this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
753 points (96.8% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

3390 readers
155 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The damages are brought up in a civil trial, so I guess while someone could bring a case to trial for nudifying themselves, I imagine it'd be tossed out immediately:

An individual depicted in an image or video that was nudified in violation of this section may bring a civil action in district court against the person who violated this section

These are the body parts listed:

"Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.

[–] 13igTyme@piefed.social 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I have no issues with completely banning those parts for children. Only a sick fuck like Elon would say any of those are normal to see on a child.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

You can see most of that on my baby pictures.

From what I understand the law applies to adults too.

I'm all for stopping pedophiles, but laws need controlled scope and nuance. Reality is complex and I don't want to see innocent stuff criminalized more than we do already.

[–] taj@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So, you think it's ok for people to nudify you? How about your mother? Sister? It's not ok to nudify anyone without their consent.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Actually, I'm not okay with that. But I'm also not okay with hamfisted laws that would probably criminalize my mom AI up-sampling my old baby pictures.

Nuance. It's needed.

[–] raze2012@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah, even for adults I feel this borders way too close on deepfakes. We needed to ban those years ago. I simply do not see any artistic nor educational context to justify nudifying someone without consent.

And this isn't unheard of, even in America. Even with caricatures you can wander close to libel if you're drawing someone like that .

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There's a difference between baby pictures and an AI generating nudes images from clothed pictures.

If you want to make nude fanart so bad, learn to draw.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you want to eat hot food so bad, learn to cook over a fire. Electrical heat is evil for some unspecified reason.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes, that's the point. It was bullshit logic when you used it too.

If I "just learn to draw" I can use it to draw nudes of people from clothed images. Or use photoshop.

There’s a difference between baby pictures and an AI generating nudes images from clothed pictures.

Do you think this legislation has the nuance to handle even a distinction that broad? I don't.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

What are you even talking about? This is exactly the distinction this legislation is about.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can see most of that on my baby pictures.

Sure, but it's one thing if your parents took a picture of you having a bath in the sink. It's another if someone took a picture of a baby at a beach then asked grok to generate an image of them having a bath in the sink.

The nuance here is somebody is using AI to generate these images, not that these images exist. Much like how it's legal and reasonable for me to take nude pictures to share with my partner, but it is not legal or reasonable for someone we don't know to take nude pictures of me through my window to send to my partner. The pictures exist in both situations, how they were obtained matters.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My issue with a lot of these laws is a lack of this nuance.

And the unspoken idea that they can reasonably know the context. How can the AI bot know if consent was acquired? This is a practical concern, if you require the sufficiently improbable you are essentially banning a thing in all contexts. Even me making a photo of myself.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I am fine with people being unable to use AI to make nude photos of themselves in order to prevent people using AI to make nude images of others.

You need to consider the risk of letting anyone being allowed to make a nude image of anyone, versus the "cost" of if you want a nude photo of yourself you'll just have to take it in the mirror.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Most phone cameras use AI image enhancement. I'd need to buy a film camera to take a nude selfie. It's hamfisted overreach into the lives of the general public.