To no one’s surprise, women and girls are disproportionately targeted, making image-based abuse not just a technology issue but a gendered form of violence rooted in misogyny and power. In fact, in Laura Bates’ book “The New Age of Sexism”, she cites research that says that of the 96% of deepfakes that are non-consensual sexually explicit images, 99% of those depict women. In fact, most of the apps, bots and websites that will create deepfake explicit images don’t even work on pictures of men.
Deepfakes can be used to humiliate, silence, intimidate, or punish women for speaking publicly, participating online, or simply existing in digital spaces.
In the UK, women have reported being filmed by men wearing smart glasses while being approached in public spaces, with recordings subsequently uploaded to social media attracting sexualised and other gross comments. Similar “pickup” content has emerged in the US, where men have used smart glasses to record interactions with women in airports, gyms, and other public spaces, often turning those encounters into viral online content.
Last year, an Auckland man used the Ray-Ban Smart Glasses to covertly record a sex worker without her consent while she was naked. The recording was detected only because the woman noticed him activating the device (by touching the side of the glasses). He pleaded guilty to attempting to make an intimate visual recording, but was discharged without conviction - to the dismay of the brothel owner.
This is particularly concerning because wearable devices are designed to blend into everyday life. A child may not recognise that a pair of ordinary-looking sunglasses contains a camera. They may not realise they are being recorded, and will have little ability to control what happens to that image/footage afterwards.
Consent becomes much harder to meaningfully give or refuse when recording devices are hidden inside objects that look completely ordinary.
Too often, we're told that women and girls should simply be more careful, more alert, and more aware of their surroundings, remain vigilant, and constantly assess whether they are being recorded, instead of placing responsibility on those who design, deploy, and profit from technologies with foreseeable risks of misuse. The same is true for children and young people, who should not need levels of technological awareness beyond their developmental capacity simply to protect themselves from covert recording.
So? You can turn ecstasy into torture, all it takes is conditioning.
whoosh
What exactly do you think I whooshed at?
"they might be into that" is clearly a joke about perverts who already like that "torture", there's no re-conditioning for that and even if there was, it's obviously not to be taken seriously
They were rather obviously continuing the joke...
that's a possibility, but then it's such a bad attempt that it doesn't really register as one for me
Have you also been experiencing fertility difficulties? lol
Considering I chose not to have kids that's a non issue for me.
Quick question though... the fuck does fertility have to do with ecstasy and torture?
Well it starts out as ecstasy but after years of trying it’s more akin to torture lol
And that has anything to do with my comment how?
They’re making a joke about how something enjoyable can become torture if one does it too much.
Did you really not see the connection or do you just not want people joking?
Again, the fuck does FERTILITY have to do woth torture, and why was dude questioning mine?
Or are you that dense?
That’s a terrible way to ask someone to explain something to you, but I want you to understand so you stop lashing out at them, because it makes this place worse.
A person can make something enjoyable unpleasant, if they approach it differently from how they normally do, whether through intentional conditioning or otherwise.
Let’s use Bruce Bogtrotter from the book Matilda as an example, instead, since the word fertility is apparently a bridge too far for you: he stole a piece of cake and was forced to eat an entire, huge cake as a punishment. Again, even something enjoyable can become unpleasant.
The commenter’s primary experience with this phenomenon was through their struggles with fertility, so they were lightheartedly asking if you were drawing the assertion that conditioning can make something enjoyable unpleasant from the same experience.
It might have been more recognizable or felt like less of an attack to you if they’d asked if you’d also been forced to smoke a whole pack of cigarettes (or more) at once after getting caught smoking, but it’s essentially the same joke.
Oh, great. You really don't get why asking someone about their fertility is not usally a joke when you don't know them.
Let's not use any of your examples to lecture me when dude was out of line first.
Okay, so you got it but felt that it was not a topic for joking about. You could have just said that when I asked in my first comment.
Dude stop defending your alt.
How the fuck did you not pick up on the fact that I thought it was fucking shitty?
Is that the only reason you can think of to defend someone else- that they’re actually not a separate person at all? Woof.
I ask qualifying questions when I don’t understand something and say clearly when I think something is needlessly offensive or in poor taste. I gave you the grace to assume the same of you and responded to your comments under that assumption.
I won’t make that mistake again.
Oh piss off with that holier than thou shit will ya?
That’s what that meant- you don’t need to worry about me trying to help you communicate with anyone else.
Actually, I’m literally trying to help you communicate with me in this comment. I guess it’s hopeless unless I block you, so I’ll take care of that for you now.
Okay, so you wiff on something, get told what the issue is and then forcefully continue to lecture.
Buds, there was a joke that got immediate push back and you jumped in because you think I was rude. If your issue is how I asked the question you should do some navel gazing on how you are currently acting.