The recent example of someone putting political commentary on display at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shows a bit of how this plays out

The recent example of someone putting political commentary on display at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shows a bit of how this plays out. (The fact that it was un-authorizedly pirated onto the displays at a federal building is a separate topic; I'm focusing here on the content). BlueSky took down all the videos of it playing around the office. Because it was AI generated. It wasn't clear whether it was (a video of) a real video or not. But if that video had been done by an artist? If it had been a comic? That would have been acceptable content to keep on the social network, most likely. There's a lot of cases where I do think computer generated imagery is personally harmful and dangerous and should have some checks. And I definitely fear it's use politically, if we see videos that credulously seem to be a politician doing something they wouldn't do, performing speech they didn't do. Yet, in this example, it feels like there was little risk that the video would be taken seriously. It felt like clear political satire. But this law proposes that we outlaw political satire, purely because computer generation tools helped make the satire. That seems... not good. This guy already claiming he's going to use it to take down videos of him feels like it will radically chill commentary & expression of thought that people have a right to make.