Introduction
Contemporary sexuality has migrated into the digital sphere, where traditional notions of bodily self-ownership are no longer sufficient. This article analyzes how the platform economy and artificial intelligence are reshaping power dynamics between creators, consumers, and distributors.
The reader will discover why representational autonomy is becoming critical. We argue that protecting dignity in the 21st century requires control not only over one's physicality, but primarily over one's digital image and behavioral data.
Infrastructural Power of Platforms Replacing the Traditional Production Chain
Historically, the production of pornography relied on a clear chain: performer, producer, and distributor. Today, this model has been replaced by infrastructural power. A creator may be formally independent, yet remains entirely dependent on the platform's algorithms.
Traditional consent is now insufficient because the image has become a data asset. The question of consenting to an appearance must be replaced by a question regarding the future life of the file on the web. The platform is not merely an intermediary, but a manager of content visibility.
A prime example is algorithmic gatekeeping. Content may be published but rendered practically invisible through low rankings or a lack of recommendations, which radically limits the creator's actual communicative capacity.
Economic and Algorithmic Dependence on Platform Infrastructure
Platforms restrict autonomy through the lock-in mechanism. A creator builds their reputation and client base within someone else's infrastructure, making the cost of leaving the system disproportionately high.
Consumers also lose control. Their intimate curiosity is transformed into a permanent behavioral profile. This leads to reductive epistemic violence, where the algorithm does not merely measure preferences but actively constructs the user's identity through a recommendation loop.
In this way, autonomy is replaced by algorithmic management. Both creator and consumer become hostages to an architecture of stimuli that prioritizes the maximization of interaction time over individual well-being.
Digital Permanence vs. the Right to Biographical Transformation
Traditional consent for publication did not anticipate current network permanence and the evolution of AI. A conflict arises between the biological human capacity for change and the technical memory of the internet, which undermines the right to biographical transformation.
In the face of deepfake technology, past consent for a recording cannot legitimize the creation of new, synthetic behaviors. AI allows for the appropriation of representational identity without the involvement of the physical body, shifting exploitation from the bodily level to the identity level.
In response, EU law is introducing mechanisms to protect against non-consensual content manipulation. A dynamic theory of consent is necessary—one that distinguishes between original publication and the generative use of an image by AI models.
Conclusion
Once, the boundaries of sexuality were determined by husbands, censors, or producers; today, those roles are filled by algorithms and generative models. Sexual freedom must be expanded to include the protection of informational integrity.
In a world where a digital double can be severed from a person's actual behavior, are we still the authors of our own identity? Ultimately, digital emancipation is not about escaping technology, but about fighting to avoid becoming mere raw material in someone else's infrastructure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the traditional concept of consent and control over pornographic content insufficient today?
The traditional concept of consent is insufficient because a modern sexual image is not just a work of art, but a data file and raw material for algorithms, which necessitates questioning the future life of the material. Additionally, control over content has been replaced by the infrastructural power of platforms, which steer visibility, reach, and monetization through algorithmic management.
1. In what way do the architecture of pornographic platforms and data systems limit the actual autonomy of creators and consumers?
2. Creators' autonomy is limited by so-called lock-in, meaning a high exit cost from the platform associated with the loss of accumulated reputation and audience base. Consumers, on the other hand, lose control over their preferences, which are transformed into permanent behavioral profiles used by algorithms to steer their identity and behaviors.
3. Why is traditional consent for the publication of sexual content insufficient in the face of internet permanence and the development of AI?
4. Traditional consent is insufficient because the permanence of the internet prevents "social forgetting" and conflicts with the human right to change one's identity. Additionally, the development of AI allows for the creation of synthetic variants of a person and new behaviors of a digital twin, which the authors of original consents could not have reasonably foreseen.
5. How does contemporary EU law respond to the problem of synthetic pornography and deepfakes?
6. EU law counters synthetic pornography by criminalizing the production and sharing of content without the consent of the depicted person and mandating the rapid removal of such materials. Additionally, the AI Act introduces an obligation to label content generated by artificial intelligence to inform the recipient of its synthetic origin.
7. Does fully synthetic pornography solve the problem of exploitation and lack of consent?
8. Fully synthetic pornography eliminates problems related to on-set working conditions and physical consent, but it does not resolve issues regarding content and the objectification of identity. The problem of exploitation shifts to the stage of acquiring training data, and the absence of a person's participation in production makes it impossible to negotiate terms or maintain control over one's own image.
9. How can access to pornographic content on the web be regulated without resorting to censorship or violating user privacy?
10. The regulation of access to pornographic content can be achieved through infrastructural responsibility and the regulation of access architecture, rather than applying censorship. Key is the implementation of effective age verification tools (e.g., under the DSA) that confirm a user's adulthood while simultaneously employing cryptography and data minimization to protect the privacy of adults.
Why is the traditional concept of self-ownership insufficient in the context of digital image and personal data?
The traditional concept of self-ownership is insufficient because it assumes a separation between the owner and the object, whereas a person's digital representation remains inextricably linked to them. Unlike ordinary assets, an image and personal data cannot be fully subsumed under property law, as they concern the inalienable personality and dignity of the human being.
Is consent granted for the use of an image in the past binding in the era of artificial intelligence and generative media?
Consents granted before the generative era should not be automatically equated with consent for the use of an image by AI, as this could lead to exploitation in ways unforeseen at the time the agreement was made. It is necessary to introduce a dynamic theory of consent that takes into account the technological context and distinguishes storage and reproduction from the generative use of data.
Why is the traditional concept of bodily self-ownership insufficient in the face of deepfake technology and data profiling?
Traditional self-ownership is insufficient because it does not provide protection against the synthetic appropriation of one's image and mass data profiling. In the age of deepfakes, autonomy requires expanding the notion of consent to include control over what others can convincingly show a person's body doing, even though the event never actually took place.
What new rights and accountability mechanisms are essential in the face of the development of synthetic sexual content and AI?
It is essential to introduce the right to human representational autonomy and the right to the epistemic integrity of an image, which protect against identity appropriation and false beliefs regarding the authenticity of content. It is also necessary to graduate the liability of entities based on their knowledge, degree of control over the generative process, and ability to prevent harm.
How should the concept of sexual freedom and feminism change in the face of the dominance of algorithms and digital platforms?
The concept of sexual freedom and feminism should evolve toward a bodily-informational feminism that protects the right to decide on the use of biometrics and synthetic representations. It is essential to recognize power mechanisms within technical infrastructure and maintain skepticism toward private information monopolies and algorithms.
How is the understanding of sexual freedom and self-ownership changing in the era of artificial intelligence and the platform economy?
In the era of AI and the platform economy, the understanding of self-ownership expands from control over the body to the right to maintain control over the link between a person and their digital representation. Sexual freedom is no longer treated as the absence of institutions, but as the result of a legal construction protecting identity and privacy against synthetic appropriation.
