4 ms·
YouTube lets you request removal of AI content that simulates your face or voice
- ok123456 2y ago[flagged]
- kevingadd 2y agoIf putting videos or audio recordings of yourself online exposes you to impersonation that can destroy your livelihood, how does that not chill your freedom of speech?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sodality2 2y agoWell, let’s be clear - that does not make you unable to speak. Telling the world truth or even lies for that matter about someone’s life has nothing to do with their ability to speak freely. If everyone in the world then stops wanting to hire them, that’s still not a violation of free speech - even if done falsely. Only in some narrow interpretations is it even illegal (and very hard to prove).
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoIt very well can degrade your ability to meaningfully speak
- sodality2 2y agoExplain how, without defining “meaningfully” as “on a platform i think i deserve to be on, that isn’t owned by me”.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> Only in some narrow interpretations is it even illegal (and very hard to prove). If you made everyone in the world not want to hire someone via impersonation, then that's very blatantly libel. How would it be hard to prove?
- sodality2 2y agoLibel is generally notoriously difficult to prove. You need to prove they acted with negligence, caused a direct harm, and intended to cause a direct harm. Posting a video online and having some random person watch it and decide to fire someone is tangibly different than sending that video directly to their employer. That broken link could easily be the difference that gets the civil case lost. In practice, libel cases are hard. It might be easier if it’s a deepfake, but it’s still not easy.
- Dylan16807 2y agoWhy did we go from everyone in the world not wanting to hire them, to a single person not wanting to hire them?
- sodality2 2y agoTo fulfill the requirements for civil libel claims you need to point to a specific harm. I suspect it would be difficult to prove no one wants to hire you and that they all decided that on the basis of said libel
- Dylan16807 2y agoWhy would you need to prove "all"? If it's anywhere near that widespread it should be easy to demonstrate a ton of people not hiring based on false evidence. And it's hard to argue it wasn't malicious or negligent if it's that widespread.
- sodality2 2y ago
- threeseed 2y agoImpersonation for monetary gain e.g. ad revenue is a crime in most countries. Youtube is well within their right to block this type of content.
- chii 2y ago> abuse perfectly legal free speech. people dont remember that the free speech clause only applies to the gov't, not to private entities. You dont get to claim free speech in a Wendy's.
- willcipriano 2y ago> Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House —not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.... https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/HHRG-118-IF16-20230328-SD017.pdf https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/...
- ok123456 2y agoExactly. There's open collusion between the DHS, other government organs, and these major platforms. The veil has been pierced. There is no difference between either YouTube or the US government directly censoring you.
- ok123456 2y agoWe have enough problems with gratuitous DMCA notices, and there are enough bad-faith actors willing to abuse this reporting system. Whether or not the actual content is AI-generated and defamatory is secondary.
- sandworm101 2y agoEvery person in the world has a doppelganger out there somewhere. Now we can all meet them through the magic of takedown requests.
- ronsor 2y agoThis is actually a genius move by Google/YouTube. Video hosting is expensive, so YouTube is transitioning to a new model where the primary form of engagement is sending each other takedown requests and watching fake SpaceX scam streams.
- worstspotgain 2y agoThis risks eventually degenerating into a mostly-indiscriminate process like DMCA takedowns, since it's costly to verify likeness, intent, and all that. They'll probably ironically end up using AI for verification, which could be defeated with enough skill or organization.
- bankcust08385 2y agoIt will definitely be abused by the AI generated-likeness of a target to takedown the target's original content probably for the purposes of an extortion racket or silencing political speech. Large media companies like Telemundo were targeting random Youtubers and falsely claiming copyright against original content even 10 years ago.
- telgareith 2y agoIts even more blatant- by current loose definitions of AI (which place the original Palm Pilot's Graffiti text input as the first AI product to reach market)... virtually any manipulation of a voice can be argued as counting.
- methuselah_in 2y agoBut they are giving you a option atleast.
- j16sdiz 2y agoThis is heading nowhere. Online identity verification is NOT a solved problem. We will see fake take down request in no time.
- j45 2y agoSome sites register their URLs with DMCA directly to help protect them. Not sure if this is useful but maybe others do
- ronsor 2y agoYou can't "register URLs with DMCA" (a US federal law). Whatever service the sites registered with would be third-party and unofficial.
- compootr 2y agoDo they mean "registered" as in they've appointed a DMCA agent?
- j45 2y agoI thought this was common knowledge. There’s a company called DMCA which provides a site badge service. Tied to a url. We know a law can’t be a company, someone or something has to help with it. "IF YOUR CONTENT IS STOLEN WHILE PROTECTED WITH OUR BADGES, WE WILL DO A TAKEDOWN FOR NO CHARGE*" https://www.dmca.com/ https://www.dmca.com/ It’s easy to ask what someone means instead of dismissing them.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago> We will see fake take down request in no time. Right. From the start, it was clear to anyone with foresight that this technology would result in both the spread of bullshit and the casting of doubt on legitimate content as well.
- threeseed 2y agoIt's mostly solved. Most sites e.g. Meta, Twitter will simply ask you to provide government issued identification to prove your online identity. Usually uploaded with a recent selfie so they can match it.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y agoUnfortunately this will simply be abused to take down videos that aren't AI generated, but which individuals consider disfavourable to their reputation. YouTube has made it clear they're not interested in providing a way to mediate conflicting claims in a non-Kafkaesque manner with the way they handle copyright claims. I understand YouTube is in a very difficult position with that system, so I'm not even expressing anger, but I'm not hopeful that they're going to actually wade into mediating these kinds of claims sensibly either. You need to build institutional skills and processes and a culture of commitment to doing the hard yards on resolving these kinds of difficult issues, and YouTube has stayed away from doing that this long...
- bushbaba 2y agoShould be a by default opt out. Why do I even need to request this.
- torlok 2y agoHow would that work? Give Google reference pictures so that they can train a model on it?
- bushbaba 2y agoGoogle requests consent forms for all identified humans in the video upload else their faces are auto blurred.
- torlok 2y agoSo the video creator has to obtain consent forms from all the people in their video? How is Google going to verify consent forms from poeple who's face isn't in their database? What about voice? This line of reasoning is turning distopian quite fast.
- wruza 2y agoWe know it’s gonna be abused by identity trolls, political movements, business competitors, big and small. Good. And good timing. People learned through years that ads are about sales, not products, and they are annoying. Now they will learn that speech is about what you ought to think, not what is true, and it’s full of bs. As my local ethnicity says: “kup suz buk suz” - many word crap word”. Sudden wisdom from a smaller culture. AI will finally expose our built-in vulnerability and make it explicit. It was so default for millenia that you probably don’t even think about it, but now think about it: listening to voices long enough makes one coherent with what they say. Imagine your door lock giving up if someone pulls at the handle long enough. Or your dog growling at you after listening to a series of podcasts. Or you changing your views because Celeb Smart said something fifty hundred times. It’s been working all this time in favor of non-closing mouths, all they needed was your attention and enough time. This had a cool (probably decisive) effect in primitive groups, because easy synchronization. But we are clearly, fundamentally dysfunctional in the internet era.
- andrewstuart 2y agoAnd political satire? Is political satire allowed?
- hnburnsy 2y agoWhy can't I just monetize and steal all the ad revenue if they use my face or voice, just like copyright holders can?
- latexr 2y agoWould you want to? If there was a deepfake of you saying gnarly stuff, being racist and selling dubious vitamins, would you say “that’s OK, trash my reputation, just give me some money”?
- telgareith 2y agoYou're joking right? Most of us don't HAVE reputations to trash, reputation or a meal?
- latexr 2y agoIf you don’t have a reputation, why would there be AI generated content exploiting your likeness?
- ProllyInfamous 2y agoI've begun hearing Joe Rogan's likeness in TEMU-like YT advertising... how to monetize then? It's obviously not products endorsed by the real Joe.
- bitnasty 2y agoLike the current system, this one is not going to help the average user at all. This is for people (or other entities) with money and power.
- rchaud 2y agoprecisely, it's ContentID by another name. Designed to keep studios, record labels and agents off their back.