4 ms·

Reminder that deepfake porn is just free speech. Someone expressing things that most people have in their heads, like fantasizing about some celebrity, shouldn’

Reminder that deepfake porn is just free speech. Someone expressing things that most people have in their heads, like fantasizing about some celebrity, shouldn’t be illegal. Claiming it’s real should be illegal - but that’s already covered by defamation law.

threeseed 2y ago
As stated in the title this is about distributing content. You are free to produce this content in the comfort of your own home.
- moconnor 2y ago
  At what point does content distribution happen? If someone distributes a seed and prompt that reliably generate a deepfake of a celebrity using open source models and tools, is that covered? This is ultimately about compression, and the famous DeCSS t-shirt and illegal prime number[1]. Not taking a moral position here, but regulating distribution independently of creation for personal consumption seems difficult. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_primes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_prime...
TeMPOraL 2y ago
If so, then maybe it should be defended on accessibility grounds? After all, it could be presented as helping people with aphantasia approximate what people with working visualization ability can literally do in their head. "Undressing someone with your eyes" is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  > is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people. I take it you have aphantasia then? I wouldn't say it's "not a metaphor," as it's clearly not literal, but yes, most of the population can see at least faint images in their minds with some effort or when unfocused (daydreaming). The detail of the image and effort required to contruct and maintain it exists on a spectrum. But yes, people with visual imaginations have all "seen" images that have never been physically produced.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > I take it you have aphantasia then? Yes, I do. Which is why I am always fascinated by the many things I could never understand, or thought were metaphorical, that turn out to be literal for those who can visualize. Like, how my parents and teachers couldn't comprehend why I was bored out of my mind by books with lots of scenery descriptions (which I had to skip to stay with the book) - they said they were the beautiful, important, most enjoyable bits, that made the world vivid, etc. Turns out they are... if you have the ability to visualize stuff. Had I learned about aphantasia as a kid, instead of adult, it would've saved me a lot of heartache growing up.
shirro 2y ago
It might be free speech in the USA but Australia is a sovereign nation with its own legal system so nobody cares what people in the US think.
- ChoHag 2y ago
  [dead]
- potatoicecoffee 2y ago
  no yanks in the thread
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  We are not debating sovereignty. We are debating the absurdity of Australian law, which is increasingly authoritarian, and has no principled protection of free speech.
  - shirro 2y ago
    US ideals of free speech are not required for a functional democracy and misunderstandings about the universality of US laws leads to misunderstandings online and does need to be corrected unfortunately. IMO Australia desperately needs better protections of political speech but that has been debated for years and some people have the view that political speech is best protected at the ballot box. Only a small minority of Australians would believe freedom of political speech should be extended to protect sexual abusers. Australia is not close to being authoritarian. It is a liberal democracy with very fair elections. There is an unhealthy media concentration and our lopsided economy creates an environment where certain industries have too much political influence but that isn't unusual amongst our peers either and something we need to work on.
kristiandupont 2y ago
>Reminder that deepfake porn is just free speech. That "reminder" is incorrect
- polski-g 2y ago
  In America, it is. See Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (2002).
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It is literally speech. If pixels are generated, it’s art. If it is falsely claimed to be real, then it is defamation, which is already illegal.
zo1 2y ago
My tinfoil hat theory is that: A big chunk of the real reason these laws are being enacted is to protect the porn and OF model (and not to protect real victims of sexual violence, that's secondary in their minds). With AGI, automation, etc, a lot of people's "value" is in simply being attractive / unique and one-of-a-kind. So these laws are being put out to protect that value from being destroyed and commoditized. I think "TPTB" see that what little human value is going to be left soon is in people (mainly women) selling their own bodies and their goal is in protecting feminist "empowerment" ideologies from being shattered (like men's labor was). I.e. what's the point of OF models or porn actors if any "stunt double" or AI can do the deed, and you realistically put someone else's face on, or any face to your choosing/liking. Industry disrupted, value ruined, and yet again automation and AI taking over more of humanity's value.
smcin 2y ago
Australian law and courts have sovereignty in Australia, not US law. Second, what you wrote is out-of-date even if talking just about the (20) US states which do have deepfake laws, Politico article [0] discusses that there is very fragmented [US] state-level legislative and police response to US cases ("who gets [/doesn't get] disciplined, how minors are treated and who is responsible for taking images to the police — varies widely depending on the state.") Third, it's quite likely that more US states (plus say NZ, Canada, EU countries et al.) will rush to legislate explicitly against deepfakes, cyberbullying, and possibly doxxing, given how fast technology is advancing. Fourth, the tech industry, social-media companies, telecomm companies et al. will presumably try to come up with some common harmonized guidelines, because they operate in multiple countries. (But that gets us back to the ongoing CSAM - online privacy debate). Australian legislators will take a different approach to US ones on govt powers to scan people's images and messages, esp. without a warrant. [0]: Politico: "AI is shockingly good at making fake nudes — and causing havoc in schools" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-schools-states-00160183 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-s...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Those state level laws wouldn’t hold up to a challenge. They nevertheless have a chilling effect on speech and set dangerous precedents. > Third, it's quite likely that more US states (plus say NZ, Canada, EU countries et al.) will rush to legislate explicitly against deepfakes, cyberbullying, and possibly doxxing, given how fast technology is advancing. This is just not going to happen without constitutional amendments, at least not in a way that sticks.
  - smcin 2y ago
    I made multiple predictions about multiple countries plus some US states. > "...at least not in a way that sticks." The situation is changing very fast, faster than legislators can move. Even a bad law can give victims some power of legal discovery to prevent deepfake porn of them being made or published to public forums with the intent of harassing them. Equally they can also have a a chilling effect on (non-deepfake-porn) speech and set dangerous precedents. I'd expect NZ, Canada and western EU countries will (or already are) rush out some legislation. In the US it will depend on the individual state; 20 already have some legislation, but per the article their laws vary hugely. The Canadian federal Privacy Commissioner is scrutinizing Pornhub (Aylo Holdings) for previously allowing material without adequately verifying consent. All this area will surely be an active matter in policy-making, legislation and courts, ongoing: non-consensual deepfake porn and related issues (online identity rights, e.g. the Scarlett Johansson soundalike controversy), and the counterbalance on privacy and government intrusion. A standard might emerge for digitally signing explicit photos/videos by multiple parties, allowing people to add or remove consent.

threeseed 2y ago

As stated in the title this is about distributing content. You are free to produce this content in the comfort of your own home.

moconnor 2y ago
At what point does content distribution happen? If someone distributes a seed and prompt that reliably generate a deepfake of a celebrity using open source models and tools, is that covered? This is ultimately about compression, and the famous DeCSS t-shirt and illegal prime number[1]. Not taking a moral position here, but regulating distribution independently of creation for personal consumption seems difficult. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_primes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_prime...

TeMPOraL 2y ago

If so, then maybe it should be defended on accessibility grounds? After all, it could be presented as helping people with aphantasia approximate what people with working visualization ability can literally do in their head. "Undressing someone with your eyes" is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people.

idle_zealot 2y ago
> is, apparently, not a metaphor for some (most?) people. I take it you have aphantasia then? I wouldn't say it's "not a metaphor," as it's clearly not literal, but yes, most of the population can see at least faint images in their minds with some effort or when unfocused (daydreaming). The detail of the image and effort required to contruct and maintain it exists on a spectrum. But yes, people with visual imaginations have all "seen" images that have never been physically produced.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > I take it you have aphantasia then? Yes, I do. Which is why I am always fascinated by the many things I could never understand, or thought were metaphorical, that turn out to be literal for those who can visualize. Like, how my parents and teachers couldn't comprehend why I was bored out of my mind by books with lots of scenery descriptions (which I had to skip to stay with the book) - they said they were the beautiful, important, most enjoyable bits, that made the world vivid, etc. Turns out they are... if you have the ability to visualize stuff. Had I learned about aphantasia as a kid, instead of adult, it would've saved me a lot of heartache growing up.

shirro 2y ago

It might be free speech in the USA but Australia is a sovereign nation with its own legal system so nobody cares what people in the US think.

ChoHag 2y ago
[dead]
potatoicecoffee 2y ago
no yanks in the thread
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
We are not debating sovereignty. We are debating the absurdity of Australian law, which is increasingly authoritarian, and has no principled protection of free speech.
- shirro 2y ago
  US ideals of free speech are not required for a functional democracy and misunderstandings about the universality of US laws leads to misunderstandings online and does need to be corrected unfortunately. IMO Australia desperately needs better protections of political speech but that has been debated for years and some people have the view that political speech is best protected at the ballot box. Only a small minority of Australians would believe freedom of political speech should be extended to protect sexual abusers. Australia is not close to being authoritarian. It is a liberal democracy with very fair elections. There is an unhealthy media concentration and our lopsided economy creates an environment where certain industries have too much political influence but that isn't unusual amongst our peers either and something we need to work on.

kristiandupont 2y ago

>Reminder that deepfake porn is just free speech. That "reminder" is incorrect

polski-g 2y ago
In America, it is. See Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (2002).
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It is literally speech. If pixels are generated, it’s art. If it is falsely claimed to be real, then it is defamation, which is already illegal.

zo1 2y ago

My tinfoil hat theory is that: A big chunk of the real reason these laws are being enacted is to protect the porn and OF model (and not to protect real victims of sexual violence, that's secondary in their minds). With AGI, automation, etc, a lot of people's "value" is in simply being attractive / unique and one-of-a-kind. So these laws are being put out to protect that value from being destroyed and commoditized. I think "TPTB" see that what little human value is going to be left soon is in people (mainly women) selling their own bodies and their goal is in protecting feminist "empowerment" ideologies from being shattered (like men's labor was). I.e. what's the point of OF models or porn actors if any "stunt double" or AI can do the deed, and you realistically put someone else's face on, or any face to your choosing/liking. Industry disrupted, value ruined, and yet again automation and AI taking over more of humanity's value.

smcin 2y ago

Australian law and courts have sovereignty in Australia, not US law. Second, what you wrote is out-of-date even if talking just about the (20) US states which do have deepfake laws, Politico article [0] discusses that there is very fragmented [US] state-level legislative and police response to US cases ("who gets [/doesn't get] disciplined, how minors are treated and who is responsible for taking images to the police — varies widely depending on the state.") Third, it's quite likely that more US states (plus say NZ, Canada, EU countries et al.) will rush to legislate explicitly against deepfakes, cyberbullying, and possibly doxxing, given how fast technology is advancing. Fourth, the tech industry, social-media companies, telecomm companies et al. will presumably try to come up with some common harmonized guidelines, because they operate in multiple countries. (But that gets us back to the ongoing CSAM - online privacy debate). Australian legislators will take a different approach to US ones on govt powers to scan people's images and messages, esp. without a warrant. [0]: Politico: "AI is shockingly good at making fake nudes — and causing havoc in schools" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-schools-states-00160183 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-s...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Those state level laws wouldn’t hold up to a challenge. They nevertheless have a chilling effect on speech and set dangerous precedents. > Third, it's quite likely that more US states (plus say NZ, Canada, EU countries et al.) will rush to legislate explicitly against deepfakes, cyberbullying, and possibly doxxing, given how fast technology is advancing. This is just not going to happen without constitutional amendments, at least not in a way that sticks.
- smcin 2y ago
  I made multiple predictions about multiple countries plus some US states. > "...at least not in a way that sticks." The situation is changing very fast, faster than legislators can move. Even a bad law can give victims some power of legal discovery to prevent deepfake porn of them being made or published to public forums with the intent of harassing them. Equally they can also have a a chilling effect on (non-deepfake-porn) speech and set dangerous precedents. I'd expect NZ, Canada and western EU countries will (or already are) rush out some legislation. In the US it will depend on the individual state; 20 already have some legislation, but per the article their laws vary hugely. The Canadian federal Privacy Commissioner is scrutinizing Pornhub (Aylo Holdings) for previously allowing material without adequately verifying consent. All this area will surely be an active matter in policy-making, legislation and courts, ongoing: non-consensual deepfake porn and related issues (online identity rights, e.g. the Scarlett Johansson soundalike controversy), and the counterbalance on privacy and government intrusion. A standard might emerge for digitally signing explicit photos/videos by multiple parties, allowing people to add or remove consent.