4 ms·

As a regular porn watcher myself and in many cases a defender of free speech (except in the case of hate speech coming from fascists) I still have to admit that

As a regular porn watcher myself and in many cases a defender of free speech (except in the case of hate speech coming from fascists) I still have to admit that the destructive capability of deep fakes of public figures is deeply concerning. Female politicians like AOC should not have to deal with malicious actors spreading pornographic deep fakes. Some may remember the countless lewd doctored photos of Hillary Clinton that spread in conservative circles. It only stands to reason that this helped the current president win, and in general makes it harder for all female politicians to win. This doesn’t seem to affect male politicians nearly to the same degree. Simultaneously these porn companies are making exorbitant amounts of money from obviously illegal content. Something needs to be done but at the same time I worry this could be a political opportunity for a conservative to push forward an internet censorship bill.

throwaways885 6y ago
While this is abhorrent, the likely end result is people will stop trusting video they see online. That combined with sites like thispersondoesnotexist.com might actually increase the personal privacy of people online. We might end up in a state where employers stop researching candidates from their apparent Facebook profiles.
- ouid 6y ago
  This view seems dangerously, irresponsibly, optimistic.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Really? To me, it seems not optimistic but inevitable. I don't think anyone believes Emma Watson has actually done a porn, despite her appearing in the deepfake mentioned in the article. Being deepfaked is unlikely to affect anyone's real-world prospects in any way. That being said I can understand that it would still be hurtful and I'm open to having the content more tightly regulated.
    - ouid 6y ago
      I just don't understand how anyone can live in the same world I do and have anything nice to say about the average person's credulity.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Are you saying that you think folks believe Emma Watson has done a porn, or something else? I mean, the claim I'm making is empirical. If you went out and asked people, you could know the answer.
        ouid 6y ago
        You have made two claims directly, and asserted their equivalence for a third claim. People have not seen the Emma Watson porn, and those that have can probably read the word deepfake in the title. My guess is between 5% and 20% of the people who have seen it, and found it through searching for Emma Watson, rather than Emma Watson Deepfake believe that they have seen actual Emma Watson in porn. But ultimately, you said that you didn't believe that it was irresponsible to assert that deepfakes will society more skeptical of video. That is your claim. I pose that deepfakes can easily be used to produce videos which are closer to what their audiences expect than reality, and as a result they will likely be less suspicious of what they see.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    Kind of. But realise when this starts happening at-scale, every news anchor, celebrity and politician will be talking about the dangers of deepfakes. The layperson won't be ignorant for long. Already I see non-techie friends talking about deepfakes.
- criddell 6y ago
  I think it's more likely people will stop trusting video that doesn't support their world view.
zajio1am 6y ago
Are these deepfakes presented as real records, or acknowledged as deepfakes? In the second case, there is not much difference compared to porn movies with actors reresenting politicians, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Nailin%27_Paylin%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Nailin%27_Paylin%3F
- bawolff 6y ago
  Presumably the actors case can be considered satire, where that is harder to argue in the deepfake case if the deepfake is good enough.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  The deepfakes I’ve seen are often presented without context and in many cases are assumed to be real if done well. This ability to create convincing deepfakes will only improve over time. Even if factually deepfakes don’t substantially differ from impersonations, on a moral level they should not be tolerated, especially for grass roots female politicians. Thanks for the Paylin reference

throwaways885 6y ago

While this is abhorrent, the likely end result is people will stop trusting video they see online. That combined with sites like thispersondoesnotexist.com might actually increase the personal privacy of people online. We might end up in a state where employers stop researching candidates from their apparent Facebook profiles.

ouid 6y ago
This view seems dangerously, irresponsibly, optimistic.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Really? To me, it seems not optimistic but inevitable. I don't think anyone believes Emma Watson has actually done a porn, despite her appearing in the deepfake mentioned in the article. Being deepfaked is unlikely to affect anyone's real-world prospects in any way. That being said I can understand that it would still be hurtful and I'm open to having the content more tightly regulated.
  - ouid 6y ago
    I just don't understand how anyone can live in the same world I do and have anything nice to say about the average person's credulity.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Are you saying that you think folks believe Emma Watson has done a porn, or something else? I mean, the claim I'm making is empirical. If you went out and asked people, you could know the answer.
      - ouid 6y ago
        You have made two claims directly, and asserted their equivalence for a third claim. People have not seen the Emma Watson porn, and those that have can probably read the word deepfake in the title. My guess is between 5% and 20% of the people who have seen it, and found it through searching for Emma Watson, rather than Emma Watson Deepfake believe that they have seen actual Emma Watson in porn. But ultimately, you said that you didn't believe that it was irresponsible to assert that deepfakes will society more skeptical of video. That is your claim. I pose that deepfakes can easily be used to produce videos which are closer to what their audiences expect than reality, and as a result they will likely be less suspicious of what they see.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Kind of. But realise when this starts happening at-scale, every news anchor, celebrity and politician will be talking about the dangers of deepfakes. The layperson won't be ignorant for long. Already I see non-techie friends talking about deepfakes.
criddell 6y ago
I think it's more likely people will stop trusting video that doesn't support their world view.

zajio1am 6y ago

Are these deepfakes presented as real records, or acknowledged as deepfakes? In the second case, there is not much difference compared to porn movies with actors reresenting politicians, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Nailin%27_Paylin%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Nailin%27_Paylin%3F

bawolff 6y ago
Presumably the actors case can be considered satire, where that is harder to argue in the deepfake case if the deepfake is good enough.
CyberRabbi 6y ago
The deepfakes I’ve seen are often presented without context and in many cases are assumed to be real if done well. This ability to create convincing deepfakes will only improve over time. Even if factually deepfakes don’t substantially differ from impersonations, on a moral level they should not be tolerated, especially for grass roots female politicians. Thanks for the Paylin reference