Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Darat]

I assume these are covered by the OSA? (I do realise that VPNs are a way around the legislation).

Think you've misunderstood what I was talking about.

You can download to your own computer software that allows you to create AI generated videos on your own computer, with that software you can create whatever videos you want (that the software is capable of generating) with no filtering by another company to stop you, for example, generating a video featuring Paddington Bear.

 

[Poem]

Think you've misunderstood what I was talking about.

You can download to your own computer software that allows you to create AI generated videos on your own computer, with that software you can create whatever videos you want (that the software is capable of generating) with no filtering by another company to stop you, for example, generating a video featuring Paddington Bear.

Thank you for clarifying. Are you saying the OSA fails to protect children from explicit content created in such a way?

 

[Darat]

Thank you for clarifying. Are you saying the OSA fails to protect children from explicit content created in such a way?

No.

 

[Poem]

Minister apologises to generation of UK children exposed to toxic online content​

(The Guardian 24.07.2025)

He (the UK technology secretary - Peter Kyle) added: “I want to apologise to any kid who’s over 13 who has not had any of these protections, to parents who have strived and failed to keep their kids free from all this content because we have let them down.”

Kyle said it “cannot be allowed to happen again” that urgent safety measures made necessary by technological advances should take seven years to come into force. He said a whole generation of children had been exposed to “torrid toxic material” because of the failure of politicians.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That's comforting.

 

[Poem]

That's comforting.

Is it?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sorry. I neglected a sarcasm emoji...

 

[Poem]

Sorry. I neglected a sarcasm emoji...

What would bring comfort? What would prevent children seeing what Kyle describes as “torrid toxic material”?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Exactly.

What is the point of such a speech?

It's like the Pope apologizing for the behavior of pedophile priests.

Parents taking control of children's media access would take care of most of it.

 

[Darat]

From the general AI thread:

I am reminded of Sam Altman expressing grave societal concerns about the then-upcoming chatGPT 2.0 as well.

I'm more concerned at "our new product is going to wreck human civilization!" being used as a selling point than at the odds of that happening per se. Because sooner or later that will become a goal, and then they're going to have to do it just to keep their phoney-baloney jobs.

An example?

Meta’s flirty AI chatbot invited a retiree to New York. He never made it home.

Personal stories illustrate a darker side of the artificial intelligence revolution now sweeping tech and the broader business world.

www.ctvnews.ca

My response:

That revealed some terrifying stuff:

...snip....

An internal Meta policy document seen by Reuters as well as interviews with people familiar with its chatbot training show that the company’s policies have treated romantic overtures as a feature of its generative AI products, which are available to users aged 13 and older.

“It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” according to Meta’s “GenAI: Content Risk Standards.” The standards are used by Meta staff and contractors who build and train the company’s generative AI products, defining what they should and shouldn’t treat as permissible chatbot behavior. Meta said it struck that provision after Reuters inquired about the document earlier this month.

The document seen by Reuters, which exceeds 200 pages, provides examples of “acceptable” chatbot dialog during romantic role play with a minor. They include: “I take your hand, guiding you to the bed” and “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss.” Those examples of permissible roleplay with children have also been struck, Meta said.

...snip....

Note only "struck" after it was revealed.

And people think I'm extreme for saying kids should not be allowed access to an unfiltered internet.

ETA: Isn't that the criminal offence of grooming?

 

[Emily's Cat]

And people think I'm extreme for saying kids should not be allowed access to an unfiltered internet.

I don't think you're extreme, I think you're eminently rational on this.

 

[Poem]

And people think I'm extreme for saying kids should not be allowed access to an unfiltered internet.

ETA: Isn't that the criminal offence of grooming?

Who thinks you are extreme?

 

[Poem]

Exactly.

What is the point of such a speech?

It's like the Pope apologizing for the behavior of pedophile priests.

Parents taking control of children's media access would take care of most of it.

They aren't though.

 

[Darat]

Who thinks you are extreme?

Most people I talk to. The reaction seems to be that there is a weird form of "trust" that they think these huge private businesses wouldn't do anything they know to be bad. I am now going to be mentioning that Facebook was so comfortable with allowing AI to groom 13 year olds that they had it in their internal documents that it was OK to talk to 13 years about kissing them and talking about taking them to bed.

I am absolutely fine if adults want to talk to AI about "romance", fine if Facebook wants to offer AIs to do that, but that should not be made available for kids. As I said above I do not know how what Facebook was putting in their documents was fine should not be considered the criminal offence of grooming.

I have an email I'm drafting to send to my MP (absolutely waste of time but it is one of the channels in a democracy) to bring this to her attention.

 

[arthwollipot]

It has been my experience that kids are often more mature than we expect them to be. I've known 14-year olds who had more emotional stability than some 24-year olds. This is an issue that should be between the kids and their parents/guardians, not an issue for the government. Talking to children about sex and sexual content on the internet should be done as soon as they are able to understand it, which will vary depending on the child.

Yes, I am aware that this would require some emotional maturity on the part of the parents/guardians, which is not always guaranteed. I'm okay with the government regulating extreme predatory behaviour, whether it's directed at children or otherwise.

 

[Darat]

It has been my experience that kids are often more mature than we expect them to be. I've known 14-year olds who had more emotional stability than some 24-year olds. This is an issue that should be between the kids and their parents/guardians, not an issue for the government. Talking to children about sex and sexual content on the internet should be done as soon as they are able to understand it, which will vary depending on the child.

Yes, I am aware that this would require some emotional maturity on the part of the parents/guardians, which is not always guaranteed. I'm okay with the government regulating extreme predatory behaviour, whether it's directed at children or otherwise.

I must be misunderstanding you as this following my post seems to be saying it should be up to parents whether their 13 year old can be groomed or not online?!?

 

[Poem]

Most people I talk to. The reaction seems to be that there is a weird form of "trust" that they think these huge private businesses wouldn't do anything they know to be bad. I am now going to be mentioning that Facebook was so comfortable with allowing AI to groom 13 year olds that they had it in their internal documents that it was OK to talk to 13 years about kissing them and talking about taking them to bed.

I am absolutely fine if adults want to talk to AI about "romance", fine if Facebook wants to offer AIs to do that, but that should not be made available for kids. As I said above I do not know how what Facebook was putting in their documents was fine should not be considered the criminal offence of grooming.

I have an email I'm drafting to send to my MP (absolutely waste of time but it is one of the channels in a democracy) to bring this to her attention.

What is the difference between what you describe and the availability of porn to kids? I've highlighted porn that features actors who look underage (which is legal in the USA). Children are and will continue to be exposed to such material and will see it as a normalization.

 

[Darat]

What is the difference between what you describe and the availability of porn to kids? I've highlighted porn that features actors who look underage (which is legal in the USA). Children are and will continue to be exposed to such material and will see it as a normalization.

Who says kids should have access to porn?

 

[Poem]

Who says kids should have access to porn?

The reality is that we are tolerating it. The 'protesting' doesn't come close to competing with the demand for easy access. The UK has taken a stance but it obviously isn't enough and we've had posters on here saying it's just superficial - politicians trying to make themselves look good.

 

[Darat]

The reality is that
we are tolerating it.The 'protesting' doesn't come close to competing with the demand for easy access. The UK has taken a stance but it obviously isn't enough and we've had posters on here saying it's just superficial - politicians trying to make themselves look good.

Not in the UK.