I think we all ought to be able to agree that taking someone’s photographs and digitally manipulating them to make them appear as if they were performing sexually explicit acts, without their consent or foreknowledge, is morally wrong regardless of how old the victim is or how rich they are.
I mean, it wouldn’t make me hate X any less than I do now…
Is it? It’s morally tacky, but so long as it’s not presented as being real nor is there any presumption of it being real, I’m not entirely sure it’s wrong.
If you (the general you) make and distribute pornography with fake celebrity likeness, I have no more problem with you being sued into oblivion than I would from you making and distributing real movies with their fake likenesses. My dislike for Musk wouldn’t change that.
She was being humanized, not infantilized.
What does fame or wealth have to do with morality?
Should she just have shrugged off being groped by that DJ she (counter)sued, because she’s rich and famous? I doubt you’d say yes. So why for this form of sexual abuse, and not that?
Saying disgusting things =/= deepfake porn.
Like fuck, they are. Not in a patriarchy, they’re not.
It’s not about squick, it’s about consent.
I would.
Not that there’s much serious (by which I mean for titillation, as opposed to poor humour) porn deepfaking of famous men, as far I’m aware.
Is she the 0.1%? Or is she the 51%? And what does it matter? What should matter is the real harm done here.
And no person, regardless of her wealth or fame, should ever have to just shrug off sexual abuse of any sort. That’s just so backwards a suggestion that I almost have to check I’m not reading a zombie thread from 2003’s 'Dope…
Being a celebrity should not mean you have less rights. I was imagining someone doing something like that to my daughter, regardless of her age, I’d be pissed. I wouldn’t be ok with faking porn of Musk either.
Porn is for consenting adults. Taylor didn’t pose for nor consent to her image being abused like that. Women and girls deserve men who would only view porn that is produced by Consenting Adults.
ugh
I had a similar thought, wondering what a sudden proliferation of deepfakes showing Supreme Court justices would do.
I completely agree with you, and yet, somehow…
Meanwhile, in another aspect of Xitter:
I maintain my account there because I avoid political stuff as much as possible and follow accounts like We Rate Dogs, Jorts and Jean, other mostly innocuous stuff. My occasional posts are of my own photos on my account, or friendly comments occasionally on another account’s post. This approach has mostly protected me from much of the sewage flowing on Xitter.
I have – or had, I should say – a mere handful of followers, but in the last week or two I’ve picked up several more followers. They’re all blue checks, their avatars are all of hot-looking women, and when I check them out, most of their accounts have no posts.
You want obscure, I’m for sure obscure, so why am I being targeted for what certainly looks like bot followers? Is this some program for trying to artificially inflate Xitter’s stats?
It would make me throw up in my mouth a little. Actually, a lot.
“Targeted” implies too much specificity.
Your new friends aren’t targeting you. They’re targeting the Xitter equivalent of “Occupant”. Scanner spammers do that. They cast the widest net to see the most return on their minimal investment.
What do they gain? Whatever you get from having more “friends” on Twitter, plus the opportunity to perhaps “set the hook” and play you for a scam.
Yeh, that figures. It’s a waste of their admittedly minimal investment if they expect to add me to their scamees. But if even a tiny percentage gets hooked, it pays off
Let me help you here: It’s WRONG. Full stop, no waffling.
Oh, and you don’t like her to be “infantalized” i.e. someone imagining that it was their adult or otherwise daughter. However, you think 'cause she rich and famous it’s icky but alright to use her image in pornography, and the pornographers are punching up? I’m confused by this moral maze. It makes no sense.
My point is that I found it hard to believe that a person as rich, powerful and idolized as her could ever feel threatened by the actions of a bunch of random neckbeards on the internet.
… however, that said, ever since this morning I’ve been reading up on the connection between virtual pornography and sexual abuse, and while I’m not entirely convinced how much of it applies to Swift’s unique circumstances, I’m willing to admit that as a middle-aged male I’m not always 100% cognizant of the female point of view, so I’m willing to listen, learn and reconsider.
I’m glad you willing to listen. I’m not in Swift’s position, but sexual assault whether virtual or real is threatening and distressing for women (I can’t and won’t attempt to speak for men.) Just because she has the bumper of money doesn’t mean it isn’t personally distressing for her. It doesn’t mean she deserves it and needs to suck it up. She’s being targeted because of her sex and views. That’s how women with opinions are often targeted because sexual violence is demeaning and scary. It’s meant to silence them and remind them of their place.
I think it’s terrible in Swift’s case, but if it’s done to Elmo, I’d probably find it funny.
Yes, I’m picking up one or two of those “followers” nearly every day now. They give no indication of being remotely interested in election reform, which constitutes the bulk of my scant number of followers.
Swift’s wealth and fame was absolutely no defence against her literally being physically sexually assaulted in a public space. What makes you think it’s going to insulate her from the trauma of knowing a bunch of incels are sharing nudes pictures with her face on them?
This is what she said the last time some fuckboi did exactly this, very publicly:
Kanye West , organized a revenge porn music video which strips my body naked.
I’ve said what I have to say and I see no point in continuing this hijack.
Thank you, thank you! I hope others take heed in this thread which is supposed to be about Elon Musk buying Twitter. The one that I lobbied to have re-opened after being locked for hijacks, on the assumption that’d we’d be mature enough to keep it on topic without being policed.
Bot nets, I’m guessing. I’ve never made a post on Twitter, and last week I suddenly picked up a dozen or so followers, all exactly as you describe. I’m guessing if someone is stupid enough to try to interact with one they’ll get sucked into some scam.