4 ms·

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 ag

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.

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.