male sexuality with a lot of these arguments because you're not thinking of women as independent sexual beings. The result of this thinking is that you don't realise what you're suggesting is policing women's sexuality.
Women are into freaky shit too.
What about monsters? What about vampires sucking the life out of a woman until she goes limp and lifeless? What about werewolves and their tendency towards the same but through more explosively violent means? These are extremely common themes in women's erotica and pornographic art depicting that erotica. Do we ban the art and not the erotica? Or do we ban the erotica too? Does that offend you less because you can pretend it doesn't exist and nobody can just show you a picture/video to shock you? Millions of women read content with it, written by women!
Let's flip the topic over. There is a very real opposing side to this. Freaky bloodletting is a real kink that people engage in, this is more often woman on male and sometimes (in the fantasy) involves the man bleeding to death. Should we ban that too? Does that offend you the same way?
While I agree 100% with the rest, this I think is perhaps not exactly wrong but maybe a bit narrow in scope. Like I'd tie this whole thing into a broader set of peril-related fetishes that go back to like pulp novels, earlier stage plays about mustache twirling villains tying women to train tracks (and later silent films imitating those stage tropes), the writings of the Marquis de Sade, etc. There is definitely something to be said about pop culture tropes becoming reflected in kinks, though, whether that's fetishism specifically about the idea of snuff films/an industry surrounding them, a fetish for an idea of quicksand that literally only exists in cartoons and pulp novels/b-movies, teratophilia tied to like specific movie/cartoon monster tropes, baroque stuff like tying to traintracks or cement shoes, etc.
Yeah maybe. I can't know completely for sure if that was the case. I agree with the rest of your comment, honestly I haven't really thought about some of the more historical examples, it's not a kink I have explored whatsoever but I do have related bdsm interests and see how a kneejerk reaction to this could personally affect things I do like if people start emotionally reacting to content that involves violence against women... A lot of women are into it.
It would not be that hard to use examples at the extreme edge of this topic that generate a visceral emotional reaction from people to push through vague legislation that results in sweeping bans against all of it. This can end up controlling women's sexuality under the guise off protecting women.
Exactly, like I do think there is to some extent a categorical difference between abrupt, "realistic" violent fetishes that hinge more on like control and destruction from the perspective of someone enacting or observing it, and more stylized and drawn out violent fetishes that hinge more on the idea of the event as something scary and/or painful that's being experienced and often mix in a focus on feelings of helplessness or acceptance, but at the same time that's really just a fuzzy spectrum along multiple axes and imo trying to draw some definitive line as to what's actually problematic and what's too fantastical or otherwise harmless would be impossible for me and I dread the idea of someone who knows literally nothing about the subject trying to do it because they would just do the Amazon thing of banning any kind of written kink content rougher than a light spanking which all characters painstakingly consented to in front of a notary ahead of time (unless of course it comes from a published "legitimate" novel which can be as awful as it pleases however it pleases).
Not to mention that guys can be absolute creeps about it no matter where on the spectrum of realism vs fantasy or objectifying vs experiencing a given niche falls, to say nothing of how it seems the "milder" a fetish gets the more outspokenly aggressive and weird about it they get all the way up to the completely vanilla heterosexual men who are the category that's the most aggressive and outspoken about their fetish of all of them to the point that they'll demand all of society revolve around serving it and become violent if it doesn't.
There's like two completely different sides of this too. If we take the common mainstream vampire kink, you have the type where a male vampire sucks the life out of the female victim, and you have the opposite type where the male vampire hunter stakes the female vampire. Are these ok? Aren't they? They're incredibly common in women's erotica and I could also find image versions of it with a quick google image search like "vampire porn snuff" or whatever, there's probably better terms that specific kink uses for that specific type of scene I don't know what to search for but you get me. Do we ban all of those?
This is a completely uncalled for hostile reaction which is also somehow completely irrelevant. It's like you stopped reading at the first sentence and got so mad you just had to lash out immediately.
Please consider that you are a he/him saying this to a she/her.
And?
You don't think it's a bit telling that most of the men in this thread are like "oh my heavens, I must retire to my fainting couch after learning about this!" while nearly every woman is just like "eh, it's just fetish porn. Dude's a creep for other reasons and it doesn't belong on youtube, but it's still just fetish porn"?
some women are just not that into debating. a forum thread shows nothing
It's a surprise yes,
I guess there's probably a lot of he hims who are okay with this but it's understandably bad optics to be a he him being okay with this so they just don't comment
Don't get me wrong here. The content that spawned this conversation is vulgar and shit and the asshole making it is obviously shit too. But it's quality shouldn't be a factor that determines what we do with the kink itself.
So maybe you should at least listen to what she's telling you rather than immediately getting angry and hostile because she disagrees with your notions of how she needs to be protected over her own objections.
Also you have anti-furry shit in your modlog which makes me suspicious.
I'm viscerally disgusted by the existence of these videos and anyone defending them, that's it.