wagesj45

Did… you read the comment? They made a simple statement. They didn’t go beyond that and made no other claims. You’re the one assuming, here.

I use and recommend Publii. Runs locally and renders out a static site with HTML. Lots of nice themes, and one ugly one. Accepts markdown for entries. Supports RSS feed generation. I have my Publii working directory checked in to git for back up. Works very well for me.

It’s one of those things that can absolutely be done with care, effort, and money. But we lack a government that will put any of those toward the project. And the private sector will actively undermine it to scrape a few more pennies off the top.

Subd. 3. Exemption. The prohibitions in subdivision 2 do not apply when the website, application, software, program, or other service requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video.

I get the idea, but this doesn’t comfort me, because what is “technical skill” here? That seems subjective and will ultimately be up to a court to decide. What constitutes a skill? It’s prompting a skill? Is prompting Photoshop’s AI a skill? Their lasso tool is pretty easy to use. The line isn’t clear, and a clever lawyer, or a judge, or a jury could come down differently on what counts and what doesn’t.

I get the goal here. But I think we were already covered by the existing law that made distribution of these artificial nudes illegal.

Creating and distributing AI nudes of people was already illegal in Minnesota. This is a separate law that makes hosting or providing any service or “software” that has the ability to do that illegal. It is broadly worded and makes more than the intended target illegal, which was already illegal to begin with.