3 ms·

Well, 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

Well, 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 ago
It very well can degrade your ability to meaningfully speak
- sodality2 2y ago
  Explain 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 ago
  Libel 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 ago
    Why did we go from everyone in the world not wanting to hire them, to a single person not wanting to hire them?
    - sodality2 2y ago
      To 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 ago
        Why 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
        Tracking down >1 people who all rejected you and proving they all rejected you because of a video is strictly more difficult than tracking down 1. In addition, a video being popular doesn’t have anything to do with the intent of the person who posted it. I’m not an expert though. I only mean to say it would be difficult to prove, just like all libel cases are. I don’t think there’s anything inherent to a deepfake case that would make it an easy slam dunk for civil libel. I could be wrong though
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Tracking down >1 people who all rejected you and proving they all rejected you because of a video is strictly more difficult than tracking down 1. If it affected millions of people or more then it's really easy to find examples. > In addition, a video being popular doesn’t have anything to do with the intent of the person who posted it. The impersonation already says a lot.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

It very well can degrade your ability to meaningfully speak

sodality2 2y ago
Explain 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 ago
Libel 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 ago
  Why did we go from everyone in the world not wanting to hire them, to a single person not wanting to hire them?
  - sodality2 2y ago
    To 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 ago
      Why 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
        Tracking down >1 people who all rejected you and proving they all rejected you because of a video is strictly more difficult than tracking down 1. In addition, a video being popular doesn’t have anything to do with the intent of the person who posted it. I’m not an expert though. I only mean to say it would be difficult to prove, just like all libel cases are. I don’t think there’s anything inherent to a deepfake case that would make it an easy slam dunk for civil libel. I could be wrong though
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Tracking down >1 people who all rejected you and proving they all rejected you because of a video is strictly more difficult than tracking down 1. If it affected millions of people or more then it's really easy to find examples. > In addition, a video being popular doesn’t have anything to do with the intent of the person who posted it. The impersonation already says a lot.