This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not really, as watermarks don't mean all that much, and don't prevent a realistic-seeming image of a real person from being lodged in viewers' minds.
If it was a cartoon version of a nude and therefore manifestly not real, there would be reduced controversy (though there'd still be some, especially if a large corporation assisted in helping a boy create it).
I'm having a real time figuring out what your mental model is here.
Wouldn't TDWP also cause a realistic-seeming image of a real person in the viewers' mind that is nevertheless fictional?
Putting images in people's heads is one aspect of the injury done. In the case of particularly life-like sexual images, it may make people look at someone differently, even if they don't want to. Deceiving people about whether someone actually posed for the pics is another aspect. Injuries compound.
I don't see the need to have a quickly describable mental model here, as there are overlapping questions of harm, consent, reputation and victimisation at play in this story and making all the relevant distinctions would require an essay.
To your question though, I do indeed think that "putting unfavorable images in people's heads" in fiction such as in The Devil Wears Prada (I haven't seen it) may be injurious. It may also be satire, or a truthful depiction (and these categories aren't mutually exclusive).
Whether that's bad luck for the target or deserving of punishment/damages depends on a host of details.
The problem with this kind of "overlapping questions" claim is that it resists actually being pinned down.
Moreover, I think most of it fails the TDWP test. Certainly Anna Wintour didn't consent to having a fictional depiction of her in a book/movie. It probably contributed a lot to her reputation, possibly rising to the level of harm.
Anna Wintour could perhaps find a legal case (again, I haven't seen it). She's an adult. But imagine a film that character-assassinates a real, non-famous 13 year old. There's no reason anyone would make such a film, but if they did it would be outrageous bullying to the point where I'd think there should indeed be legal consequences.
Why imagine it when we have a real-life example? That Adolescence Netflix series qualifies as well, though indirectly.
Young Man Bad and Muh Racism are clearly perfectly valid reasons to do this. And sure, there were eventually legal consequences for the news networks in the direct case, but the outcome of that judgment wasn't exactly guaranteed given what happened (and the justice system gave a pass to) one year later.
More options
Context Copy link
Does the accusation of character-assassination necessarily require falsehood? Specifically, if the film portrayed the non-famous 13YO as shithead but was reasonably accurate, does that still count in your mind?
We've gone around and around and I still can't understand what are the necessary and sufficient conditions that you have in mind.
I find myself confused about what exactly you're asking for necessary and sufficient conditions for?
I offer these general points in the hope they'll help, as I wonder if there was some misunderstanding upthread:
Creating and distributing lifelike fakes with intent to deceive (AI generated or not) is likely more injurious than creating and distributing sketches, actor representations etc.
Creating and distributing non-lifelike images (e.g. paintings, caricatures, actor representations) cannot simply trick people, but could still change how someone is viewed, perhaps forever, and therefore still be injurious. (Every time I think of British PM John Major, I see him as his grey underpanted caricature, an example where the injury to Major is easily justified to my mind by its satirical value.)
Creating and distributing a convincing fake with an 'AI generated' watermark is somewhere in between these two – a lifelike fake with seemingly no intent to deceive. Because extremely lifelike, this case allows room for doubt as to whether the watermark is true, plus the very existence of the image brings the possibility of deceit firmly into play (e.g. a watermark can be easily removed).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link