Press Release: Mu Condemns the IWF and Susie Hargreaves for Their Incendiary Comments and Deception

[Fragment]

https://www.map-union.org/blog/press-re ... -deception

Comments here.

[anarkiddo]

The BBC called a volleyball player a rapist isn't this against your values also?

[WandersGlade]

The IWF is pushing for law changes that will criminalise making guides to generate AI-made CSAM as well as making “fine-tuned” AI models that can produce such material.

The cross-bench peer and child safety campaigner Baroness Kidron tabled an amendment to the proposed data protection and digital information bill this year that would have criminalised creating and distributing such models. The bill fell by the wayside after Rishi Sunak called the general election in May.

To be honest, I don't see how they could realistically do this without banning the technology altogether.

Wouldn't it fall under the issue of deepfakes, anyway? If people could defend deepfakes, maybe things would be different.

Our understanding is that AI 'models' created by MAPs to produce AI images are not intended to make deepfakes of real minors, as claimed by the IWF. Instead, they are used to make recreations of a young person's body more realistic, because standard AI models are not trained on nude images of under-18s. While these models are trained on nude images of young people that could be illegal under the UK's extremely broad laws, the AI images generated would not represent a likeness of a real person's face unless specifically intended. Making AI images this way discourages producers from making more images with real people, which helps to protect young people.

Ah.

Mu believes that MAPs are not inherently dangerous. However, when regular adult-attracted people are treated the same way as MAPs, they eventually resort to violence and other harmful behaviors. If the trend continues, it is unfortunately only a matter of time before we see more harmful behavior and violent retaliations. Susie Hargreaves and the IWF should be condemned for their hateful and misleading comments that only increase the risk of harm to the public.

Sounds like a bit like a threat.

[BLueRibbon]

The BBC called a volleyball player a rapist isn't this against your values also?

It's technically true under UK law. Consensual sex with a child under the age of 13 is prosecuted as "rape of a child under 13".

I will do more press releases in the future, on a variety of issues. I'm waiting for our e-mail system to be fixed.

[BLueRibbon]

Mu believes that MAPs are not inherently dangerous. However, when regular adult-attracted people are treated the same way as MAPs, they eventually resort to violence and other harmful behaviors. If the trend continues, it is unfortunately only a matter of time before we see more harmful behavior and violent retaliations. Susie Hargreaves and the IWF should be condemned for their hateful and misleading comments that only increase the risk of harm to the public.

Sounds like a bit like a threat.

It's not intended as a threat.

The UK has an obsession with eliminating 'hate', yet here is an OBE (someone officially acknowledged by the king/queen) openly making hateful comments about MAPs in the media. Susie Hargreaves should be ashamed of herself for her disgusting comments.

If similar comments were made about Muslim or LGBT people, there would be protests and riots, possibly even violence. It's only a matter of time before MAPs react with equal levels of aggression, in my opinion.

I will not be endorsing violence as an individual, and Mu will not be endorsing it as an organization.

[WandersGlade]

It's not intended as a threat.
I will not be endorsing violence as an individual, and Mu will not be endorsing it as an organization.

I understand, however, it is using the possibility of danger as an attempt to pressure people into changing their mind. If you were trying to express a threat towards someone without getting into legal trouble, this is how you would do it. Even if there were examples of violence occurring, wouldn't the natural reaction of antis be to want to fight back, rather than recognize our rights? From an outsider perspective, we don't have that "underdog" characteristic that makes people sympathetic to LGBT people and sometimes Muslims.

[Fragment]

We made a small edit to the Press Release

Mu believes that MAPs are not inherently dangerous. However, when regular adult-attracted people are treated the same way as MAPs, they eventually resort to violence and other harmful behaviors. If the trend continues, it is unfortunately only a matter of time before we see more harmful behavior and violent retaliations. Susie Hargreaves and the IWF should be condemned for their hateful and misleading comments that only increase the risk of harm to the public.

has been replaced with

Mu believes that MAPs are in no way inherently dangerous. However, when people's options are restricted, they become desperate and there is a risk of violence and other harmful behaviors. Mu worries that such a trend could lead some MAPs to engage in dangerous, or event violent reaction as a result of their feeling of helplessness. Susie Hargreaves and the IWF should be condemned for their hateful and misleading comments that only increase the risk of harm to MAPs, but to the wider public.

[BLueRibbon]

It's not intended as a threat.
I will not be endorsing violence as an individual, and Mu will not be endorsing it as an organization.

I understand, however, it is using the possibility of danger as an attempt to pressure people into changing their mind. If you were trying to express a threat towards someone without getting into legal trouble, this is how you would do it. Even if there were examples of violence occurring, wouldn't the natural reaction of antis be to want to fight back, rather than recognize our rights? From an outsider perspective, we don't have that "underdog" characteristic that makes people sympathetic to LGBT people and sometimes Muslims.

We'll edit it to make it sound less threatening. It really wasn't my intention to post threats.

[FairBlueLove]

Thanks for this great post!
Most of AI generated realistic images are erotic and not pornographic, and they are meant to celebrate the beauty of young bodies. I'm sick of the objectification narrative. This kind of bans goes hand in hand with the absurd tendency of removing every hint of youth eroticism in art. I would not be surprised they think in their heads that even Michelangelo statues should be banned...