6 ms·

I shouldn’t have to accept being in deepfake porn

27 points by fortran77 3y ago

h2odragon 3y ago
If someone draws, or paints, art of you in a pose / situation you don't like; using traditional means of ink or pencil etc, are you as violated? Have you rights to redress from the artist? Why should it be different if they use a different tool to create the picture?
- EA-3167 3y ago
  Would those "tools" such as ink and paper produce a similar, photorealistic result? Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing?
  - sigstoat 3y ago
    look up "photorealism".
  - h2odragon 3y ago
    Are you suggesting that all those photos of Abraham Lincoln nekkid from fark.com might not have been real?
  - Tronno 3y ago
    I have trouble imagining a reasonable person being interested in porn containing a minor government official, let alone being confused as to its authenticity. I can't even see reasonable people being interested in genuine celebrity sex tapes. The audience for that seems limited to malicious weirdos who already have zero respect for the victim. Any influence it might have on their opinions seems irrelevant. Of course, this has no bearing on the personal violation one feels when exposed to this sort of abuse. But for deepfake porn to somehow influence public perception is hard for me to grasp. Are there any examples of real reputational damage stemming from this?
    - BoxFour 3y ago
      to say nothing of the personal feeling of violation, the individual in question seems to be a relatively young and ambitious individual, likely harboring aspirations for a more prominent political career. The potential consequences of such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” could give rise to a future scandal during an election. Even the slightest insinuation of involvement in the adult entertainment industry can inflict significant damage, particularly for women. We’re actually seeing AI-generated imagery being used more and more in political propaganda (eg https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-disinformation-guardrails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-d...). It’s not unreasonable to think this will become a major point in a future election, even if it hasn’t yet.
      - Tronno 3y ago
        > such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” I ask again, is there any evidence that such allegations have ever been taken seriously? I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. Other AI generated content may have more impact, but that's another conversation.
        tredre3 3y ago
        > I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. You seem to have made your mind and no further discussion is possible.
        BoxFour 3y ago
        If you're wondering whether people spreading juicy and false rumors about candidates' sexual matters have had an impact on election outcomes, the answer is definitely yes. Maybe this specific type of sexual rumor hasn't had a major effect, but considering that this technology is still relatively new, it's not something to be too complacent about. On the topic of people believing outlandish things on whimsy evidence: Plenty of people were convinced Hillary Clinton was running an underground child pornography ring in a pizza basement based on paintings hung in someone’s house. Maybe they were all politically aligned against her from the start, or maybe they weren’t and it affected the 2016 election. How would we know?
  - everybodyknows 3y ago
    > Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing? That could be construed as satisfying the critical legal element of a defamation claim: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
- fortran77 3y ago
  I agree this is a very complicated issue. If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. Ignoring tangential issues, like the copyright of the images used in the "deep fake", how is this situation any different?
  - murphyslab 3y ago
    By virtue of appearing to be a photograph. The medium itself is a message (cf. Marshall McLuhan). An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event", whereas if I draw a picture, even if it is of something plausible but which as never happened, there isn't a perception that the image is being presented as evidence of an event which has taken place. If we know that enough people will draw such an inference from a statement, it can and should be treated as potentially libelous.
    - reverius42 3y ago
      > An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event" That notion is going to have to die, and soon.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. You would be wrong; there are many legal issues which can protect identifiable people from having their likeness used, especially if it is (1) without consent and (2) in a "private place" (or depicted in an intimate/private situation). The person whose likeness is used would very much have recourse to sue, whether it's the painter of a watercolor or someone who generates a deepfake. The same principles apply.
  - Hard_Space 3y ago
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. In any case there shouldn’t be any difference I would imagine. There’s already precedent in United States, but circumstances matter.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    Bomb ownership is okay AFAIK. Intent to commit murder/terrorism/etc is not. You'd have to convince the police/jury though.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly. When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc. Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: \ Õ / \ | / | ----D <-----O / \ /| \ / \ / | \ You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake porn as it doesn't look anything like them, and it's just a bunch of stick figures", but what exactly does it mean for something to be a "deepfake"? Is at some point a painting realistic enough to be a "deepfake"? Is using a look-a-like okay? Where are the limits, exactly? What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures?
    - tyg13 3y ago
      > What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures? Level of realism?
      - theshrike79 3y ago
        But what amount of realism is accepted? If the result is still in the uncanny valley, is it OK? How far can we dig out of the valley before it becomes not OK?
- tech_ken 3y ago
  The difficulty required in producing this rate limits it, moreover artists can exercise professional discretion.
- qwery 3y ago
  Your line of questioning makes no sense. You are introducing the medium as an issue -- why? If you have would have a legal leg to stand on, ask a lawyer. Do you have a moral right? Yes, of course, you've been violated. Also, the "traditional wholesome art mediums" thing is a bit weird to use for an argument, to me anyway. The act is made much more disturbing and violent owing to the image being created by hand, with care and attention.
  - cvalka 3y ago
    There's no violence or "violation" here just someone being unhappy. Tough luck.
    - qwery 3y ago
      You seem to be arguing in bad faith, perhaps from an emotional standpoint. But you seem to be genuinely stuck on the terms 'violation' and 'violence', so: The post I replied to introduced the term 'violated'. It asks "are you as violated?" -- you'll note that 'as' being present indicates that something can be more or less violated -- it was also their assumption that in either case there would be some amount of violation felt. My reply to their post is based on the framework that they established. Take it up with them. To take action with intent to harm another is violence. To (seek to) inflict damage, destruction, pain or suffering is violent.
- fortran77 3y ago
  See also "No Vehicles Allowed in Park"
silisili 3y ago
> Google Alert informed me that I am the subject of deepfake pornography I have so many questions on this line alone, it's a world I didn't know existed. What is a Google Alert? How does Google know this deepfake exists? How does Google go about determining a real vs deepfaked pornographic video?
- RicoElectrico 3y ago
  Google Alerts is a service that allows you to receive alerts on a search query. It's been available since forever and for some reason Google hasn't killed it (yet).
  - silisili 3y ago
    Rats, that's much less interesting than I'd hoped. So it's not out hunting for porn of you, it's just saying some search result like 'Jane Doe Porn' had a new hit?
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      Yes, exactly.
    - qwery 3y ago
      Pretty much. Although in my case it just reminds once every few years that I set up some queries about an apparently uniquely named project that doesn't really exist any more, and the infinite monkey theorem.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Typically, I just use it to see if my name appeared in news somewhere. I don't get quoted that frequently these days but it's something I like to keep my eye on.
- qwery 3y ago
  I'll just add that it's highly likely this person just has queries set up to find mentions of their name. It's pretty common for people who (are likely to, or hope to) appear in news or other publications to set up Google Alerts for their name/company/etc..
throwaway22032 3y ago
I'm no fan of the way that technology is going, but the author seems to be confused. The fact that people share these videos is rapidly becoming immaterial. Face swapping software doesn't require some sort of underground network, one person can do this for themselves without the videos ever being shared. So whilst she may be able to avoid the harassment problem of having specific videos thrust into her face on Twitter or whatever - they'll still be out there, just behind closed doors. Or even barely behind closed doors at all - given suitable software, it's not hard to come up with the prompt "Fred Bloggs sitting on a cucumber in stockings".
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Or eating a hot dog. Honestly, there's so much porn being dumped on the internet every day if you'd avoid drawing attention to it and quietly torpedo it via DMCA, yours would quietly disappear. But you could also write an article about it in a major paper and ensure it never goes away, and people get pissed at you and make more. Give it another year or two for TTS to become commodity and she'll have way worse problems (like identity theft, and bomb threats made in her voice, spoofed from her number) to worry about.
- qwery 3y ago
  Can you explain what you think the author is confused about? They seem to have a pretty good understanding of how readily available the technology is.
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    That they focus so heavily on distribution of the images e.g. "premade" deepfakes. The issue is that it is becoming so trivial to generate imagery that no distribution is necessary, unless we consider powerful image generation tools to be akin to munitions of some sort and ban those too.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
[flagged]
- pierat 3y ago
  She may be a horrible person due to her actions and choices she made. And damn straight I'll judge someone on their actions. But if you look, the deepfake porn scene is to pornify women's pictures. If you look for the similar for men, it's just not there. You can be against this lady, but also be against deepfake porn targeting women only at the same time.
  - stickfigure 3y ago
    > targeting women only Just give it a little time, it will come.
    - GauntletWizard 3y ago
      Women's and men's porn works differently; there's long long been an entire genre of "real-person-fics" where actual celebrities or simply notable people are depicted, textually, engaging in sexual acts and emotional intimacy that fits the same bill. What I'm saying is - Tumblr beat you, and the precise mechanism of AI generated pictures of celebrities seeming to show more women is true, but you'll find a proportional amount if you were to look at where gay men post their porn.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - machina_ex_deus 3y ago
    > You can be against this lady, but also be against deepfake porn targeting women only at the same time. To be clear, I am against deepfake porn. But I'm even more against these kinds of people who make a career out of abusing real victims to create positions of power which they then abuse for unrelated actions that were the real reason in the first place. Just like how you can be against child porn and yet raise some eyebrows with some of the suggested policies like Apple's scanning all internal photos. If you're willing to let morally questionable people gather more power because of bad things, you'll be surprised to find out more bad things happening compared to if you just didn't care. She strikes me as exactly that kind of psychopathic person, and whatever action she's suggesting I'm sure to avoid doing it. And I don't believe her for a moment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cat_plus_plus 3y ago
Shouldn't have to in what sense? Someone claiming/implying it's you? That's already considered libel. Someone's machine assisted fantasy that looks kind of like you? Tough luck, people are allowed to imagine things you would rather they not imagine. If you have not been posting your real naked photos online, fake ones will not depict your private parts accurately anyway.
- qwery 3y ago
  I think they mean it in the sense that they shouldn't have to. Why do you think they should have to?
  - cvalka 3y ago
    Freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Why shouldn't I be able to produce virtual deepfake porn of you if it's clearly or implicitly labeled as fake?
    - ix-ix 3y ago
      Because they don't want you to? What makes you feel entitled to do it?
      - cvalka 3y ago
        If you want to criminalize some act or behavior, the burden of proof is on you. What makes you feel entitled to use the State to penalize me for exercising my speech? She does not like virtual deepfake pornography. Tough luck. Donald Trump does not like the media calling him a loser. Tough luck.
        kthejoker2 3y ago
        Hiding behind legalism when people are talking about ethics and normative values is cowardly. Speech that directly causes harm to others is not just about legality.
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
The best realistic outcome is that the technology becomes convenient and ubiquitous enough that people's default reaction is to distrust it. Suppressing the technology only makes it more likely that people will trust it, which increases the total harm of it.
- BoxFour 3y ago
  That outcome seems rather unfavorable. It would undoubtedly raise doubts regarding the credibility of literally any video or audio content, invoking the "liars dividend” and benefiting the most untrustworthy more than any others.
  - beej71 3y ago
    At this point, I'm not sure how to avoid it.
atmavatar 3y ago
> their deeper purpose is to humiliate, shame, and objectify women While I understand the desire to stamp-out the use of deepfakes to insert unsuspecting women into pornographic images and video, I feel at least as much energy should be spent in eliminating (or at least reducing) the harm that comes to women's reputations as a result. The fact that a deepfake can humiliate and shame a woman and even cause her to lose her job and friends exposes a problem in our society that I feel is at least as problematic as that which would cause someone to create the deepfake in the first place.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > The fact that a deepfake can humiliate and shame a woman and even cause her to lose her job and friends exposes a problem in our society that I feel is at least as problematic as that which would cause someone to create the deepfake in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly. There is no reason for naked human body to be considered shameful, regardless of the gender. Reasons for such beliefs are usually based on either keeping up the status quo, or some archaic or religious belief in "dirtiness" of sexuality (except in the restricted case approved by the said tradition/religion).
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    They might not be just naked. It's porn on the internet, they could be made to do literally anything in them. Agree with the sentiment, but the reality is much much harsher than just prudishness of society about nudity.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      > the reality is much much harsher than just prudishness of society about nudity. So they can be made to touch another naked body in a video? Wow, that's so much worse... \s Sex is nothing to be ashamed of, either. Society should really just move on.
- qwery 3y ago
  Sexual violence is weaponised to destroy a woman's life. The society allows it. The men that create the (frankly disgusting) deepfakes described exist within the same society. The men can't see why a woman should be humiliated by fake videos. The society allows it.
effingwewt 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20230625180221/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/deepfake-porn-ai-misinformation/674475/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230625180221/https://www.theat...
gmuslera 3y ago
It's not just porn the problem. Fake news or information is a problem too. And this reminds me of the "Joan is awful" episode of Black Mirror as another kind of disturbing activity using deepfakes. Or making fun of a public personality in some way like in Sassy Justice ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM ). But is complex to draw hard lines in this because asymmetries between public people and not so public ones doing that, or good uses of the technology, freedom concerns and the potential of AI generation. Its not so much the tool, but certain people that misuses it. And stopping the bad uses in a generic way may cause more harm or abuses than not doing it.
tivert 3y ago
> Recently, a Google Alert informed me that I am the subject of deepfake pornography. How does that work?
- theshrike79 3y ago
  You go to https://www.google.com/alerts https://www.google.com/alerts and create an alert with your name. Then you'll get an email every time a new result with your name appears in Google's indexes.

27 points by fortran77 3y ago

If someone draws, or paints, art of you in a pose / situation you don't like; using traditional means of ink or pencil etc, are you as violated? Have you rights to redress from the artist? Why should it be different if they use a different tool to create the picture?

EA-3167 3y ago
Would those "tools" such as ink and paper produce a similar, photorealistic result? Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing?
- sigstoat 3y ago
  look up "photorealism".
- h2odragon 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that all those photos of Abraham Lincoln nekkid from fark.com might not have been real?
- Tronno 3y ago
  I have trouble imagining a reasonable person being interested in porn containing a minor government official, let alone being confused as to its authenticity. I can't even see reasonable people being interested in genuine celebrity sex tapes. The audience for that seems limited to malicious weirdos who already have zero respect for the victim. Any influence it might have on their opinions seems irrelevant. Of course, this has no bearing on the personal violation one feels when exposed to this sort of abuse. But for deepfake porn to somehow influence public perception is hard for me to grasp. Are there any examples of real reputational damage stemming from this?
  - BoxFour 3y ago
    to say nothing of the personal feeling of violation, the individual in question seems to be a relatively young and ambitious individual, likely harboring aspirations for a more prominent political career. The potential consequences of such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” could give rise to a future scandal during an election. Even the slightest insinuation of involvement in the adult entertainment industry can inflict significant damage, particularly for women. We’re actually seeing AI-generated imagery being used more and more in political propaganda (eg https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-disinformation-guardrails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-d...). It’s not unreasonable to think this will become a major point in a future election, even if it hasn’t yet.
    - Tronno 3y ago
      > such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” I ask again, is there any evidence that such allegations have ever been taken seriously? I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. Other AI generated content may have more impact, but that's another conversation.
      - tredre3 3y ago
        > I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. You seem to have made your mind and no further discussion is possible.
      - BoxFour 3y ago
        If you're wondering whether people spreading juicy and false rumors about candidates' sexual matters have had an impact on election outcomes, the answer is definitely yes. Maybe this specific type of sexual rumor hasn't had a major effect, but considering that this technology is still relatively new, it's not something to be too complacent about. On the topic of people believing outlandish things on whimsy evidence: Plenty of people were convinced Hillary Clinton was running an underground child pornography ring in a pizza basement based on paintings hung in someone’s house. Maybe they were all politically aligned against her from the start, or maybe they weren’t and it affected the 2016 election. How would we know?
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  > Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing? That could be construed as satisfying the critical legal element of a defamation claim: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
fortran77 3y ago
I agree this is a very complicated issue. If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. Ignoring tangential issues, like the copyright of the images used in the "deep fake", how is this situation any different?
- murphyslab 3y ago
  By virtue of appearing to be a photograph. The medium itself is a message (cf. Marshall McLuhan). An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event", whereas if I draw a picture, even if it is of something plausible but which as never happened, there isn't a perception that the image is being presented as evidence of an event which has taken place. If we know that enough people will draw such an inference from a statement, it can and should be treated as potentially libelous.
  - reverius42 3y ago
    > An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event" That notion is going to have to die, and soon.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. You would be wrong; there are many legal issues which can protect identifiable people from having their likeness used, especially if it is (1) without consent and (2) in a "private place" (or depicted in an intimate/private situation). The person whose likeness is used would very much have recourse to sue, whether it's the painter of a watercolor or someone who generates a deepfake. The same principles apply.
- Hard_Space 3y ago
endisneigh 3y ago
I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. In any case there shouldn’t be any difference I would imagine. There’s already precedent in United States, but circumstances matter.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  Bomb ownership is okay AFAIK. Intent to commit murder/terrorism/etc is not. You'd have to convince the police/jury though.
- arp242 3y ago
  > I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly. When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc. Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: \ Õ / \ | / | ----D <-----O / \ /| \ / \ / | \ You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake porn as it doesn't look anything like them, and it's just a bunch of stick figures", but what exactly does it mean for something to be a "deepfake"? Is at some point a painting realistic enough to be a "deepfake"? Is using a look-a-like okay? Where are the limits, exactly? What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures?
  - tyg13 3y ago
    > What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures? Level of realism?
    - theshrike79 3y ago
      But what amount of realism is accepted? If the result is still in the uncanny valley, is it OK? How far can we dig out of the valley before it becomes not OK?
tech_ken 3y ago
The difficulty required in producing this rate limits it, moreover artists can exercise professional discretion.
qwery 3y ago
Your line of questioning makes no sense. You are introducing the medium as an issue -- why? If you have would have a legal leg to stand on, ask a lawyer. Do you have a moral right? Yes, of course, you've been violated. Also, the "traditional wholesome art mediums" thing is a bit weird to use for an argument, to me anyway. The act is made much more disturbing and violent owing to the image being created by hand, with care and attention.
- cvalka 3y ago
  There's no violence or "violation" here just someone being unhappy. Tough luck.
  - qwery 3y ago
    You seem to be arguing in bad faith, perhaps from an emotional standpoint. But you seem to be genuinely stuck on the terms 'violation' and 'violence', so: The post I replied to introduced the term 'violated'. It asks "are you as violated?" -- you'll note that 'as' being present indicates that something can be more or less violated -- it was also their assumption that in either case there would be some amount of violation felt. My reply to their post is based on the framework that they established. Take it up with them. To take action with intent to harm another is violence. To (seek to) inflict damage, destruction, pain or suffering is violent.
fortran77 3y ago
See also "No Vehicles Allowed in Park"

silisili 3y ago

> Google Alert informed me that I am the subject of deepfake pornography I have so many questions on this line alone, it's a world I didn't know existed. What is a Google Alert? How does Google know this deepfake exists? How does Google go about determining a real vs deepfaked pornographic video?

RicoElectrico 3y ago
Google Alerts is a service that allows you to receive alerts on a search query. It's been available since forever and for some reason Google hasn't killed it (yet).
- silisili 3y ago
  Rats, that's much less interesting than I'd hoped. So it's not out hunting for porn of you, it's just saying some search result like 'Jane Doe Porn' had a new hit?
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    Yes, exactly.
  - qwery 3y ago
    Pretty much. Although in my case it just reminds once every few years that I set up some queries about an apparently uniquely named project that doesn't really exist any more, and the infinite monkey theorem.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Typically, I just use it to see if my name appeared in news somewhere. I don't get quoted that frequently these days but it's something I like to keep my eye on.
qwery 3y ago
I'll just add that it's highly likely this person just has queries set up to find mentions of their name. It's pretty common for people who (are likely to, or hope to) appear in news or other publications to set up Google Alerts for their name/company/etc..

throwaway22032 3y ago

I'm no fan of the way that technology is going, but the author seems to be confused. The fact that people share these videos is rapidly becoming immaterial. Face swapping software doesn't require some sort of underground network, one person can do this for themselves without the videos ever being shared. So whilst she may be able to avoid the harassment problem of having specific videos thrust into her face on Twitter or whatever - they'll still be out there, just behind closed doors. Or even barely behind closed doors at all - given suitable software, it's not hard to come up with the prompt "Fred Bloggs sitting on a cucumber in stockings".

jstarfish 3y ago
Or eating a hot dog. Honestly, there's so much porn being dumped on the internet every day if you'd avoid drawing attention to it and quietly torpedo it via DMCA, yours would quietly disappear. But you could also write an article about it in a major paper and ensure it never goes away, and people get pissed at you and make more. Give it another year or two for TTS to become commodity and she'll have way worse problems (like identity theft, and bomb threats made in her voice, spoofed from her number) to worry about.
qwery 3y ago
Can you explain what you think the author is confused about? They seem to have a pretty good understanding of how readily available the technology is.
- throwaway22032 3y ago
  That they focus so heavily on distribution of the images e.g. "premade" deepfakes. The issue is that it is becoming so trivial to generate imagery that no distribution is necessary, unless we consider powerful image generation tools to be akin to munitions of some sort and ban those too.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

[flagged]

pierat 3y ago
She may be a horrible person due to her actions and choices she made. And damn straight I'll judge someone on their actions. But if you look, the deepfake porn scene is to pornify women's pictures. If you look for the similar for men, it's just not there. You can be against this lady, but also be against deepfake porn targeting women only at the same time.
- stickfigure 3y ago
  > targeting women only Just give it a little time, it will come.
  - GauntletWizard 3y ago
    Women's and men's porn works differently; there's long long been an entire genre of "real-person-fics" where actual celebrities or simply notable people are depicted, textually, engaging in sexual acts and emotional intimacy that fits the same bill. What I'm saying is - Tumblr beat you, and the precise mechanism of AI generated pictures of celebrities seeming to show more women is true, but you'll find a proportional amount if you were to look at where gay men post their porn.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- machina_ex_deus 3y ago
  > You can be against this lady, but also be against deepfake porn targeting women only at the same time. To be clear, I am against deepfake porn. But I'm even more against these kinds of people who make a career out of abusing real victims to create positions of power which they then abuse for unrelated actions that were the real reason in the first place. Just like how you can be against child porn and yet raise some eyebrows with some of the suggested policies like Apple's scanning all internal photos. If you're willing to let morally questionable people gather more power because of bad things, you'll be surprised to find out more bad things happening compared to if you just didn't care. She strikes me as exactly that kind of psychopathic person, and whatever action she's suggesting I'm sure to avoid doing it. And I don't believe her for a moment.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cat_plus_plus 3y ago

Shouldn't have to in what sense? Someone claiming/implying it's you? That's already considered libel. Someone's machine assisted fantasy that looks kind of like you? Tough luck, people are allowed to imagine things you would rather they not imagine. If you have not been posting your real naked photos online, fake ones will not depict your private parts accurately anyway.

qwery 3y ago
I think they mean it in the sense that they shouldn't have to. Why do you think they should have to?
- cvalka 3y ago
  Freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Why shouldn't I be able to produce virtual deepfake porn of you if it's clearly or implicitly labeled as fake?
  - ix-ix 3y ago
    Because they don't want you to? What makes you feel entitled to do it?
    - cvalka 3y ago
      If you want to criminalize some act or behavior, the burden of proof is on you. What makes you feel entitled to use the State to penalize me for exercising my speech? She does not like virtual deepfake pornography. Tough luck. Donald Trump does not like the media calling him a loser. Tough luck.
      - kthejoker2 3y ago
        Hiding behind legalism when people are talking about ethics and normative values is cowardly. Speech that directly causes harm to others is not just about legality.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago

The best realistic outcome is that the technology becomes convenient and ubiquitous enough that people's default reaction is to distrust it. Suppressing the technology only makes it more likely that people will trust it, which increases the total harm of it.

BoxFour 3y ago
That outcome seems rather unfavorable. It would undoubtedly raise doubts regarding the credibility of literally any video or audio content, invoking the "liars dividend” and benefiting the most untrustworthy more than any others.
- beej71 3y ago
  At this point, I'm not sure how to avoid it.

atmavatar 3y ago

> their deeper purpose is to humiliate, shame, and objectify women While I understand the desire to stamp-out the use of deepfakes to insert unsuspecting women into pornographic images and video, I feel at least as much energy should be spent in eliminating (or at least reducing) the harm that comes to women's reputations as a result. The fact that a deepfake can humiliate and shame a woman and even cause her to lose her job and friends exposes a problem in our society that I feel is at least as problematic as that which would cause someone to create the deepfake in the first place.

bheadmaster 3y ago
> The fact that a deepfake can humiliate and shame a woman and even cause her to lose her job and friends exposes a problem in our society that I feel is at least as problematic as that which would cause someone to create the deepfake in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly. There is no reason for naked human body to be considered shameful, regardless of the gender. Reasons for such beliefs are usually based on either keeping up the status quo, or some archaic or religious belief in "dirtiness" of sexuality (except in the restricted case approved by the said tradition/religion).
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  They might not be just naked. It's porn on the internet, they could be made to do literally anything in them. Agree with the sentiment, but the reality is much much harsher than just prudishness of society about nudity.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > the reality is much much harsher than just prudishness of society about nudity. So they can be made to touch another naked body in a video? Wow, that's so much worse... \s Sex is nothing to be ashamed of, either. Society should really just move on.
qwery 3y ago
Sexual violence is weaponised to destroy a woman's life. The society allows it. The men that create the (frankly disgusting) deepfakes described exist within the same society. The men can't see why a woman should be humiliated by fake videos. The society allows it.

effingwewt 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20230625180221/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/deepfake-porn-ai-misinformation/674475/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230625180221/https://www.theat...

gmuslera 3y ago

It's not just porn the problem. Fake news or information is a problem too. And this reminds me of the "Joan is awful" episode of Black Mirror as another kind of disturbing activity using deepfakes. Or making fun of a public personality in some way like in Sassy Justice ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM ). But is complex to draw hard lines in this because asymmetries between public people and not so public ones doing that, or good uses of the technology, freedom concerns and the potential of AI generation. Its not so much the tool, but certain people that misuses it. And stopping the bad uses in a generic way may cause more harm or abuses than not doing it.

tivert 3y ago

> Recently, a Google Alert informed me that I am the subject of deepfake pornography. How does that work?

theshrike79 3y ago
You go to https://www.google.com/alerts https://www.google.com/alerts and create an alert with your name. Then you'll get an email every time a new result with your name appears in Google's indexes.