The article clearly outlines where people are paying for this content.

Which is a small minority of what people are doing. Most are just making AI images for free, porn or not. The whole article tries to gaslight you into thinking there's some deep dark underground where people are doing malicious things and we're supposed to feel guilty about it.

And the idea that “no one is allowed to talk about this topic while human trafficking exists” is nonsense.

You're putting words in my mouth. I was saying that, if given a choice between a future where AI-generated porn becomes the norm, and now, I will pick the conflict-free version every single damn time. Whatever disadvantages they want to pretend exist for AI are far outweighed with the shitty situation with have with the sex/porn industry right now.

You can talk about it all you want, but you can't just completely ignore the obvious comparisons, either. The same goes for all of the different mediums where Rule 34 existed beforehand. The article pretends they don't exist, as if this new AI medium somehow changes how people fantasize about shit. It doesn't. People have done this for decades.

People need to learn to read before commenting on an article.

I did. They didn't "investigate" anything. It's a superficial fluff piece designed to push an emotion, rather than to inform. It's deceptive.

Maybe spend more time actually fighting human trafficking than virtue signaling on social media if it’s the only topic you feel is important.

Again, you're attributing things to me when you don't even fucking know me. What makes you think anything I say is the only topic I feel is important?

And "actually fighting human trafficking"? What the fuck have you done to actually fight human trafficking?

I'm not a fucking journalist. I don't have the power to do that sort of thing. But, I can at least criticize the so-called journalists and what they do with their power.

Both are completely acceptable.