4 ms·

Don't you think it feels incredibly degrading and violating to have your face stitched into porn in a way that's supposed to be as realistic as possible? Withou

Don't you think it feels incredibly degrading and violating to have your face stitched into porn in a way that's supposed to be as realistic as possible? Without your consent? Doesn't really matter if the video is real, the people who this is done to have not signed up for this. And you know people are jerking off to it. I don't doubt for a second that it's absolutely repulsive to see yourself in a deepfake porn. A couple of popular streamers who have had that happened to them have reported feeling similar feelings of shame and violation to the way they felt when they experienced actual sexual assault. That's pretty alarming and should count for something, no? Also, this gives a completely new dimension to parasocial relationships. There are lots of people struggling with real realtionships that find solace in live streams. As they continue to engage in the community, they can begin to feel like they have an actual relationship with those streamers, which is obviously dangerous since it's such a one-sided thing. Deepfake porn elevates this even further and makes it that much more likely for people to develop an unhealthy obsession with people that they will likely never meet, instead of working on their real interpersonal relationships.

chii 3y ago
On the other hand, if said deep fake was never publicly revealed, and is only utilized by the person who made it (and not distributed), then is there harm done? The deep fake subject is completely ignorant of it in this scenario. In other words, is the harm not in the production, but the wide distribution of the material, and the harm is in the reputation of the subject (even if explicitly labeled fake), and not in the actual contents? And so this begs the question - if an AI could deep fake something on demand, without ever distributing it except to the requester, then is there any harm done?
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Well, consider revenge porn. A couple shares images or makes videos of themselves, never publicly revealed, only utilized by the person / people who made it, no harm done right? But then the relationship breaks up and one of the partners publishes the footage. Or their account or device get compromised and the material goes public. There's a series of new laws with regards to revenge porn, and deepfake porn will likely fall under that category. It's not about whether it stays private, it's the risk of it going public. I mean this issue isn't anything new either, it's pretty straightforward and common to edit a celebrity's face onto a nude model.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Deepfake porn is already illegal in some jurisdictions afaik.
- shinycode 3y ago
  So you say deepfake is a powerful tool and the responsibility bears with who is using the tool. Like guns are powerful tools but some guns are military grade and illegal if possessed by the public because of their power of destruction. It’s not about the tool per se but the possible damage that classify the gun, even if I’m a responsible being and will never misuse such tools, out of safety I’m not allowed to own several classes of guns.
unglaublich 3y ago
Nothing new. People have been obsessed about their idols since forever, including the creation of media that depict sexual fantasies.
scotty79 3y ago
One pupil got suspended for drawing horns or something on a photo of a school principal. It's the same category of offence. People should grow thicker not thinner skin. But being a victim in modern world pays because outrage sells.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  That's victim blaming.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    Absolutely not. Victim blaming is about making victim responsible for the victimization happening. What I'm saying is that in modern attention economy becoming a victim sometimes has a positive economic value for people, especially already popular people, like streamers. So they have monetary incentive to publicly feel more harmed.
    - __loam 3y ago
      Your answer to fake revenge porn is basically "suck it up". Jesus dude.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        Yes? Why not? It's not something that's actually being done to them, unlike say, a snearing comment.
- lynx23 3y ago
  > But being a victim in modern world pays because outrage sells. That.
- Royaljj 3y ago
  Whoa - I think we need to be cautious about dismissing genuine concerns around being deepfaked as just victimhood. The issues surrounding deepfake porn are complex than that - they can have significant psychological impact on individuals. Also we really can’t ignore the lack of consent and the abhorrent violation of someone's image. This can’t be boiled down to growing “thicker skin” - there’s pretty major ethical considerations as well as the potential harm it can cause to a person's reputation and mental well-being.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> That's pretty alarming and should count for something, no? No. What's truly alarming to me is this notion that people have that they own and control "their" image and likeness. They don't. Rich celebrities with lawyers get to extract rent from corporations for use of "their" likeness but there's pretty much nothing normal people can do against other people with a computer. At the end of the day it's just data that can be freely manipulated and like all privacy issues the only possible defense is to prevent that data from coming into existence in the first place. It's not even a new problem, even before stable diffusion you could easily find on the internet people photoshopping other people naked for kicks. Which is why I don't have any sympathy at all for public figures, especially the ones who deliberately publish that data and profit off of the attention they receive whether emotionally or financially through advertising. They asked for the attention and they got it. Now they want government tyranny to control what kinds of attention they get? I don't accept that.
DharmaPolice 3y ago
>Don't you think it feels incredibly degrading and violating to have your face stitched into porn in a way that's supposed to be as realistic as possible? Without your consent? Not really. > And you know people are jerking off to it. Why would I care what you're jerking off to? Maybe it's thoughts of me. Maybe it's photoshopped pictures of me. Maybe it's a deepfake video of me. But unless you phone me up in the middle of the night to tell me about it (i.e. harassment), I couldn't care less. "Ah but what if someone emailed your grandma with a video of you having sex with ten guys" - well yeah, that would be bad but it would be bad if they emailed my grandma with a poem about the same. The harm there would be the intent to harass not some psychic damage caused by you creating images. >A couple of popular streamers who have had that happened to them have reported feeling similar feelings of shame and violation to the way they felt when they experienced actual sexual assault. That's pretty alarming and should count for something, no? It's bad that they had those feelings, yes. But feeling shame for what someone else does with your image is clearly irrational. Understandable maybe but I'm not sure we should making public policy on whether someone feels icky about something.
concordDance 3y ago
> Don't you think it feels incredibly degrading and violating to have your face stitched into porn in a way that's supposed to be as realistic as possible? Without your consent? Not really? > I don't doubt for a second that it's absolutely repulsive to see yourself in a deepfake porn. Then don't watch it? People jerk off to others all the time, it's harmless.

chii 3y ago

On the other hand, if said deep fake was never publicly revealed, and is only utilized by the person who made it (and not distributed), then is there harm done? The deep fake subject is completely ignorant of it in this scenario. In other words, is the harm not in the production, but the wide distribution of the material, and the harm is in the reputation of the subject (even if explicitly labeled fake), and not in the actual contents? And so this begs the question - if an AI could deep fake something on demand, without ever distributing it except to the requester, then is there any harm done?

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Well, consider revenge porn. A couple shares images or makes videos of themselves, never publicly revealed, only utilized by the person / people who made it, no harm done right? But then the relationship breaks up and one of the partners publishes the footage. Or their account or device get compromised and the material goes public. There's a series of new laws with regards to revenge porn, and deepfake porn will likely fall under that category. It's not about whether it stays private, it's the risk of it going public. I mean this issue isn't anything new either, it's pretty straightforward and common to edit a celebrity's face onto a nude model.
- __loam 3y ago
  Deepfake porn is already illegal in some jurisdictions afaik.
shinycode 3y ago
So you say deepfake is a powerful tool and the responsibility bears with who is using the tool. Like guns are powerful tools but some guns are military grade and illegal if possessed by the public because of their power of destruction. It’s not about the tool per se but the possible damage that classify the gun, even if I’m a responsible being and will never misuse such tools, out of safety I’m not allowed to own several classes of guns.

unglaublich 3y ago

Nothing new. People have been obsessed about their idols since forever, including the creation of media that depict sexual fantasies.

scotty79 3y ago

One pupil got suspended for drawing horns or something on a photo of a school principal. It's the same category of offence. People should grow thicker not thinner skin. But being a victim in modern world pays because outrage sells.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
That's victim blaming.
- scotty79 3y ago
  Absolutely not. Victim blaming is about making victim responsible for the victimization happening. What I'm saying is that in modern attention economy becoming a victim sometimes has a positive economic value for people, especially already popular people, like streamers. So they have monetary incentive to publicly feel more harmed.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Your answer to fake revenge porn is basically "suck it up". Jesus dude.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      Yes? Why not? It's not something that's actually being done to them, unlike say, a snearing comment.
lynx23 3y ago
> But being a victim in modern world pays because outrage sells. That.
Royaljj 3y ago
Whoa - I think we need to be cautious about dismissing genuine concerns around being deepfaked as just victimhood. The issues surrounding deepfake porn are complex than that - they can have significant psychological impact on individuals. Also we really can’t ignore the lack of consent and the abhorrent violation of someone's image. This can’t be boiled down to growing “thicker skin” - there’s pretty major ethical considerations as well as the potential harm it can cause to a person's reputation and mental well-being.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> That's pretty alarming and should count for something, no? No. What's truly alarming to me is this notion that people have that they own and control "their" image and likeness. They don't. Rich celebrities with lawyers get to extract rent from corporations for use of "their" likeness but there's pretty much nothing normal people can do against other people with a computer. At the end of the day it's just data that can be freely manipulated and like all privacy issues the only possible defense is to prevent that data from coming into existence in the first place. It's not even a new problem, even before stable diffusion you could easily find on the internet people photoshopping other people naked for kicks. Which is why I don't have any sympathy at all for public figures, especially the ones who deliberately publish that data and profit off of the attention they receive whether emotionally or financially through advertising. They asked for the attention and they got it. Now they want government tyranny to control what kinds of attention they get? I don't accept that.

DharmaPolice 3y ago

>Don't you think it feels incredibly degrading and violating to have your face stitched into porn in a way that's supposed to be as realistic as possible? Without your consent? Not really. > And you know people are jerking off to it. Why would I care what you're jerking off to? Maybe it's thoughts of me. Maybe it's photoshopped pictures of me. Maybe it's a deepfake video of me. But unless you phone me up in the middle of the night to tell me about it (i.e. harassment), I couldn't care less. "Ah but what if someone emailed your grandma with a video of you having sex with ten guys" - well yeah, that would be bad but it would be bad if they emailed my grandma with a poem about the same. The harm there would be the intent to harass not some psychic damage caused by you creating images. >A couple of popular streamers who have had that happened to them have reported feeling similar feelings of shame and violation to the way they felt when they experienced actual sexual assault. That's pretty alarming and should count for something, no? It's bad that they had those feelings, yes. But feeling shame for what someone else does with your image is clearly irrational. Understandable maybe but I'm not sure we should making public policy on whether someone feels icky about something.

concordDance 3y ago

> Don't you think it feels incredibly degrading and violating to have your face stitched into porn in a way that's supposed to be as realistic as possible? Without your consent? Not really? > I don't doubt for a second that it's absolutely repulsive to see yourself in a deepfake porn. Then don't watch it? People jerk off to others all the time, it's harmless.