[ad_1]
To the Editor:
Re “Deepfake Violations, Met With a Shrug,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, March 24):
Mr. Kristof underscores the urgent need to address the distressing prevalence of nonconsensual A.I. sexual content online and in top search engine results, to protect individuals, particularly the women and girls overwhelmingly targeted, from exploitation and harm.
I urge all readers to raise their voices by sending letters, emails or open letters tagged on social media and LinkedIn to Google and Microsoft Bing executives and social media teams. Our collective advocacy can amplify the call for these tech giants to take proactive measures in removing such content from their search results.
In an era when technological advancements outpace regulatory frameworks, it is imperative that entities like Google and Microsoft take responsible, decisive action to uphold ethical standards online. Together, we can make a significant difference in creating a safer digital landscape for all.
Brittany Poley
Washington
To the Editor:
From Nicholas Kristof’s column: “She passed another group of girls crying for the same reason — and a cluster of boys mocking them. ‘When I saw the boys laughing, I got so mad,’ Francesca said. ‘After school, I came home, and I told my mom we need to do something about this.’
Why was Francesca allowed by school staff to leave the assistant principal’s office (alone, it seems) to go back to class, instead of being taken out of that hellhole for the day? Why were those boys allowed by the school staff to cluster in the hallways? Why were those boys allowed by school staff to continue saying what they did?
Why were those boys not immediately removed from the hallways by the school staff? Why were the school staff (especially the male staff members) not explaining to those boys what they did wrong and why, and disciplining them? Why did school staff not report those boys to their parents?
The overwhelming isolation and continuing exposure of Francesca and other victims to mocking boys were appalling.
Phillipa Rispin
Montreal
To the Editor:
More than five years ago, publicly available, nonpornographic photographs of me taken between the age of 14 and 21 were posted on pornographic websites. The same thing happened to more than 20 other women I had gone to high school with.
The perpetrator had included our names when uploading the photographs and called on viewers to describe exactly what they would like to do to us. One of my photos included my first and last names and the name of my former school.
It was clear that the perpetrator had to be someone with whom we had all gone to high school — someone we knew, someone who knew us. That added to the torment.
We contacted the police. Laws concerning harassment and the right to decide how one’s image is used enabled the police to begin a full investigation in which the perpetrator was identified and ultimately convicted of a more serious crime, distributing child pornography. I won a civil suit against him.
On one website, the perpetrator had asked others to photoshop our pictures to make them pornographic. Reading Nicholas Kristof’s article, I am relieved that the technology for low-effort deepfakes was not easily available at the time. I just wish girls and women in the United States were better protected now that it is.
Miriam Betz
Cologne, Germany
To the Editor:
Why must the burden fall on girls and women to defend themselves against online exploitation? Why are we not extending the responsibility to parents and teachers of boys to educate them about technology, misogyny and ethics?
As a mother of two teenage boys, I’ve witnessed the inappropriate use (abuse) of technology firsthand and have spent countless hours overseeing their devices and instructing them how to use them responsibly.
Their actions are innocent and age-appropriate in almost every case; however, they don’t understand how everything they do online is essentially public, and how seemingly innocuous messaging (in their minds) can be misinterpreted, taken out of context, go viral and possibly do immense damage.
Schools and parents are arming kids with tools that easily turn into weapons when their proper use is not taught, and the arming begins when kids are toddlers and parents use the smartphone as a babysitter. It’s insane.
Get the smartphones out of childhood, and out of schools, and maybe we won’t have to put girls and women in the awful position of being eternal victims. Society has created this mess, and society needs to clean it up. Stop making it a women’s problem to deal with, and change the way we educate our boys.
Julie Bayer Salzman
Venice, Calif.
To the Editor:
Nicholas Kristof indicates that no laws are being clearly broken and that no laws can be enforced.
One solution is to help women and girls file class-action lawsuits against digital platforms — be they porn or Google — that derive any financial benefit for copyright infringement. These lawsuits can charge the platforms with financially benefiting from the unauthorized access of another’s name, image or likeness (NIL in digital parlance).
If a company can’t make money off an activity, or if their normal means of driving revenue is threatened by an activity, that company changes. It may not be a moral or legislative solution, but it can be effective nonetheless. Coordinate with state attorneys general, as occurred with the tobacco settlements, and states will jump at the chance to take money from online platforms.
Alexander Byington
Lone Tree, Colo.
To the Editor:
I’m grateful The Times covers human trafficking, pornography and abuse with depth and care, and I’ve been a fan of Nicholas Kristof for decades.
Still, I would like to argue that the use of the term “nonconsensual pornography” is problematic at best. While I understand the usefulness of the distinction regarding consent, the phrase is politically weighted, as it suggests a position about the victimless nature of pornography.
There is an argument to be made that because of the confines of our society, gender and monetary dynamics, as well as the way abuse affects and tracks its victims, no pornography is consensual. While I don’t expect The Times or Mr. Kristof to take that position, I think it would be meaningful not to propagate language that excluded the possibility.
Jennifer Flescher
Melrose, Mass.
To the Editor:
Ah, ain’t technology innovation wonderful? Unfortunately, not this one.
While reading Nicholas Kristof’s column, I couldn’t help thinking again of how society seems to have no problem with celebrity women — mainly movie and TV stars — participating in red carpet walks before award events flaunting designer clothing that barely conceals breasts and sometimes nearly exposes genitals, while their male escorts are covered neck to toe in formal suits.
Even in day-to-day life, women’s clothing is often somewhat revealing or chest-enhancing while men are mostly fully covered in suits and ties, or even in casual attire.
Now A.I. is making it worse.
I don’t want to see Western societies adopt the strict clothing standards for women in the Middle East. But why can’t our society adopt a respectable-clothing standard that is equal for both sexes?
James P. Brown
Rio Rancho, N.M.
Analyzing Trump Voters? Spare Me.
To the Editor:
Re “How Trump’s Base Has Changed, According to a Pollster,” by Jane Coaston (Opinion, nytimes.com, March 18):
Good Lord, spare us from even more analysis of Trump voters. As if these people will let the facts get in the way of their undying and blind support for this con artist and hopefully soon-to-be-convicted felon.
Every time I read an article like this one, or see the news media playing both-sides-ism interviewing a Trump supporter, my anxiety only increases.
One such supporter said on TV recently that America needs a dictator. Another said that if Donald Trump actually shot someone it would not shake his support for the former president. There is no reasoning with people who have sunk that far down the political rabbit hole. Frankly, I don’t really care what they think.
Look, the November election comes down to a very, very simple choice: People can vote for a decent human being, a man with vast political experience who is not afraid to compromise, a caring and empathetic person with a moral center who actually knows how to govern. A man who has a positive vision for the country.
Or they can vote for Donald Trump.
Len DiSesa
Dresher, Pa.
A ‘Deep State’ Makeover
To the Editor:
Re “It Turns Out the ‘Deep State’ Is Actually Kind of Awesome,” by Adam Westbrook and Lindsay Crouse (Opinion video, nytimes.com, March 19):
Thank you for showing some of the faces and hard work done by the “deep state” workers. Most people I’ve talked to in government organizations are hardworking and trying to do their best. They’re our neighbors and fellow citizens, too!
Why not defuse Donald Trump’s scary deep state boogeyman and make the deep state a badge of honor? Imagine a softball team from federal government agencies with “Deep State Bliss” T-shirts! Soccer moms and dads with “Hug a Deep Stater” T-shirts. Employment recruitment tables with “Deep State” baseball caps.
The “deep state” needs a P.R. makeover highlighting human connections.
Rob Pauley
Boulder, Colo.
[ad_2]
Source link
