To the Editor:
Re “Deepfake Violations, Met With a Shrug,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, March 24):
Mr. Kristof underscores the pressing want to handle the distressing prevalence of nonconsensual A.I. sexual content material on-line and in high search engine outcomes, to guard people, significantly the ladies and ladies overwhelmingly focused, from exploitation and hurt.
I urge all readers to boost their voices by sending letters, emails or open letters tagged on social media and LinkedIn to Google and Microsoft Bing executives and social media groups. Our collective advocacy can amplify the decision for these tech giants to take proactive measures in eradicating such content material from their search outcomes.
In an period when technological developments outpace regulatory frameworks, it’s crucial that entities like Google and Microsoft take accountable, decisive motion to uphold moral requirements on-line. Collectively, we are able to make a major distinction in making a safer digital panorama for all.
Brittany Poley
Washington
To the Editor:
From Nicholas Kristof’s column: “She handed one other group of women crying for a similar purpose — and a cluster of boys mocking them. ‘After I noticed the boys laughing, I received so mad,’ Francesca stated. ‘After college, I got here residence, and I informed my mother we have to do one thing about this.’
Why was Francesca allowed by college workers to go away the assistant principal’s workplace (alone, it appears) to return to class, as an alternative of being taken out of that hellhole for the day? Why had been these boys allowed by the varsity workers to cluster within the hallways? Why had been these boys allowed by college workers to proceed saying what they did?
Why had been these boys not instantly faraway from the hallways by the varsity workers? Why had been the varsity workers (particularly the male workers members) not explaining to these boys what they did incorrect and why, and disciplining them? Why did college workers not report these boys to their dad and mom?
The overwhelming isolation and persevering with publicity of Francesca and different victims to mocking boys had been appalling.
Phillipa Rispin
Montreal
To the Editor:
Greater than 5 years in the past, publicly out there, nonpornographic pictures of me taken between the age of 14 and 21 had been posted on pornographic web sites. The identical factor occurred to greater than 20 different girls I had gone to highschool with.
The perpetrator had included our names when importing the pictures and known as on viewers to explain precisely what they want to do to us. One in all my pictures included my first and final names and the identify of my former college.
It was clear that the perpetrator needed to be somebody with whom we had all gone to highschool — somebody we knew, somebody who knew us. That added to the torment.
We contacted the police. Legal guidelines regarding harassment and the appropriate to resolve how one’s picture is used enabled the police to start a full investigation by which the perpetrator was recognized and finally convicted of a extra severe crime, distributing little one pornography. I received a civil go well with in opposition to him.
On one web site, the perpetrator had requested others to photoshop our photos to make them pornographic. Studying Nicholas Kristof’s article, I’m relieved that the expertise for low-effort deepfakes was not simply out there on the time. I simply want women and girls in the USA had been higher protected now that it’s.
Miriam Betz
Cologne, Germany
To the Editor:
Why should the burden fall on women and girls to defend themselves in opposition to on-line exploitation? Why are we not extending the accountability to folks and lecturers of boys to teach them about expertise, misogyny and ethics?
As a mom of two teenage boys, I’ve witnessed the inappropriate use (abuse) of expertise firsthand and have spent numerous hours overseeing their units and instructing them tips on how to use them responsibly.
Their actions are harmless and age-appropriate in nearly each case; nonetheless, they don’t perceive how all the things they do on-line is basically public, and the way seemingly innocuous messaging (of their minds) could be misinterpreted, taken out of context, go viral and presumably do immense harm.
Faculties and oldsters are arming children with instruments that simply flip into weapons when their correct use just isn’t taught, and the arming begins when children are toddlers and oldsters use the smartphone as a babysitter. It’s insane.
Get the smartphones out of childhood, and out of colleges, and perhaps we received’t should put women and girls within the terrible place of being everlasting victims. Society has created this mess, and society wants to wash it up. Cease making it a girls’s drawback to cope with, and alter the best way we educate our boys.
Julie Bayer Salzman
Venice, Calif.
To the Editor:
Nicholas Kristof signifies that no legal guidelines are being clearly damaged and that no legal guidelines could be enforced.
One resolution is to assist girls and ladies file class-action lawsuits in opposition to digital platforms — be they porn or Google — that derive any monetary profit for copyright infringement. These lawsuits can cost the platforms with financially benefiting from the unauthorized entry of one other’s identify, picture or likeness (NIL in digital parlance).
If an organization can’t become profitable off an exercise, or if their regular technique of driving income is threatened by an exercise, that firm adjustments. It is probably not an ethical or legislative resolution, however it may be efficient nonetheless. Coordinate with state attorneys basic, as occurred with the tobacco settlements, and states will soar on the probability to take cash from on-line platforms.
Alexander Byington
Lone Tree, Colo.
To the Editor:
I’m grateful The Occasions covers human trafficking, pornography and abuse with depth and care, and I’ve been a fan of Nicholas Kristof for many years.
Nonetheless, I want to argue that using the time period “nonconsensual pornography” is problematic at finest. Whereas I perceive the usefulness of the excellence concerning consent, the phrase is politically weighted, because it suggests a place concerning the victimless nature of pornography.
There’s an argument to be made that due to the confines of our society, gender and financial dynamics, in addition to the best way abuse impacts and tracks its victims, no pornography is consensual. Whereas I don’t anticipate The Occasions or Mr. Kristof to take that place, I feel it might be significant to not propagate language that excluded the chance.
Jennifer Flescher
Melrose, Mass.
To the Editor:
Ah, ain’t expertise innovation great? Sadly, not this one.
Whereas studying Nicholas Kristof’s column, I couldn’t assist pondering once more of how society appears to don’t have any drawback with superstar girls — primarily film and TV stars — collaborating in purple carpet walks earlier than award occasions flaunting designer clothes that hardly conceals breasts and generally almost exposes genitals, whereas their male escorts are coated neck to toe in formal fits.
Even in day-to-day life, girls’s clothes is commonly considerably revealing or chest-enhancing whereas males are principally absolutely coated in fits and ties, and even in informal apparel.
Now A.I. is making it worse.
I don’t wish to see Western societies undertake the strict clothes requirements for ladies within the Center East. However why can’t our society undertake a respectable-clothing commonplace that’s equal for each sexes?
James P. Brown
Rio Rancho, N.M.
Analyzing Trump Voters? Spare Me.
To the Editor:
Re “How Trump’s Base Has Modified, Based on a Pollster,” by Jane Coaston (Opinion, nytimes.com, March 18):
Good Lord, spare us from much more evaluation of Trump voters. As if these folks will let the information get in the best way of their timeless and blind help for this con artist and hopefully soon-to-be-convicted felon.
Each time I learn an article like this one, or see the information media enjoying both-sides-ism interviewing a Trump supporter, my nervousness solely will increase.
One such supporter stated on TV not too long ago that America wants a dictator. One other stated that if Donald Trump really shot somebody it might not shake his help for the previous president. There isn’t any reasoning with individuals who have sunk that far down the political rabbit gap. Frankly, I don’t actually care what they suppose.
Look, the November election comes all the way down to a really, quite simple selection: Individuals can vote for an honest human being, a person with huge political expertise who just isn’t afraid to compromise, a caring and empathetic particular person with an ethical heart who really is aware of tips on how to govern. A person who has a optimistic imaginative and prescient for the nation.
Or they’ll vote for Donald Trump.
Len DiSesa
Dresher, Pa.
A ‘Deep State’ Makeover
To the Editor:
Re “It Turns Out the ‘Deep State’ Is Really Form of Superior,” by Adam Westbrook and Lindsay Crouse (Opinion video, nytimes.com, March 19):
Thanks for exhibiting among the faces and exhausting work executed by the “deep state” staff. Most individuals I’ve talked to in authorities organizations are hardworking and attempting to do their finest. They’re our neighbors and fellow residents, too!
Why not defuse Donald Trump’s scary deep state boogeyman and make the deep state a badge of honor? Think about a softball crew from federal authorities companies with “Deep State Bliss” T-shirts! Soccer mothers and dads with “Hug a Deep Stater” T-shirts. Employment recruitment tables with “Deep State” baseball caps.
The “deep state” wants a P.R. makeover highlighting human connections.
Rob Pauley
Boulder, Colo.
