Https://www.tumblr.com/myfandomrealitea/754159647278202880/im-proship-leaning-but-when-other-proshippers-say?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/myfandomrealitea/754159647278202880/im-proship-leaning-but-when-other-proshippers-say?source=share

I don't trust "documented evidence" as well, unless it's like in an official website or whatever. it's the mfing internet and people can edit or create fake messages or fake victims. hell, even with the new ai thingy they can create fake videos and pics. who gets to say these are real or not? I am saying this as a victim of fake callout posts who never got believed.

Modern cancel culture and the ability to just throw accusations around and be believed blindly have honestly ruined actual internet safety, accountability and being able to protect yourself and others from both false accusations and real dangerous people.

Its why I take issue with statements like "believe victims no matter what" and "support accusations until they're proven fake."

People have gone to jail for forty years and been proven innocent.

People have been murdered and their accusers have come forward to reveal they made the accusations up.

People have killed themselves over false accusations.

False accusations and blind witch hunting can ruin a person's life for literal decades.

It has absolutely nothing to do with proship vs antiship culture, even though the latter culture is in part what has exacerbated my stance. It has everything to do with the fact that practically weekly there's new news headlines about people milking a dead celebrity's estate with easily disproven claims, or bitter teenagers faking screenshots and falling over themselves to get internet sympathy because their boyfriend broke up with them.

I will always give victims a certain amount of benefit of doubt, but what I won't do is blindly launch a brigade against someone based on claims with no proof or flimsy proof with more holes in it than a festival tent.

Okay, fine, AI rape art is fine because it's not real. What about AI CSAM? Is it fine because it's art, or is it bad because real CSAM content is basically guaranteed to have been involved in training the AI? Again, where do you think AI /learns/ to make photorealistic RAPE art? It uses REFERENCES.

I can't believe you're making me somewhat defend AI generation here but off we go I guess.

AI data-mines accessible media and specific locations for media. While AI continuously learns the more you use it, the majority of AI's founding knowledge came pre-launch, as well as with its training. AI is not digging its little fingers around in the dark web.

For example if you wanted to prompt 'child porn' the AI does not immediately start digging around in the dark web for child pornography. It pairs the two keywords 'child' with everything its learned on children and 'porn' with everything its learned on sex and pornography and mashes them together.

So, no. Its not "basically guaranteed" to have used real CSEM. Nice try, though.

Granted there are still AI services which allow you to insert a sample image, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think an inserted reference image paired with specific prompts won't get flagged for review. AI techbros don't want their million dollar investments getting tanked and while they don't care about copyright you can bet they'll care if the FBI start kicking down their doors.

Most AI generators, in their legal statements, will have a section about using unlawful content to reference, train or manipulate their technology.

A lot of AI generation tools also blacklist certain key terms anyway so pornographic or "unsavory" content cannot be created. (Like rape images, murder images, gore images, ect.)

(E.g; if I tried to prompt 'Trump getting murdered' on select AI generation sites it would tell me I cannot use a prompt including 'murdered.')

I will say that there needs to be a better system in place for that. I'm sure a lot of samples of actual illegal activity have made it through the cracks (as it does everywhere), which is part of why I firmly believe AI generation should be shut down until the entire system can be reworked in order to offer better protection to the people who are being used as cashcows. In terms of copyright protection and more effective systems for preventing AI being trained off of certain content.

And because I know you're going to ask; yes. I do believe that if an image was generated sourced from actual CSEM, that the image should be as thoroughly scrubbed as possible. I do not condone CSEM in any form nor for any uses.

Nor do I condone AI generation (as it currently stands.)

Are you done with your little gotcha attempts now, Anon? I'm bored.

I’m tired of people making awareness posts about big names like the voice actor Tara Strong and include her internet posts over fictional characters along with some more concerning stuff, such as her support for PETA, Autism speaks or Israel

Making weird posts about fictional cousins kissing in 2014 is not important. Being a troll over the characters she voiced is not important. Stuff like this doesn’t automatically make her a bad person.

but the rest of the stuff mentioned however is important, and her support for all of them makes her a bad person. Just focus on that if you want to make awareness posts

Unfortunately most people will scramble to collect any minute piece of "evidence" they can against someone in order to try and solidify their claims and force people to agree with their campaign. Often this will include anything from their taste in music to the books they read/write.

Modern internet culture is placing far too much weight on what people like as a determining factor in what kind of person they are or defining them as a person.

The best thing to do in situations like that is counter the information. Force people to address the actual points within the posts, rather than the unnecessary information. Force the conversation the stay on certain subjects and allow those to overshadow what is irrelevant.

there’s an anti on YouTube that goes on to fix “nasty proshipper incest art”

except the art is completely tame, it is about a father and his daughter doing normal family stuff, she sits on his lap, hugs him and claims that she loves him and he holds her and they’re both happy, but apparently antis see these completely normal family interactions as incest and pedophilia

Yet what really surprised me the most was that I later found out the artist they are targeting is an open homophobe and ableist

antis focused so much on their art that they completely neglected to focus on more important things regarding this artist, instead they had enough time “fixing” art and raging about apparent problems when there were none to begin with

rpf of real children is bad, and ao3 openly endorses it. they fired someone for being pro-palestine but not for fic of a real minor (at the time. he had also said he was uncomfortable with RPF) being raped as a BABY by one of his deceased friends. what possible defense is there for that? just make ocs if the fantasy is what does it for you, why do you have to bring real living children into it?

There's your defence.

AO3 is an archive. I can assure you there is a vast array of the most sordid, twisted, messed up literature you could've ever imaged on there. AO3 cannot, by its own principle, pick and choose what is and is not allowed in terms of actual content.

(Hence why AO3's content policies are based more upon qualities like category, rather than content.)

Do I read sexual literature about real minors? No. But as a user and supporter of AO3 and I likewise cannot try to dictate what does and does not fall under the protection of its archival status. There is no such thing as "a little censorship."

There are many reasons why someone might write something like that. But as long as it solely remains as art and not action, it has nothing to do with me.

AO3 gives me more opportunities not to see it than literally any other website.

prismatic-bell doxxed an indigenous person and mocked their indigenous status (along with threatening to get them fired) because they had the audacity to say "don't dehumanize addicts", I wouldn't reblog from xem

If you're going to send accusations into my inbox I am not going to entertain them unless you attach actual proof.

This is not a statement of willful ignorance or defence. I am simply not going to make any judgements or actions based on claims which have no evidence attached. If you're going to go around anonymously warning people about other users, you need to be, at bare minimum, including valid evidence.

This goes for everything, by the way.