A 13-year-old girl at a Louisiana middle school got into a fight with classmates who were sharing AI-generated nude images of her
The girls begged for help, first from a school guidance counselor and then from a sheriff’s deputy assigned to their school. But the images were shared on Snapchat, an app that deletes messages seconds after they’re viewed, and the adults couldn’t find them. The principal had doubts they even existed.
Among the kids, the pictures were still spreading. When the 13-year-old girl stepped onto the Lafourche Parish school bus at the end of the day, a classmate was showing one of them to a friend.
“That’s when I got angry,” the eighth grader recalled at her discipline hearing.
Fed up, she attacked a boy on the bus, inviting others to join her. She was kicked out of Sixth Ward Middle School for more than 10 weeks and sent to an alternative school. She said the boy whom she and her friends suspected of creating the images wasn’t sent to that alternative school with her. The 13-year-old girl’s attorneys allege he avoided school discipline altogether.
The headline could have punched so much harder with the truth because it is divisive and justifies multiple ideologies.
“Preteen expelled for physical retaliation after school fails to protect her from AI deep fake nudes.”
Give more truth in the headline and leave the opinions and slant for the editorial section.
Ooh you could have made it big in the pre-buzzfeed news era.
I’ve heard of this! It was called joor-nalism by our ancestors
Exactly, it was named after the concept “de jour” like “soup de jour”. Sadly, joor-nalism was too much de jour and died out 🫥
An old soul 😁
Yeah but that headline tells the entire story and in a balanced way. You wouldn’t need the content to hold the eyeballs on ads
would this qualify as revenge porn? and pedophelia. and retaliation. and…well, she’s going to have an impressive college fund by the time this is all done.
Yes deep fakes have been reclassified in many US states and much of the EU as revenge porn. Most countries have also classified any sexually explicit depiction of a minor as CSAM or as most people refer to it, child porn.
I hear you, but what could the school have actually done to prevent this, realistically? Only way I could see is if smartphones etc. were all confiscated the moment kids step on the school bus (which is where this happened, for anyone not aware, it wasn’t in a classroom), and only returned when they’re headed home, and while it probably would be beneficial overall for kids to not have these devices in school, I don’t think that’s realistically possible in the present day.
And even still, it’d be trivial for the kid to both generate the images and share them with his buddies, after school. I don’t think the school can really be fairly blamed for the deepfake part of this. For not acting more decisively after the fact, sure.
That’s not a question for me to answer. It is, in fact, the school faculty’s duty to educate our school children as well as protect them. It is up to them to determine how to do that. It is also true that they failed her in this instance. There are preventative measures that schools can take to stop bullying both on campus and online. Every time a student is bullied into taking their own drastic measures has been failed by the system. In this case, doubly so as on top of her being bullied into retaliation, she was punished by the system for being failed by the system.
Then you also shouldn’t be saying that the school “failed” to do something, if you’re not able to even articulate how it could have possibly succeeded in doing that something, no?
Only to a degree that makes sense, though. There’s no way a school can ever stop a student from saying a mean thing to another student, for example. It can only punish after the fact (and “protect” implies prevention, not after-the-fact amelioration).