Leaderboard

album announcement this week

A federal appeals court has ruled that privately owning AI-generated images of child sexual abuse, made without real child involvement, is protected under the First Amendment if the images stay in your own home. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a possession charge against Steven Anderegg, who used the AI image generator Stable Diffusion to create hundreds of photorealistic images depicting minors in sexual situations. Anderegg was caught when he sent an image to a minor over Instagram. Meta flagged that Instagram message to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which led investigators to a search warrant and hundreds of AI-generated images on Anderegg's devices. He was charged with four offenses: producing, distributing, and possessing the images, plus transferring one to a minor. The appeals court ruling addresses only the possession charge. The court's reasoning rests on two prior Supreme Court cases. In Stanley v. Georgia(1969), the court ruled that the government can't prosecute someone for privately owning obscene material inside their own home. And in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the court decided images that only resemble child sexual abuse material are protected speech, because the usual reasons for banning such material – that it fuels demand for real abuse, grooms children, or normalizes the behavior – don't apply when no real child exists. "The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech," the court wrote, quoting Free Speech Coalition. "Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter." Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/judges-rule-ai-child-abuse-161951440.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFADVEazo0TXf3WQzrMqe1w-L6Yh9r263p9vrU5SF8HGC7pDrz5JRKINjpBbrRv5h3GVmFgOEPPsfJ4Wb1M8P1YmX3OqadMWG4boayLmiq86oSPQu0PjzNzd1VjqbMsVRJmAbYI6e-gegDQ1iN1OC4gJZ7XlTGbklY9m1Spew9QL

Love how she doesn't want to steal spotlight from her 16 years old peers.

I don't know

Oh no, more free time for GGD

lol not her doing Charli XCX and calling her album Music, Shop, Sign Up, MCF Like honestly, this year, pop girls has 0 creativity.

It's just 'cause she can be like "Madonna", "Whitney", "Britney", "Janet" Like, who else are you talking about when you say "Miley"

AUG 28 DWAS 17(=) 2,611,146 (+52,231) PF 165(+6) 1,268,692(+45,673) ___________________________________________________ TFOO 31(+3) 2,151,618 BOAF 32(-2) 2,121,828 ___________________________________________________

And this is f*cking disgusting. Beyond the literal kids themselves being taken advantage of, which is still a problem here because those "fake kids" are likely modeled after real ones because genAI can't make something out of nothing, the reason CSAM is illegal is because feeding pedophilia as a fetish makes pedos more likely to act out and harm kids.

Another one thank you

well that's 2 down, 4 to go

The sad thing is that the reasoning here is very nuanced, to the point that it can feel like it lacks the intuitive common sense of “we know this is wrong, so why not just say it’s wrong?” But that’s not really how the law works. Courts have to deal with the conduct in front of them, the specific statute being applied, and the specific charges being brought. The reasoning, more or less, is that because there are no “real children” involved (i.e. children who actually exist, rather than composite AI depictions) the material is not legally equivalent to CSAM produced through the abuse of an actual child. And because the depiction isn’t of a specific real person, it also isn’t equivalent to deepfake-style sexual exploitation created without that person’s consent. That’s not as vague as saying “all exploitative ****ography is protected speech because First Amendment.” And importantly, the ruling also doesn’t mean the court is saying AI-generated CSAM is categorically legal. The actual question here was much narrower: whether the government could criminalize the defendant’s mere possession, in his own home, of obscene virtual CSAM under this particular statute. His other charges involving production, distribution, etc. were not wiped away. So the court may simply be saying that this specific possession charge does not fit within the constitutional exception that allows the government to criminalize possession of CSAM involving actual children. The whole argument essentially hinges on the idea that, if no actual person is directly victimized in either the production or depiction, the conduct is legally distinct from both physical sexual exploitation and nonconsensual sexual depictions of a real person. That’s similar to distinctions the law already makes with hand-drawn, animated, or written material. And honestly, I think part of what makes the ruling feel so uncomfortable is that the judges themselves seem aware that older precedent is being applied to technology that looks very different now. That doesn’t mean they can just ignore Supreme Court precedent because the result feels morally wrong; it means the broader question of how AI-generated sexual material should be regulated is probably going to keep getting hashed out both in court and through future legislation. As a victim of CSA, I get why people reacted how they did to this because I was shocked and conflicted when I read the headline, but the specifics of what makes this ruling appear egregious are narrow and case specific as opposed to being sweeping proclamations that AI-generated CSAM is legal.

The Grammy for Best New Artist is for artists who have had their breakthrough year:

Oh ! I didn’t know there was a demand for such a thing

all you pro gen AI weirdos are complacent in this

There is definitely something going on between big tech and government in North America. Denmark has it right where they passed a law allowing citizens to copyright their face, voice and body to prevent AI create fake videos and images of them. AI is definitely a front for something we're not being told about. There is clearly something we're not being told about why suddenly everywhere across the US and now in Canada local governments are approving AI data centres. Why the sudden need for these huge alleged data centres to be built absolutely everywhere? We've had all this online data, such as images and other things saved directly to the cloud and to servers but now suddenly, that isn't enough, and they want to say we need all these data centres? We're not being told the truth.

https://x.com/kimpetras/status/2093806068782842283 Well the tweet doesn't embed but basically It's Kim confirming she is still working on detour deluxe edition and it is coming

Just Another Day

Pinky Down? 🌚

I love Sinner’s Prayer so much!!

Did she have a feud with her father? I think I’ve seen something about that in the past

Isn’t this the type of stuff right wing people would cry wolf about leftists doing? Like saying we’d go so far left that we’d act like awful people have the rights to “ethically ambiguous” things like this. Ironic America is so rigid with rules men made hundreds of years ago. Like the right to bare arms for instance originates for guns that could shot one round at a time and primarily was made to fend off the Native Americans. Not for George from Ohio to have an AK47 to threaten people in his neighbourhood. American law literally lacks nuance and needs updating.

Replay! Followed by Enigma

Fun fact (and by fun I do mean bleak as f*ck and another example showing the sheer depth of indifference humans have towards suffering of others) - data sets genAI were trained on were not meant to be private initially, since they were set up as non-profits (so that the companies training genAI could sidestep copyright infringement). One of the reasons they were made private anyway was in part because of the controversy that broke out once people found illegal material in those data sets including chil p*rn. When people became outraged, genAI companies responded to that with 'sorry we can't really moderate those cuz there's just too much stuff oops so sorry uwu', and when that didn't fly, they made those data sets inaccessable (since they own the ''''''''''non-profit'''''''' companies that scrape that data). AI generated CSAM might not resemble real life victims necessarily but there is every chance it's based on real CSAM, and there are elements of those images in generated stuff - even by their own disgustingly apathetic logic this should be illegal, but the court is made up of conservative men who probably actively use this '''''''feature''''''' so of course they see no problem with it. Y'all don't hate genAi companies enough.

Music videos are becoming irrelevant these days due to rise of streaming platforms like Spotify. Even a global top #5 hit song like Abracadabra has only crossed over 260M view till now. Disease and The Dead Dance still haven't crossed 100M views. Music videos have become a waste of resources that they could've otherwise spent on payola or promoting the albums.

It feels like one of those awkward little skits they do during a wedding reception

Honestly, i know I LOVE Gaga, but the sweetest and most touching memories so therefore some of my favorites are from Tony Bennett. Their chemistry felt like we were in a speakeasy and the big band was just about to go on. Like they were up and coming legends-to-be. If you weren't there during the downfall of ARTPOP and watched him take her under her wing, you MISSED one of the most BEAUTIFUL phases in her career. Also, when she was on the Lady is a Tramp I felt like SHE finally broke through the mould that she had created. Watching that music video back and the whole scene from the documentary GOD we were BLESSED

God....20 years since Back to Black. Best album of 21st century so far

Michael would have turned 68 today. What is your favorite album from him? Mine is Bad.

Oh that’s not-

Couldn’t give less of af, tbh. Call me back when she has something interesting to say (in other words: I won’t be hearing back).

This is going to ruin the tour

Largely agree, and it definitely highlights the fact that technology is vastly outstripping existing legislation and creating areas of high risk like this. But I do think the court made a mistake here and I hope this will be amended on appeal to a higher court on the basis that we know GenAI companies have used data sets that involved real CSAM not just CGI/Animated "art" and on that basis I don't think the judge can reasonably conclude that this material doesn't meet the legal definitions for CSAM because it's not involved actual harm to a minor. Again though. This is just proof we need a serious and i'd argue global approach to the regulation of GenAI's potential for criminality and potential to perpetuate these harms indefinitely.

the only thing i can find is this and its AI

I'M I-E-I-E-I-E-I-E-I-E-I P-PLASTIC P-PLASTIC DO-O-O-O-OLL P-PLASTIC, TECHNOLOGIC I'M I-E-I-E-I-E-I-E-I-E-I P-PLASTIC (I'M NOT YOUR PLASTIC DOLL) P-PLASTIC DO-O-O-O-OLL P-PLASTIC, TECHNOLOGIC

Replay. It's funny how a lot of us were so sceptical of a song called Replay when the tracklist was out.

It's surveillance, plain and simple. The more data they collect, the more data they can sell.

I mean

I just realised this will probably make it easier to store and distribute real CSAM because the person could use 'I thought this was AI' as an excuse, and even tag real CSAM as AI.

I don’t think I’ve ever played BN in full. I want gypsy played at my wedding

the job in question:

I always got the sense that without Gaga’s help the restaurant would’ve never opened, from what I’ve heard people say it would function better as a bar/cabaret club than a restaurant.

So I actually work here, it’s one of my jobs

The way she can do 100x as many pushups but she let him win. Generosity queen.