“ Minnesota House File 1606 would allow survivors to sue the owners of nudification apps for damages “
I have no idea how the law works in this case but if you could prove damages couldn’t you already sue? This is a guess but maybe this law clarifies what is considered damaging which is what enables them to prove damages where under previous definitions they couldn’t?
At a certain point, a difference in amount becomes a difference in kind. Anyone being able to nudify anyone else is very different from a limited number of people having the skill to nudify people in an application that has numerous other uses.
“ Minnesota House File 1606 would allow survivors to sue the owners of nudification apps for damages “
I have no idea how the law works in this case but if you could prove damages couldn’t you already sue? This is a guess but maybe this law clarifies what is considered damaging which is what enables them to prove damages where under previous definitions they couldn’t?
Why is the term "survivors" used? This really bothers me.
It's still ok if I use oil paints?
I was just thinking, people have been photoshopping people's faces onto nudes forever. This legislation seems misguided.
Not even considering the free speech implications.
At a certain point, a difference in amount becomes a difference in kind. Anyone being able to nudify anyone else is very different from a limited number of people having the skill to nudify people in an application that has numerous other uses.
That kind of sounds like it's ok if the elite do it, but bad if the unwashed masses can do it.
Surprised these weren't already illegal honestly