7 ms·

deepfakes

56 points by Hello71 9y ago

IntronExon 9y ago
Reading down into the comments is quite disturbing. The official stand on underage posts (which are not obviously cp) seems to amount to, “If it’s a picture of you, report it.” Reddit is almost comically morally bankrupt.
- GhostVII 9y ago
  Maybe they are just trying to reduce their liability. Once they start actively policing content that isn't flagged, they will be held responsible whenever something gets on the site that shouldn't. If their policy is to only review content that was reported, it's much easier from their end, and they don't have to start making as many decisions about what is OK and what isn't, like sites like Twitter have to.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    You’re almost certainly correct, yet I think this shortcut many content providers/hosts have taken is going to eventually lead to backlash. I really don’t want to see what the FCC looks like trying to police large sites for content.
  - commandlinefan 9y ago
    Well, reddit has been policing content for a very long time. So far they haven't been held responsible for things that "get on the site but shouldn't".
    - GhostVII 9y ago
      How so? They ban certain subreddits, but afaik they leave individual subreddit moderation to the moderators.
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        Admins are involved in cases of legal issues such as doxxing, threats, illegal material, etc. Mods are responsible for the rules of their sub, site-wide rules ultimately are the purview of admins.
- prepend 9y ago
  Even worse, if you’re under 13, you can’t have a Reddit account. So it’s impossible for kids to comply.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Honest question, what do you expect them to do? It's not like you can tell from the image the age of subject and, if they are of age, whether they consented to having their picture posted. Hell, outside of celebrities you'll be lucky to identify the subject at all. One thing that's left out is that anyone can report the picture and mods are incentivized to police their posts somewhat.
orf 9y ago
Still haven't banned the_donald though, despite breaking far more rules than deepfakes.
- kaixi 9y ago
  Which rules have they broken?
  - SippinLean 9y ago
    https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/7a4bjo/time_for_my_quarterly_inquisition_reddit_ceo_here/dp6youa/ https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/7a4bjo/time_f... >Many of these links are probably in violation of our policy --spez
    - kaixi 9y ago
      > Generally the mods of the_donald have been cooperative when we approach them with systematic abuses. Typically we ban entire communities only when the mods are uncooperative or the entire premise of the community is in violation of our policies. In the past we have removed mods of the_donald that refuse to work with us.
      - orf 9y ago
        > I don't accept that excuse. These were gathered by searching for phrases that should be included in their AutoModerator config. These calls for violence are mod enabled. https://www.reddit.com/r/RightAgainstTrump/wiki/violence https://www.reddit.com/r/RightAgainstTrump/wiki/violence
        m00g00 9y ago
        Clearly the CEO of reddit feels the mods of r/the_donald have done a reasonable job at policing their sub overall, despite having missed a handful of extremely lowly upvoted comments. Do you suggest the AutoModerator filter for words like "hang", "kill", "shoot"? Why not implement that site wide? I'm sure that would go over well with the rest of reddit.
manfredo 9y ago
Reddit is a private organization that can obviously decide what they do or don't allow on their site. That said I am still interested in if the images created by this technology are challenged legally. The adult actors created and released these videos with their consent (presumably), and the facial reconstruction of the celebrities are usually drawn from public sources (Facebook, Instagram, news articles). Could they claim copyright on these videos? It's hard to argue that they aren't transformative. Supposedly some are challenged on the grounds of defamation or slander, claiming that these images are falsely claiming that celebrities performed these sex acts. However, this seems like a very weak claim given that many of the places hosting these images are transparent about the fact that they are fabricated. This specific application of the technology isn't something I care that much about, but I think it has the potential to set significant precedent about what sorts of derivative works are permissible with technology that can create fake media that is increasingly hard to distinguish from reality.
- gus_massa 9y ago
  It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. It's easy to imagine an equivalent with software: You can't buy a copy of Windows(R)(TM)(C) and make some patching (or DeepPatching) to change the icons and background and some of the txt, and then release/sell it. Even if Windows was released voluntarily by Microsoft. Even if you use photos of celebrities instead of icons. [You neither can't modify Linux and release it with another license, like a proprietary license, BSD, GPL3, ... It also has a very specific license.] The actors/directors/whatever released the videos with a license, that probably doesn't allow redistribution and modifications. I'm not sure about the license of the photos in Facebook/Instagram, but the photos in newspaper usually have a restrictive copyright. Perhaps there is a loophole using very old videos, and old photos, but ... IANAL.(Wikipedia says something about 1923, the Mickey Mouse video was made in 1928 and still is under copyright.)
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    >> It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. Sorry- "IAMAL" or "IANAL"?
shostack 9y ago
Outside of the main use case right now, I hope this technology continues to be developed and made more user friendly. I'm looking forward to the day when scanning you and your friends faces into a cool movie or game is commonplace. Yes there are concerns that need to be addressed, but I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. To that end, is anyone aware of any projects for movies or gaming that are taking this approach? I know it is already a thing for high budget Hollywood movies... I'm more interested in it becoming consumer friendly.
- manfredo 9y ago
  Rainbow six Vegas had the ability to scan your face onto the player model. Results were less than impressive (but often hilarious)
ggg9990 9y ago
Does anyone know where this community has migrated to? I know they were setting it up last week expecting to get banned.
- raguuu 9y ago
  4chan.
- drdeadringer 9y ago
  You could try Voat.
pitaa 9y ago
Tom Scott made a good video talking about this tech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCLaeBAkFAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCLaeBAkFAY

56 points by Hello71 9y ago

Reading down into the comments is quite disturbing. The official stand on underage posts (which are not obviously cp) seems to amount to, “If it’s a picture of you, report it.” Reddit is almost comically morally bankrupt.

GhostVII 9y ago
Maybe they are just trying to reduce their liability. Once they start actively policing content that isn't flagged, they will be held responsible whenever something gets on the site that shouldn't. If their policy is to only review content that was reported, it's much easier from their end, and they don't have to start making as many decisions about what is OK and what isn't, like sites like Twitter have to.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  You’re almost certainly correct, yet I think this shortcut many content providers/hosts have taken is going to eventually lead to backlash. I really don’t want to see what the FCC looks like trying to police large sites for content.
- commandlinefan 9y ago
  Well, reddit has been policing content for a very long time. So far they haven't been held responsible for things that "get on the site but shouldn't".
  - GhostVII 9y ago
    How so? They ban certain subreddits, but afaik they leave individual subreddit moderation to the moderators.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Admins are involved in cases of legal issues such as doxxing, threats, illegal material, etc. Mods are responsible for the rules of their sub, site-wide rules ultimately are the purview of admins.
prepend 9y ago
Even worse, if you’re under 13, you can’t have a Reddit account. So it’s impossible for kids to comply.
Spivak 9y ago
Honest question, what do you expect them to do? It's not like you can tell from the image the age of subject and, if they are of age, whether they consented to having their picture posted. Hell, outside of celebrities you'll be lucky to identify the subject at all. One thing that's left out is that anyone can report the picture and mods are incentivized to police their posts somewhat.

orf 9y ago

Still haven't banned the_donald though, despite breaking far more rules than deepfakes.

kaixi 9y ago
Which rules have they broken?
- SippinLean 9y ago
  https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/7a4bjo/time_for_my_quarterly_inquisition_reddit_ceo_here/dp6youa/ https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/7a4bjo/time_f... >Many of these links are probably in violation of our policy --spez
  - kaixi 9y ago
    > Generally the mods of the_donald have been cooperative when we approach them with systematic abuses. Typically we ban entire communities only when the mods are uncooperative or the entire premise of the community is in violation of our policies. In the past we have removed mods of the_donald that refuse to work with us.
    - orf 9y ago
      > I don't accept that excuse. These were gathered by searching for phrases that should be included in their AutoModerator config. These calls for violence are mod enabled. https://www.reddit.com/r/RightAgainstTrump/wiki/violence https://www.reddit.com/r/RightAgainstTrump/wiki/violence
      - m00g00 9y ago
        Clearly the CEO of reddit feels the mods of r/the_donald have done a reasonable job at policing their sub overall, despite having missed a handful of extremely lowly upvoted comments. Do you suggest the AutoModerator filter for words like "hang", "kill", "shoot"? Why not implement that site wide? I'm sure that would go over well with the rest of reddit.

manfredo 9y ago

Reddit is a private organization that can obviously decide what they do or don't allow on their site. That said I am still interested in if the images created by this technology are challenged legally. The adult actors created and released these videos with their consent (presumably), and the facial reconstruction of the celebrities are usually drawn from public sources (Facebook, Instagram, news articles). Could they claim copyright on these videos? It's hard to argue that they aren't transformative. Supposedly some are challenged on the grounds of defamation or slander, claiming that these images are falsely claiming that celebrities performed these sex acts. However, this seems like a very weak claim given that many of the places hosting these images are transparent about the fact that they are fabricated. This specific application of the technology isn't something I care that much about, but I think it has the potential to set significant precedent about what sorts of derivative works are permissible with technology that can create fake media that is increasingly hard to distinguish from reality.

gus_massa 9y ago
It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. It's easy to imagine an equivalent with software: You can't buy a copy of Windows(R)(TM)(C) and make some patching (or DeepPatching) to change the icons and background and some of the txt, and then release/sell it. Even if Windows was released voluntarily by Microsoft. Even if you use photos of celebrities instead of icons. [You neither can't modify Linux and release it with another license, like a proprietary license, BSD, GPL3, ... It also has a very specific license.] The actors/directors/whatever released the videos with a license, that probably doesn't allow redistribution and modifications. I'm not sure about the license of the photos in Facebook/Instagram, but the photos in newspaper usually have a restrictive copyright. Perhaps there is a loophole using very old videos, and old photos, but ... IANAL.(Wikipedia says something about 1923, the Mickey Mouse video was made in 1928 and still is under copyright.)
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. Sorry- "IAMAL" or "IANAL"?

shostack 9y ago

Outside of the main use case right now, I hope this technology continues to be developed and made more user friendly. I'm looking forward to the day when scanning you and your friends faces into a cool movie or game is commonplace. Yes there are concerns that need to be addressed, but I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. To that end, is anyone aware of any projects for movies or gaming that are taking this approach? I know it is already a thing for high budget Hollywood movies... I'm more interested in it becoming consumer friendly.

manfredo 9y ago
Rainbow six Vegas had the ability to scan your face onto the player model. Results were less than impressive (but often hilarious)

ggg9990 9y ago

Does anyone know where this community has migrated to? I know they were setting it up last week expecting to get banned.

raguuu 9y ago
4chan.
drdeadringer 9y ago
You could try Voat.

pitaa 9y ago

Tom Scott made a good video talking about this tech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCLaeBAkFAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCLaeBAkFAY