Despite a lawsuit from xAI, a Minnesota ban on apps that allow users to “nudify” images can move forward, according to NBC News. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank’s ruling focused as much on the timing of xAI’s lawsuit as on the substance of the law itself. Frank wrote that xAI filed its request for a temporary restraining order “on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect” on August 1.

    • watson@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      23 days ago

      This crosses a line that I think doesn’t quite qualify this as censorship. It’s like the phrase “your rights end where mine begin”. It’s not within your rights to view people nude, especially on the fucking interwebs, without their consent.

    • Deacon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      23 days ago

      I should not be able to exercise my rights if doing so directly violates yours. I think that is at the root of a lot of law.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          Except for their modesty, dignity, privacy, agency, reputation… and the fact that they are literally being objectified, as you so conveniently worded it, instead of human beings who will be effected by these things, as well as those who view it.

      • wagesj45@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        23 days ago

        Those were already illegal in Minnesota. This is a law that goes further and bans services or “software” that has the ability to remove clothing from images of people.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 days ago

      I’m fine with allowing it with specific consent of the parties involved. And no option to shift the responsibility onto the user. So fine the company for every time there isn’t. Doubly so if it’s use becomes abusive. Jail if it’s children.

      • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 days ago

        LLMs have never displayed the capability to reject requests on a moral basis, but if such a hypothetical service existed then sure. (It can’t because it’s entirely uneconomical compared to just having a consenting party undress in the first place).

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          23 days ago

          That’s what I mean. Even with guardrails, people. Will find a way around it. Fine the companies and they will find a solution. Make the economic consequences a reason to. And don’t allow them to shift reaponsibility, is the main part.

          • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 days ago

            The problem is the child porn part, I think it would be better to prevent it entirely rather than wait for a chance to arrest and prosecute them. Allowing it to happen seems the same as encouraging and enabling the behavior which would then become a habbit.