4 ms·

It being authentic or not isn't actually important in a lot of cases though. Consider someone like Mia Janin, who recently took her own life after been harassed

It being authentic or not isn't actually important in a lot of cases though. Consider someone like Mia Janin, who recently took her own life after been harassed using deepfakes. Everyone understood that the images weren't "authentic" but their power to cause distress was very real.

theultdev 3y ago
Is there a difference between being harassed with deepfakes vs fakes? Photoshop has the power to cause distress too when used maliciously. You go after the aggressors, not the tool used for aggression.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Ease of use and accessibility. Think of how we control access to guns even though a baseball bat could also be used to kill or maim someone. I agree that we should legislate against the aggressors, that's why I'm pointing out the limitations of technical solutions like watermarks. We need extensions to things like revenge pornography laws, if we're talking about legislation, and I don't see any harm in outlawing services that automate the creation of deepfakes. Of course the only "solution" is that we would universally behind to teach young boys that they are not entitled to women's bodies or their sexuality, but so many grown men apparently disagree that I can't see it happening quickly enough.
  - spangry 3y ago
    I'm one of the grown men who disagree. I don't think treating half the population as pre-criminals, when in reality it's an extremely tiny minority who act in this way, is a particularly good solution. If we were to apply this kind of "solution" to all undesirable behaviours exhibited by deviant minorities of both men and women I doubt there'd be any time for any actual K-12 formal education. It's a nice applause line though.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      So no to technical solutions, no to legislative solutions and no to education. What do you suggest? Edit: you disagree that men aren't entitled to women's sexuality? Edit: I mis-interpreted what was being disagree with.
      - kj99 3y ago
        Presumably enforcement of existing laws.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        Which laws do you mean and where do they apply? This article talks a bit about the lack of legal power to fight against deepfakes: https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-deepfake-porn-yet-refinery29/ https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-d...
        kj99 3y ago
        Good information. Then the solution would be to improve harassment legislation rather than limiting the availability of tools. Just as assault is illegal but we don’t require all hammers to be made out of foam.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        Indeed.
      - spangry 3y ago
        I suggest we clearly specify the class of problem we're trying to solve and come up with a principled solution that would make sense when applied consistently and universally to all problems in that class. I prefer this over coming up with knee-jerk moral panic patches (e.g. "censor generative models so they can't generate this particular thing I find distasteful") or with overly abstract and tangential problem-solutions (e.g. "just teach men not to be big jerks"). I think the central issue here is: what restrictions, if any, should be placed around creating and distributing a likeness of another person? Are we just looking to prohibit pornographic likenesses, or do you think the restrictions should be broader? What's the threshold rule you would apply? Should these rules be medium-specific, or should we also prohibit people from, say, painting a likeness of another person without their consent? I guess in a US context you'd also have to consider whether it's constitutional to restrict freedom of expression, even the distasteful ones, in this manner. Edit: Just saw your edit suggesting that I think "men are entitled to women's bodies" (whatever that means). I think I'll end my participation here, not interested in having a bad faith discussion.
postalrat 3y ago
The number of people who committed suicide after being harassed with memes or emoji must be higher than those harassed with deep fakes. Too bad nobody is interested enough in banning emoji to do a study.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Can you link to an article where emojis have been pivotal in an harassment case leading to suicide? They've been around for 30 years, deepfakes as they are today have been around for less than a year. I'm not sure absolute numbers are the best thing to look at either way.
  - postalrat 3y ago
    The emoji and meme industry has been hiding these stats for years. Facebook, X, TikTok, Apple, etc have the data you want but they won't give it to you.
- spangry 3y ago
  Why stop there? I think we'd all agree that "mean words", either written or spoken, have immense power to "cause distress" and have driven many a person to suicide. We should ban those.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    We do. Incitement to violence or "true threats" for example already fall outside of 1st amendment protections. I personally see deepfakes created or disseminated for harassment purposes as an act of violence.
    - spangry 3y ago
      I'm neither referring to "true threats" nor making any kind of argument about the US constitution, so I'm unsure why you're bringing these up. I thought it would have been pretty clear that in the context of driving people to suicide, I was suggesting banning "insulting words". Hope that clarifies things for you.

theultdev 3y ago

Is there a difference between being harassed with deepfakes vs fakes? Photoshop has the power to cause distress too when used maliciously. You go after the aggressors, not the tool used for aggression.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Ease of use and accessibility. Think of how we control access to guns even though a baseball bat could also be used to kill or maim someone. I agree that we should legislate against the aggressors, that's why I'm pointing out the limitations of technical solutions like watermarks. We need extensions to things like revenge pornography laws, if we're talking about legislation, and I don't see any harm in outlawing services that automate the creation of deepfakes. Of course the only "solution" is that we would universally behind to teach young boys that they are not entitled to women's bodies or their sexuality, but so many grown men apparently disagree that I can't see it happening quickly enough.
- spangry 3y ago
  I'm one of the grown men who disagree. I don't think treating half the population as pre-criminals, when in reality it's an extremely tiny minority who act in this way, is a particularly good solution. If we were to apply this kind of "solution" to all undesirable behaviours exhibited by deviant minorities of both men and women I doubt there'd be any time for any actual K-12 formal education. It's a nice applause line though.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    So no to technical solutions, no to legislative solutions and no to education. What do you suggest? Edit: you disagree that men aren't entitled to women's sexuality? Edit: I mis-interpreted what was being disagree with.
    - kj99 3y ago
      Presumably enforcement of existing laws.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        Which laws do you mean and where do they apply? This article talks a bit about the lack of legal power to fight against deepfakes: https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-deepfake-porn-yet-refinery29/ https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-d...
        kj99 3y ago
        Good information. Then the solution would be to improve harassment legislation rather than limiting the availability of tools. Just as assault is illegal but we don’t require all hammers to be made out of foam.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        Indeed.
    - spangry 3y ago
      I suggest we clearly specify the class of problem we're trying to solve and come up with a principled solution that would make sense when applied consistently and universally to all problems in that class. I prefer this over coming up with knee-jerk moral panic patches (e.g. "censor generative models so they can't generate this particular thing I find distasteful") or with overly abstract and tangential problem-solutions (e.g. "just teach men not to be big jerks"). I think the central issue here is: what restrictions, if any, should be placed around creating and distributing a likeness of another person? Are we just looking to prohibit pornographic likenesses, or do you think the restrictions should be broader? What's the threshold rule you would apply? Should these rules be medium-specific, or should we also prohibit people from, say, painting a likeness of another person without their consent? I guess in a US context you'd also have to consider whether it's constitutional to restrict freedom of expression, even the distasteful ones, in this manner. Edit: Just saw your edit suggesting that I think "men are entitled to women's bodies" (whatever that means). I think I'll end my participation here, not interested in having a bad faith discussion.

postalrat 3y ago

The number of people who committed suicide after being harassed with memes or emoji must be higher than those harassed with deep fakes. Too bad nobody is interested enough in banning emoji to do a study.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Can you link to an article where emojis have been pivotal in an harassment case leading to suicide? They've been around for 30 years, deepfakes as they are today have been around for less than a year. I'm not sure absolute numbers are the best thing to look at either way.
- postalrat 3y ago
  The emoji and meme industry has been hiding these stats for years. Facebook, X, TikTok, Apple, etc have the data you want but they won't give it to you.
spangry 3y ago
Why stop there? I think we'd all agree that "mean words", either written or spoken, have immense power to "cause distress" and have driven many a person to suicide. We should ban those.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  We do. Incitement to violence or "true threats" for example already fall outside of 1st amendment protections. I personally see deepfakes created or disseminated for harassment purposes as an act of violence.
  - spangry 3y ago
    I'm neither referring to "true threats" nor making any kind of argument about the US constitution, so I'm unsure why you're bringing these up. I thought it would have been pretty clear that in the context of driving people to suicide, I was suggesting banning "insulting words". Hope that clarifies things for you.