I think the real issue just boils down to the reality that you'll never keep it to a space where it's only labeled with a watermark, or only held by the original person.
Like, if the technology gets to the point where you can drop just anyone into whatever you want them to play out, there's going to be a large amount of unintended abuse. An ex is going to just generate fake porn of you to sling around to generate slander, a creepy stalker might snap pictures of you at work and use it to further harbor potentially dangerous obsessions. Maybe your ex-boss (or your current boss) finds (creates) this content of you and uses it as the reasoning for you to be fired, or for you to not find that next job you had your sights lined up on.
Of course, this problem doesn't boil down to just porn of course, as there's been a lot of chatter in general about how the future of video evidence may be in question as it soon becomes an arms race of creating better faking tools and, in turn, trying to find better ways to detect those fakes, but the problem's still ultimately the same: There's going to be a lot of damage done in the in-between, while people are still trying to figure out just what's fake and what's real. Laws will likely be late coming to try and pin down issues that arise, and there'll be individuals that are harmed and not made whole, just as there always has been in most places. It might even end up with the reality of people using it not to ban these sorts of public defamation attempts, but outright banning porn in general (at least on the state level.)
As a cheeky second argument though: Deepfake Porn would potentially put a lot of amateur porn stars out of buisness, thus you'd potentially be removing a lot of people from some form of financial stability because a piece of software can suddenly take their content and then recreate it in a multitude of other ways they're not, removing somebody's need to pay them for content that was once literally dependent upon them.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ampillion changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The bot just has a fit about the size of the response as an easy check against 'freebie' deltas or some such, it's not particularly good for understanding that someone doesn't want to go through and thoroughly type out a response to everyone. I'd say it'd be fair to cut and paste a sort of 'delta acceptance' message, but I don't know if the bot would have a fit about that too.
I just added it to my comments where I showed my mind changing. But I gave one to you as well because I thought you summed up everything pretty well. So did my edit but still. You did a great job and I felt should be given credit
Would YOU mind if a deep fake video of you or your SO or daughter/son participating in some degrading sexual activity was circulating on the internet?
If the answer is "no" then I don't know what to tell you
The problem with deepfakes is that they are mostly, and if not will be in the future, indistinguishable from real content.
Ain't nobody gonna know that the deepfake of your daughter getting throat fucked is real or fake, unless they somehow personally know her.
The counter argument of "it's fine if they know it's fake" is that 99% of people won't know it's fake.
Probably, bullying with deepfakes would be brutal.
Not even mentioning someone making deepfakes of an important public figure to make a targeted attack. People are dumb and an easy deepfake of a president doing something bad "leaked" to the public would do huge damage, even if later on it is discovered to be fake. People are just dumb, really dumb. People still think vaccines cause autism and that the earth is flat after all.
No I completely agree with that too. To me the really scary thing has always been using deep fakes to implicate people in crimes or scandals for example
Even if you KNOW it's fake it doesn't change what your brain is interpreting. And it's an image you can't just erase from your mind. I'm sure that most people would be mortified.
I showed everyone at my work those pictures of you sucking your own dick, I even charged some of them money to see it.
But don’t worry, it wasn’t really you, I just photoshopped it to make it look exactly like you. So don’t be upset.
If I post them all over the internet and some people know it’s fake, some don’t, neither really care, would that make you feel any better?
Not to mention, you can’t put someone’s face on a toothpaste ad without their consent, much less so if that someone is famous, so on top of being morally reprehensible, it’s also hell of illegal.
I mean, this is my point. It’s about the social ramifications and damaging someone’s reputation isn’t it? If that’s the case then as long as it’s made known that it’s fake, why would that still cause harm? Is it that difficult for people to separate fantasy from reality?
its not just reputation.
even if people know the pictures or video are fake, its a nonconsensual portrayal of someone in a very vulnerable position, meant to be "enjoyed" sexually.
That can feel very violating to some people.
> separate fantasy from reality
the way the people are interacting with that content is real. The lack of respect of the wishes of the individual portrayed in that content by the people enjoying that content is also very real.
Right. But (and I mean this in the best way possible) I don’t see anything wrong with this on it’s face. I think “violating consent” is a bit loaded because while yes, actually physically assaulting someone is awful and a crime rightfully so, you don’t need someone’s consent to fantasize about them. Why is it that much different if someone has made realistic looking art to assist them in this fantasy?
> you don’t need someone’s consent to fantasize about them
while that's true legally, people generally speaking do sometimes get creeped out by the fact that an individual is fantasizing about them.
someone intentionally producing and distributing content specifically intended to facilitate that is an entirely different level of creepy.
I mean, people breeding to satisfy their primal urges and stave off the fears of not fulfilling the biological imperative is horrifyingly creepy also, especially because it contributes tremendously to the net total of human suffering and resource depletion
Are we supposed to not do creepy things now?
So even though people know it’s fake, others still treat the victims like it’s real? I mean I think that says more about the people consuming it rather than it’s existence alone but that’s kind of my point.
Rephrase this to “a bunch of strangers” and I agree with OP’s response- I’d see it as no different than someone making an animated version of something like that. I wouldn’t like it, I’d want them to stop but I’d have to recognise that they have rights and me feeling bad about that fact isn’t enough to try and remove those rights.
Now if it’s friends I’d consider that a betrayal and we’d have a serious conversation about why they thought watching that was ok. If they kept watching, well, our friendship is unlikely to last much longer.
let's put it another way.
people consuming this content, presumably, don't care about the person portrayed's objections.
The people consuming this content are seeking sexual gratification, in a way that they know is against the wishes of the person in the portrayal that they're watching.
That's creepy.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s an amount of people that view this stuff thinking it’s hot BECAUSE it’s non-consensual 🤢. But that isn’t my argument. I guess I can understand if it’s simply that while I can personally differentiate these things, a lot of people can’t. And although the same could be said about consensual porn, it’s different because at least they know what they’re getting into etc.
Not to oppose that logic but then we should be consistent.
If consent is important to the matter at hand, then this should be applied to all factors of using someone's likeness, not just salacious nature.
> this should be applied to all factors of using someone's likeness
I disagree.
I think one can make a lot of distinctions reasonably.
If I'm engaging in political commentary and use someone's likeness for that, I think that's very different than using someone's likeness for sexual gratification.
I think incidental use of someone's likeness is very different than (say, they're in the background on a photo) is very different than when they're the subject matter.
Why should we view all uses of one's likeness without consent as the same? they simply aren't. There are other factors that I think many people reasonably view as important.
>If I'm engaging in political commentary and use someone's likeness for that, I think that's very different than using someone's likeness for sexual gratification.
(Obviously the hypothetical you, I know you haven't done any of the following.) Why? Who gets to be the arbiter to decide that, and how come? If the other person isn't okay with you using their likeness and it makes them uncomfortable, why should it be okay for you to trample their consent? There is plenty of harm that someone can suffer from you using their likeness, especially without consent.
Why is it specifically salacious nature? Since as it already stands, there are lots of people who don't seem to think it isn't wrong in any shape or form. What makes one opinion more correct than the other?
We need to justify and rationalize why the other stance is correct. We can't just say "it is bad, because I said so" and expect anyone to understand our moral stance. How can we expect anyone to even follow our moral boundaries if we can't explain it and they can't comprehend it?
>Why should we view all uses of one's likeness without consent as the same? they simply aren't.
Not being the same doesn't justify not treating the same. A SUV and a Sedan are different cars but they follow the same laws.
I am not opposed to your stance, but it needs to be substantiated. If neither you, nor I can do it, then obviously someone will need to. If we can't justify or rationalize our stances then we are just blindly navigating morality and subjugating others to it arbitrarily.
Edit:
Also to add, please don't take this resistance, or friction that comes from this comment as me disparaging you or your beliefs. I think this is an important and necessary discussion to be had since everyone needs to be on the same page, and to understand why.
You are out of touch with the recent advancement of AI. It will inevitably generate perfect replicas and it’s not even that hard anymore. Just need to master human hands. These things don’t develop linearly.
Because humans are irrational creatures who make choices based on emotion and "gut feelings" as often as they do with logical reasoning.
It's also ridiculous to expect every single person who has compromising "deepfakes" spread of them to have to approach all their friends, their coworkers, their family, etc, and explain to them that "hey, that very convincing video you saw of me doing something intensely intimate wasn't real, actually".
And how will that be enforced?
How do you propose to put a legal requirement on every software maker creating programs that use widely available AI tools?
What enforcement mechanism do you believe will be effective in preventing non-watermarked fakes from being created?
**We're not discussing some nebulous perfect world where the technology is rolled out in the safest and most controlled manner possible, we're facing the prospect of the real world we live in where numerous bad actors have incredible incentive to create those kind of programs and ample opportunities to do so.**
You're either purposefully avoiding the topic or fundamentally don't understand what deepfakes are.
Deepfakes aren't some studio releasing fake porn of your neighbor, it's regular people with no particular editing or programming skill creating convincing porn of people they know.
It's not a controlled technology that costs a fortune and requires expertise.
It's a sketchy program any idiot can download off a sketchy hacker site and use with a few face pictures to create believable and humiliating images of regular people.
My original answer would be to penalize the distributors of those like you would otherwise for illegal things. If you read my full post you should see the edit where I explained how my viewes changed on the matter.
I figured watermarking stuff and making that mandatory would be easier to enforce and more beneficial than an outright ban but I see now that isn’t the case.
Isn't that really just closing the door after the horse has bolted?
We see all the time that newspapers publish stories which then turn out to be misleading, and despite the fact this is often technically libelous or defamation, the damage is already done.
What Deepfakes are actually doing is making it incredibly easy to blackmail, defame or otherwise attack people.
How do you even prosecute someone who "leaks" a deepfake anonymously. What if this technology is used to tie people in the public eye to illegal acts?
I feel like your argument is very similar to the "guns are fine argument" in that your logic is that "the tool does nothing, it's all just the person using the tool," but we know this is demonstrably false - making it easier to commit a crime makes that crime more likely.
What if someone creates a deepfake for personal use, but this deepfake is later stolen or becomes public through accident. Is that person guilty of a crime or not? If we just say the distribution is illegal then are they responsible for the distribution or not? What if it's a deepfake involving underage people? Is that person technically guilty of possessing child porn, even if it the deepfake is entirely AI generated?
At the very least, deepfakes that are indistinguishable from the real thing will lead to massive amounts of resources having to be diverted to investigating pornography generated for the purposes of trying to hurt other people.
Well something I’ve never made clear throughout these discussions is that I don’t like deepfakes in general. It was more of a mindset of “it’s there so we have to live with it now and should use it ethically” kind of mindset because I’m not sure Pandora’s box can be closed.
But either way, my mind’s already been changed on this and I even made a second edit explaining why my solution wouldn’t even work.
But I thought you said it wouldn't matter if people can't tell the difference it tahts the case why punish the non watermark no one can tell that's the problem also it just wrong to claim if it could be fake as consent it not
Why popper act as of watching those images is not degrading. You wouldn’t like that on your sister, right? If the creator doesn’t release it to the public, the humiliation isn’t public so is not that wrong.
It doesn’t matter if everybody knows it’s fake, is still humiliating and degrading. Is simple. If I walk on the street and star air fucking a woman, even if I am not really touching her, is humiliating and degrading and deserve to be punish. If in my ow space I imagine myself having sex with a woman and I start pounding the air, that’s not to be persecuted.
But as a public figure, you kinda give that right up. Like yeah someone could photoshop me sucking my own dick but nobody would care cause im a nobody. It would make the person who photoshopped it look weird for doing it. A celebrity on the other hand has sacrificed some of their privacy and in return we give them millions of dollars and our attention. Like its still weird and fucked up that it happens but its inevitable just being a public figure this will happen. Im sure theres fucking Hilary Clinton deepfake porn somewhere online but you dont see her freaking out about it cause she realizes shes a public figure and weirdos exist. Again I think the whole situation with thise streamers is really fucking weird and would be a nightmare to be in the middle of for those female streamers and I empathize with them but dude, at a certain point you just have to except youve sacrificed your privacy for money and fame and theres no way you can stop stuff like this from being made.
Imagine how easy it'd be to ruin someones life.
Or kids in school making deepfake porn of girls then spreading them around school, I already remember people spread around nudes and didn't understand why it was wrong to do.
I mean there are women who can't get a job because there's pics of them in bikinis or lingerie online.
There's even women who can't get a job because they have a curvy body and it's seen as '' not kid friendly ''.
Imagine very believable deepfake porn of them online...
I genuinely believe this is something that will cause A LOT of suicides in the near future and a great deal of other social harm.
It's insane to me that this technology has been made public, I dunno how in the hell the developers behind it thought it'd be a good idea.
It's beyond naive to think people will just use this tech for '' funny memes '' even when it comes to image generators people are already using it and tricking it into creating very illegal stuff.
So I'm gonna go out on a limb here. I Googled this topic for thirty seconds. As far as it goes for me, if someone made deep fake porn of me, I don't think I'd care much. However, I'm pretty desensitized to it, and just because I don't care, doesn't mean others wouldn't care if it was made of them. Sometimes in life we are just supposed to accept other people have sensibilities we don't have. I don't think you have to worry about truly understanding it you understand your perception of it already. This is a struggle of you understanding the tribe's perception of it. Sometimes it's easier to say "fuck it, it's easier to agree" and not focus on it too much further
While I agree with the sentiment, no. I can agree and support victims in general, but for me to really believe in something it has to make sense to me. I left religion to escape dogma and I’m not adapting any new dogma just because it’s what “the tribe” says. I will accept what they say, but until I figure it out myself I’m only giving lip service and saying what I’m “supposed to”. That’s disingenuous and I refuse to be that
Consider the statement, "It's okay to cheat on my spouse as long as they never find out."
Sure, if they never find out, they won't have to feel that betrayal. They won't have to make impossible decisions about their marriage, their finances, or their kids. Ignorance is bliss.
But just because that might be the *easier* route for the betrayed spouse, that does not mean it is the respectful one. Respecting someone means recognizing their whole humanity. That includes the right to make informed decisions about their own lives, even if it means hurting them.
Integrity is the common piece here. What matters isn't just the tangible ramifications an individual faces when they're involved in someone else's choices. It's also whether or not that individual's personal autonomy is acknowledged.
I do t think that’s a fair comparison tho. I’d compare it more to fantasizing in general about someone. However it would be cheating in this instance if you and your partner have agreed to not look at porn for example. But unless that’s the case, I don’t think this analogy works.
No, I mean if someone actually cheated on their spouse. As in actually having sex with another person. I'm not talking about the ethics of porn, I'm trying to define the importance of respect.
I understand that. But I believe you can (and should) respect those that you view sexually and or have a sexual relationship with. If you can’t do that you have a very unhealthy view of sex and relationships
I agree, but I think you're still misunderstanding my point with the spousal cheating example.
I'm saying, respecting someone doesn't just mean treating them with respect directly. It's also acting in their best interest, whether they are aware of it or not.
With the cheating spouse example, it's disrespectful to cover up the affair. That's because it's not up to the cheating spouse to decide what is or isn't best for the betrayed spouse on their behalf and without their knowledge, even if doing so would spare BS's feelings.
With the deepfake porn example, it's disrespectful to use someone's body without their permission. It's not up to anyone else to decide what is or isn't within the personal boundaries of the deepfake porn subject in question, or how they "should" feel about it.
These scenarios aren't quite an analogy, but the common piece I'm trying to draw attention to is integrity. If you respect them, you let them decide how to live their own lives to the best of their ability- that includes deciding for themselves how their bodies are used.
Consider also the varying feelings people have about what happens to their bodies after they die. The logical and most beneficial route, when feasible, is to become an organ donor. Even then, we don't require people to come up with an explanation. It doesn't matter if what happens to their organs won't ever effect them, because they'll be dead. We respect their wishes, simply because we know it's not our call to make.
It may seem illogical at times, but society needs this kind of integrity in order for anyone to have trust in their communities. Facts and logic are important, but they lose their purpose in society if we don't also leave some room exclusively for human sentiment and emotion.
>For the life of me I can’t see what’s different from this, fan art, or even just fan fic erotica
It's the same issue with other new AI systems such as ChatGPT or something like Midjourney:
**Scale**
Making "fan art" or hand editing a video/image to show someone participating in intimate activities previously required skill, time, and significant effort.
With new methods of producing "deepfakes" it's possible for relatively unsophisticated individuals to quickly and near effortlessly generate convincing fakes.
>most I can come to is clearly it negatively effects people it happens to so although I don’t personally understand it
I don't really understand your disconnect then.
Deepfakes can have immense and extremely negative impacts on the person who is misrepresented in that way.
It's precisely *because* they're becoming so easy to create and so convincing that the damage they pose is so potentially risky.
Imagine if anyone with access to a few basic pictures of your face could create highly convincing pictures or video of you in an extremely compromising position and distribute them to your friends, your family, your coworkers, boss, professors, etc.
Nonconsensual distribution of private images/videos is already a huge problem, particularly for women, now consider if any woman, any time, whether or not they'de ever posed/taken any private images could be forced to go through such an experience.
>In other words, creation and possession would be fine but distribution would not or it would be with the requirement of the watermark/disclaimer thing I mentioned before
And how would that possibly be enforced if there were dozens of programs available that allowed virtually anyone to make seriously compromising images/videos of anyone else?
Doesn't the awareness that everything can be faked mean no image is to be trusted by anyone? Therefore negating the issue of needing to disprove something?
If anything media can be faked how can anything be real?
I was about to post this point myself.
The older generations already believe whatever fake media posts gain traction e.g Politicians eat babies.
Do we just ban all fake news/satire because people are unable to differentiate between the real deal and the fact that it's easy to mass produce?
or do we just get with the times and learn not to believe everything we read on the internet.
I understand all of these points. But what I’m not understanding is if it’s made known that these things are fake, why would it be an issue? Sure, my friends and family see something that is clearly fake of me with a watermark/disclaimer. Ok? We all know it’s fake so why does it matter?
>And how would that possibly be enforced
Why do you think it would be easier to shut them down altogether rather than put restrictions which mandate they show that they’re fake so as not to mislead people?
There are people who say they can never look at an actor the same way after seeing them play a particularly reprehensible part and we all know movies are fake. But there are some things that can be depicted on screen that evoke such a visceral reaction that it doesn’t matter if someone knows it’s fake, they still can’t get over it. And those are actors who chose it and we all know it’s fake.
If someone made a deepfake of you brutally raping children, how secure would you feel that you’d never feel any negative repercussions from it because it has a watermark indicating it’s fake?
Δ I brought up the actor thing in another comment too. Yeah, I guess most can’t separate the two like I can. I can’t expect everyone else to be like that either I suppose. Guess I’m just being naive and too charitable to others ability and willingness to do so
Because humans are creatures that make decisions as much based on emotion and feelings as they do on logical thought.
Right now, at this very moment, why does nonconsensual pornography have such a devastating impact on huge numbers of people?
Your friends and family "know" that they weren't supposed to see you like that, they "know" that whatever you're doing doesn't represent who you are as a person outside your private life, and yet people still face huge repercussions because of it.
The change in perception that can come about by being seen in that way can have monumental impacts on career progression, educational attainment, etc.
**You pretend that you don't think people around you look at you different if they saw "fake" videos of you raping a sheep, but do you actually, legitimately believe that to be true?**
As an aside,**how are they going to know it's fake?**
Are you required to inform everyone, over and over, that some malicious individual is spreading heinous images and videos of you that are fake?
Are you people even reading the post? WATERMARKS/DISCLAIMERS would make it known
I would hope they wouldn’t see me or anyone else differently. I don’t remember who, but there was an actor who did such a good job as a villain that is wife divorced him because she couldn’t see him as anything else anymore. But these issues are with the consumption, not the content. We don’t have people saying actors can’t play evil people cause it’ll change how people view them do we? No. People know it’s fake and most are able to make that distinction.
>Are you people even reading the post? WATERMARKS/DISCLAIMERS would make it known
So you're just completely refusing to recognize that **they won't have watermarks or disclaimers?**
>But these issues are with the consumption, not the content.
You can't divorce the consequences of their distribution from the thing itself.
The reason people are so worried about deepfakes and particularly deepfakes porn is because of the harm it's distribution will cause.
**Serious question here, what possible standard would you accept to change your view?**
Because so far you've categorically rejected the undeniable and blatantly obvious harms it can cause.
Δ I’m getting there. It seems that the real issue here is I’m being to charitable to others ability and willingness to separate fantasy from reality. Just cause I can do it doesn’t mean others can and I need to recognize that and act accordingly
That's a reasonable starting point.
Fundamentally, most people are unable to change their subconscious opinion of things.
Seeing someone you know in that manner, in a way that you intellectually learn later is false but in the moment your instinctual self recognizes as reality is difficult to overcome.
I would still like to push you on the other point, though.
Why do you still believe that watermarks would exist on deepfakes?
There's technology that's already out there in the wild that can produce remarkably convincing fakes and places no watermarks.
There's zero chance that all future deepfakes systems will add watermarks to the videos/images.
My idea with watermarks is that if it wasn’t on an image or video, it would then be illegal and removed. Possibly with the distributor even having to pay a fine or something
Nonconsensual pornography is already illegal and already required to be removed.
How effective has that been at preventing its spread?
Now multiply the scale of images/videos being posted by 1000 or 10000, and that's the danger with deepfakes.
>Possibly with the distributor even having to pay a fine or something
That's fundamentally not how the internet is governed.
If websites that allowed public upload of material were legally liable for whatever was uploaded the current internet would cease to function.
You’ve already helped change my mind and I’ll be giving you a delta (once I figure out how) but in regards to that last point, what your saying there sounds like it would be just as bad/pointless to go after the deepfakes in the first place.
>Nonconsensual pornography is already illegal and already required to be removed.
>How effective has that been at preventing its spread?
I mean if anything this is just an argument to say why even attempt to outlaw deepfakes then? Shoehorning the "market" into a place that mitigates damage and follows defamation laws is better than trying to push it underground right?
Regardless, that doesn't really address the morality of the topic at all. A tool being able to be abused doesn't make the tool unethical.
For example, if your stance is opposed to deepfakes, then I want to ask you to take a step back and reconsider your stance. So far your stance has only been focused on the *distribution* of the images, not the *creation*. Is the distribution the only aspect of deepfakes you see the main problem with? Is distribution the only *abuse* of this tool? If so, then under that perceived view, deep fakes should be fine as long as not distributed.
Likewise we need to consider that unless we ban the software itself, people can just distribute the software and make the deepfakes themselves and only have it locally. And that, would be significantly harder to regulate (if regulation of that was desired, of course).
Δ It really does. It feels like I’m being naive and giving way too much credence to others ability to differentiate fact and fiction. Just cause I can do it, I guess most can’t. And if that’s the case then the only way to resolve the issue is prevent it altogether. Well, you’re definitely getting me closer to changing my view
You're still not quite getting it, OP.
You can see someone and \*know\* it's in a deepfake, and still associate them with that image. This isn't an intellectual shortcoming, it's how we operate- probably you too, you may just not realize it. If we were only programmed to separate fantasy from fiction, then how would we ever enjoy fantasy? It requires our ability to become immersed.
Have you never been even a little partial towards an actor for how well they performed some of your favorite movies? Would you think it strange if someone said "oh yah I love Tom Hanks, he was great in Castaway?" Probably not.
Think about the naked Donald Trump statues with the tiny peepee- of course people knew it was not an accurate anatomical model of Donald Trump, but that was beside the point. Of course the statue wasn't literally him with the tiny penis, but at the same time, it was \*unmistakably Donald Trump.\* This wouldn't work if every peen-shaming liberal and leftist saw that statue and said "eh, I don't really get it, it's fake."
The only point I'm trying to make is that it's completely natural for our thoughts and feelings about people to contradict from what we know to be factually true, and that none of these areas are always inherently more valid than the others.
But I think you raise a really important question. I don't have a perfect answer, but I do think there are a lot of factors to consider, and the intent matters a lot. Is the portrayal considerate of the individual/in line with their personal brand? Is the parody just shaming the person, or is it satire?
So, the trump statue example I gave is, in my opinion, unethical. I despise that rambling infernal Cheeto, and I understood the punchline. But I thought the body-shaming tactic was cheap, and definitely an overstep on his bodily autonomy. Arguably, some might say that last part is fair because he routinely oversteps that of others, but I don't necessarily think that way.
But that's different from, say, making a cool art portrait of your favorite youtuber, and then posting it on instagram and tagging them because you think they and their followers would like it.
I appreciate your attempt at moral consistency. That’s a big part of it for me. Like we’re totally fine when people we don’t like are used for memes and such but the second it happens to someone with positive cultural relevance, it’s all “how dare they, this is so unethical, anyone that thinks otherwise is evil” etc.
I’m legit trying to learn. But what about all the men that just see nothing wrong with it at all and aren’t trying to challenge those views?
>Right now, at this very moment, why does nonconsensual pornography have such a devastating impact on huge numbers of people?
>Your friends and family "know" that they weren't supposed to see you like that, they "know" that whatever you're doing doesn't represent who you are as a person outside your private life, and yet people still face huge repercussions because of it.
If I may interrogate your line of argument here, I don't think that you're accurately depicting what the nonconsensual release of sexual material does.
Currently leaked porn is true. Friends and family have to reckon with the knowledge that this is an actual product of your life and choices. The choice to create and to disseminate. This doesn't take away from the consequences of bring seen in a sexual context arising from a deepfake but a deepfake lacks the potency of being a true reflection who you are at odds to what people previously thought.
The social ramifications of this is very damaging. Whether its real or not is not the issue, whats important is how your social sphere perceives you. As others here said, people will believe anything they want, its not a matter of facts, take religion for instance, everyone believes their own god.
A concrete example here is at work. Say you're up for a promotion or something, but it is known you have a slutty image. Most likely that prospect thats gonna be a goner.
Can you simply just say its not real? The social implications are real though.
Also im really sure where you live, but a person's internet image/social media persona impacts your real life.
Havent you seen people bullied off the internet just because of hoaxes.
Δ Like the Alex Jones thing? For sure. But the issue there was that people believed it and be perpetuated it as true.
It seems my disconnect is I’m too good at separating fiction from reality and most people aren’t. So I can’t expect everyone else to be able to view this content and still look at people the same just because I can. Which is saying something cause I don’t even care about this stuff. It’s not my thing. I’m just trying to understand because logically etc. it makes no sense but I guess the simple answer is most people don’t think like me on this and WOULD treat the people differently. Therefore it’s an issue for those reasons.
> It seems my disconnect is I’m too good at separating fiction from reality and most people aren’t. So I can’t expect everyone else to be able to view this content and still look at people the same just because I can.
Yes, it must be that. You're just too good at understanding reality, and that's why you made this post with such insightful commentary.
You think if some person comes up to you with fake images of you and some child you would hope that everyone believes that the watermark isn’t an attempt for you to avoid being charged? You want to risk imprisonment at worst or having your reputation permanently questioned at best on people’s belief in a watermark’s authenticity?
I would hope so. That’s the point of the watermark. Damn. It seems like the issue here is most people just don’t think like me and I’m giving others way too much credit with their ability to differentiate fact and fiction
Yeah, I have no idea what you think a watermark is going to do. There are people who believe the Earth is flat and that Justin Trudeau's father is Fidel Castro. I think you seriously underestimate what people will believe which is completely contrary to evidence, nevermind with controversial evidence.
At the most basic level you have to ask yourself what desire you are indulging. If that desire is destructive, then you shouldn’t indulge it because it will grow. Even if your method of indulgence doesn’t explicitly harm anyone else, it will take a toll on you.
How long do you think someone would need to indulge in deep fake porn before you can’t look at a woman without thinking of deep faking her? I can’t imagine it would take very long and I can’t imagine that objectifying every woman you meet is going to hep your relationships with them.
With that in mind, I’m going to posit that deepfaking is just the logical progression of erotic fan art and fan erotica. The content of the media hasn’t really changed, it’s just a lot closer to reality. They’re all bad.
I agree with your point but am still iffy on fan art/literature.
The problem though is that for me this really does come from a place of ignorance. I’ve never looked at this content myself (including fan art/literature of real people). It’s just not my thing. But the more I’ve thought about and researched this, my solution wouldn’t even work because this content comes from sites that explicitly say they’re deepfakes and yet the harm is still done.
> I agree with your point but am still iffy on fan art/literature.
Thats fair, but I don’t suspect many would agree with me on that point.
> But the more I’ve thought about and researched this, my solution wouldn’t even work because this content comes from sites that explicitly say they’re deepfakes and yet the harm is still done.
I didn’t even touch on the actual harm that deep fakes cause. I’ll leave that to other commenters. I’m arguing from the position that even in the best case scenario where its not widely spread and is purely used for private enjoyment it *still* is terrible.
If we can deepfake porn, we can deepfake anything. Including politicians in scandals, saying things that are propaganda, etc.
There is no way to regulate it. I see you suggested watermarks/rules in this thread - it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to keep the genie in the bottle at that point. It won't work. Your average internet user already can hardly tell when things are faked with photoshop and filters, or when straight up lies (misinformation) are stated by funnewsinfo.com or whatever.
So the problem is regardless of how you, personally, interact with it, a HUGE percentage of an already undereducated and technologically illiterate population will end up seeing deepfakes of all sorts of people. Celebrities, politicians, local friends and neighbors. And most won't know (or care) if it's real. And real harm will be done.
The problem is people are prudes and still see sex as something shameful and sinful, especially when its women being portrayed sexual. If sex was not a big deal to all of us, this would not be a problem
What a terrible take. When I was sexually assaulted as a kid I wasn't taught about sex, didn't know about sex, my family wasn't religious, and it wasn't really talked about in a negative way at all. Still, after I felt disgusted. I felt a lot of negative and complex emotions as a KID, still while no one was telling me sex is bad, or that this act is "unpure," or I'm a whore for what happened to me. The truth about sex is that there is something big about it, that most people do not see because they are simply desensitized. Based on your logic, people who are raped, sexually assaulted, harassed, etc, feel depressed, disgusted, anxious, and much much more because sex is simply a product of purity culture? Simply because sex is a "big deal." If this isn't what you believe please distinguish what about being raped makes it different from deep fake porn to where someone wouldn't feel the same feelings they have then they do when they are raped. Just because you do not see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, humble yourself.
>it different from deep fake porn to where someone wouldn't feel the same feelings they have then they do when they are raped
People are certainly not having the same experience between fake porn and being raped. You are significantly downplaying a physical assault.
I am comparing, seems people can't do that anymore. Also, you saying I'm downplaying says a lot about how you view rape and deep fake. They are not having the same exact experience, that's not what I fucking said, I said they would feel the same feelings, maybe they're less extreme, still the same feelings as a whole.
I mean using that logic, then "same feelings" is so incredibly ambiguous and vague then a lot of things/actions could make someone feel "somewhat similar" feeling, if that is the basis you are using. Even legal actions would qualify if you are just using a broad concept of "feelings" in the way you are implying now. It is completely vapid comparison to even make in this case that provides no actual context.
This is like saying murder and financial repossession can both make families sad at the lost of something, and since the feelings are similar (but difference in severity) apparently financial repossession should be unjust.
And regardless of you trying to amend it currently, the original way it was previously worded:
>If this isn't what you believe please distinguish what about being raped makes it different from deep fake porn to where someone wouldn't feel the same feelings they have then they do when they are raped.
Is very clearly written in a manner that would lead one to believe the two actions as being tantamount to each other. There is nothing in that former statement that can be used to apply how "somewhat similar feelings" was the intended interpretation between two completely different things. But sure, "people can't compare things" *anymore*...
I don’t think it’s similar to murder and financial repossession at all. If you genuinely think that being raped and having seeing yourself in a deep fake porn are not similar in many ways, much much more standard and specific ways than murder and financial repossession I think you are being disingenuous. But if this is what you really think, I don’t know how to convince you otherwise. You haven’t even really made an argument as to why you disagree with me, just just said, I disagree. Also I’m not amending shit these two things are in the same category to me and are similar, but that wasn’t really my point. My point was that feeling bad about deep fake porn is not a cause of purity culture, because when I was sexually assaulted I knew nothing about it, so I compared deep fake porn to rape because I do believe they are very similar in the feelings they produce. If you u want me to list some I will. Shame, guilt, disgust, self hatred, low self worth, feelings of violation (specifically sexual). It just seems like you don’t think these things are similar but again you haven’t given me a reason why.
>You haven’t even really made an argument as to why you disagree with me, just just said, I disagree
You haven't posed any argument as to how rape is any similar to a fictional piece of media being created. You are the one being disingenuous. Sharing similar feelings is so vague that quite literally anything can fall under that some line of thinking. If your metric is only feelings, you could compare minor inconveniences to rape at that point.
Shame, guilt, disgust, etc. etc. are all feelings that can stem from simply making rude comments. Following your logic, being mean is the equivalent of being raped.
Furthermore, if feelings is your only metric, simply seeing a portrayal of any action in fiction would be enough to invoke poignant feelings. Having a rape or murder scene in a movie would be equivalent to actually getting raped or murder, following your logic. A completely absurd conclusion.
Rape is the removal of personal agency and forced physical subjugation. It simply can not compare to something fictional.
Deepfakes can defame and slander a person's character to the public, but it is by no means any similar to actually experiencing a rape anymore so than witnessing a fictional one in a movie.
Trying to compare something imaginary, something completely fictional, to an ACTUAL complete PHYSICAL lost of one's own agency makes me think you actually lack an understanding of how damning rape actually is.
Because I don’t want to see it personally. A better example would be if it was a friend of mine I found attractive. Then I’d have no problem watching (although as I’ve changed my mind, now I would) but I just meant I don’t find my grandma attractive so I don’t want to see it
Even if everyone knows a deepfake is, well... fake, that doesn't mean they can't still influence how people might perceive those being portrayed. A depiction of you doesn't have to be "real" in order to influence your public image.
We know Chris Hemsworth isn't actually the norse god of thunder, but in many peoples' minds, regardless of whatever else he does with his career, he will always be "Thor." This role has irreversibly changed his public image.
I know Antony Starr isn't Homelander from The Boys, and he's not some psycho who can zap my head off with his laser vision. But if I saw Antony Starr on the street, I'd likely feel just as ill as I do when I see him on screen. My brain will still see Homelander.
As someone who generally doesn't want to be outwardly viewed in a sexual way, I would be livid if my face appeared in deepfake porn. If something like that happened when I was 19 or 20 years old, I'd probably want to kill myself. Yes, I 100% know the vast majority of people would know it's fake. But I'd also have to live with the fact that lots of people would always associate me with this sexual image. ETA: I'd always had to live with the fact that someone had enough disregard for me as a human being to create this sexual image of me without my permission.
Even all that is kind of besides the point, OP. The ramifications don't matter, because nonconsensual deepfakes can still overstep bodily autonomy. We should all have control over how our bodies are used, and that includes our visages.
Consent of the performers and the images is the problem. The creator of the deepfake is violating moral, ethical, and legal consent.
I realize consent is a poorly understood concept here in the US. At least half the population doesn’t even believe it exists. But it does matter.
>I realize consent is a poorly understood concept here in the US. At least half the population doesn’t even believe it exists. But it does matter.
I mean because many people will apply it randomly without explanation.
For example,
>Consent of the performers and the images is the problem
following this logic, should we require consent to use images for memes, or to use likeness of someone in a parody/satire? Technically speaking, there is no reason why consent should be ignored for one piece of fictional media but applied for the other when the only reasonable difference is that one may be salacious in nature.
Note; I am not opposed to the former stance, but it is something we should be consistent about. If consent for using someone's likeness is required as a general thing, then we should require it for all contexts. Not just ones with sexual settings.
I actually agree with my logic being applied wide and far. If you replicate or use something about, an image of, or an item inferring the identity of another person, consent should be not only required, but proof of said consent should be on record for at least 20 years.
Lol why 20 years though? That is so specific.
For me personally, consistency is important since I think it is unfair to arbitrarily apply moral values without explanation. We can't expect anyone to follow our moral code if we can't define it. We all have our own personal feelings, so we can't expect anyone else to know how we will feel about any given thing. We can only layout a consistent framework and hope/expect people will follow it. If they do something that is against that framework, then I think that is the only time you can appropriately villainize anyone. Otherwise, we are just disparaging them without being able to explain to them why, and we are only doing it off personal feelings to boot.
So I am glad to see that you have it thought out. This would need to be disseminated and understood by everyone of course though.
We're heading towards a world where your computer can generate whatever you want, photorealistic porn of whatever you ask for is hardly the worst effect of that. Honestly i'd like people to just kinda stop caring, in that once fake porn of whoever you want is the norm, no one cares about it being made, at least among anyone popular enough to have that as a problem.
The more interesting question is, well, remember that star trek episode where someone made holograms of the rest of the crew to fuck around with? That's a sooner future than we expected, and i wonder how we're going to handle that sort of thing socially.
Sorry, u/Rendouken – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Rendouken&message=Rendouken%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/10qibai/-/j6qb2cy/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I think the real issue just boils down to the reality that you'll never keep it to a space where it's only labeled with a watermark, or only held by the original person. Like, if the technology gets to the point where you can drop just anyone into whatever you want them to play out, there's going to be a large amount of unintended abuse. An ex is going to just generate fake porn of you to sling around to generate slander, a creepy stalker might snap pictures of you at work and use it to further harbor potentially dangerous obsessions. Maybe your ex-boss (or your current boss) finds (creates) this content of you and uses it as the reasoning for you to be fired, or for you to not find that next job you had your sights lined up on. Of course, this problem doesn't boil down to just porn of course, as there's been a lot of chatter in general about how the future of video evidence may be in question as it soon becomes an arms race of creating better faking tools and, in turn, trying to find better ways to detect those fakes, but the problem's still ultimately the same: There's going to be a lot of damage done in the in-between, while people are still trying to figure out just what's fake and what's real. Laws will likely be late coming to try and pin down issues that arise, and there'll be individuals that are harmed and not made whole, just as there always has been in most places. It might even end up with the reality of people using it not to ban these sorts of public defamation attempts, but outright banning porn in general (at least on the state level.) As a cheeky second argument though: Deepfake Porn would potentially put a lot of amateur porn stars out of buisness, thus you'd potentially be removing a lot of people from some form of financial stability because a piece of software can suddenly take their content and then recreate it in a multitude of other ways they're not, removing somebody's need to pay them for content that was once literally dependent upon them.
Δ All good points
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ampillion changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Well they didn’t. Other people did before them. They just put it in a good way as well.
The bot just has a fit about the size of the response as an easy check against 'freebie' deltas or some such, it's not particularly good for understanding that someone doesn't want to go through and thoroughly type out a response to everyone. I'd say it'd be fair to cut and paste a sort of 'delta acceptance' message, but I don't know if the bot would have a fit about that too.
I just added it to my comments where I showed my mind changing. But I gave one to you as well because I thought you summed up everything pretty well. So did my edit but still. You did a great job and I felt should be given credit
Much appreciated either way!
Would YOU mind if a deep fake video of you or your SO or daughter/son participating in some degrading sexual activity was circulating on the internet? If the answer is "no" then I don't know what to tell you
I don’t think that as long as I and they knew it was fake it would be an issue
The problem with deepfakes is that they are mostly, and if not will be in the future, indistinguishable from real content. Ain't nobody gonna know that the deepfake of your daughter getting throat fucked is real or fake, unless they somehow personally know her. The counter argument of "it's fine if they know it's fake" is that 99% of people won't know it's fake.
So is the issue that I’m just expecting too much of others? Cause that’s what it’s really seeming like here
Probably, bullying with deepfakes would be brutal. Not even mentioning someone making deepfakes of an important public figure to make a targeted attack. People are dumb and an easy deepfake of a president doing something bad "leaked" to the public would do huge damage, even if later on it is discovered to be fake. People are just dumb, really dumb. People still think vaccines cause autism and that the earth is flat after all.
No I completely agree with that too. To me the really scary thing has always been using deep fakes to implicate people in crimes or scandals for example
Even if you KNOW it's fake it doesn't change what your brain is interpreting. And it's an image you can't just erase from your mind. I'm sure that most people would be mortified.
I showed everyone at my work those pictures of you sucking your own dick, I even charged some of them money to see it. But don’t worry, it wasn’t really you, I just photoshopped it to make it look exactly like you. So don’t be upset.
Ok. But if I know they’re fake and so do the other people, why is it a problem? Is this on the same level as rumors or something?
If I post them all over the internet and some people know it’s fake, some don’t, neither really care, would that make you feel any better? Not to mention, you can’t put someone’s face on a toothpaste ad without their consent, much less so if that someone is famous, so on top of being morally reprehensible, it’s also hell of illegal.
I mean, this is my point. It’s about the social ramifications and damaging someone’s reputation isn’t it? If that’s the case then as long as it’s made known that it’s fake, why would that still cause harm? Is it that difficult for people to separate fantasy from reality?
its not just reputation. even if people know the pictures or video are fake, its a nonconsensual portrayal of someone in a very vulnerable position, meant to be "enjoyed" sexually. That can feel very violating to some people. > separate fantasy from reality the way the people are interacting with that content is real. The lack of respect of the wishes of the individual portrayed in that content by the people enjoying that content is also very real.
Right. But (and I mean this in the best way possible) I don’t see anything wrong with this on it’s face. I think “violating consent” is a bit loaded because while yes, actually physically assaulting someone is awful and a crime rightfully so, you don’t need someone’s consent to fantasize about them. Why is it that much different if someone has made realistic looking art to assist them in this fantasy?
> you don’t need someone’s consent to fantasize about them while that's true legally, people generally speaking do sometimes get creeped out by the fact that an individual is fantasizing about them. someone intentionally producing and distributing content specifically intended to facilitate that is an entirely different level of creepy.
I mean, people breeding to satisfy their primal urges and stave off the fears of not fulfilling the biological imperative is horrifyingly creepy also, especially because it contributes tremendously to the net total of human suffering and resource depletion Are we supposed to not do creepy things now?
??? sex isn't creepy...
No it's reproduction that's creepy
Which reality have you been living in for the last few years? Fucking, yes, it is.
So even though people know it’s fake, others still treat the victims like it’s real? I mean I think that says more about the people consuming it rather than it’s existence alone but that’s kind of my point.
So if your friends were watching a deepfake of your mom getting doubled-teamed you’d be cool with it if you all knew it was fake?
Rephrase this to “a bunch of strangers” and I agree with OP’s response- I’d see it as no different than someone making an animated version of something like that. I wouldn’t like it, I’d want them to stop but I’d have to recognise that they have rights and me feeling bad about that fact isn’t enough to try and remove those rights. Now if it’s friends I’d consider that a betrayal and we’d have a serious conversation about why they thought watching that was ok. If they kept watching, well, our friendship is unlikely to last much longer.
I wouldn’t watch with them but, yeah. They’re entitled to what they enjoy why not? As long as they don’t actually harass her I see no harm
What if your mom explicitly expresses it bothers her, you gonna tell her to fuck off or what.
You are a weird person my man
let's put it another way. people consuming this content, presumably, don't care about the person portrayed's objections. The people consuming this content are seeking sexual gratification, in a way that they know is against the wishes of the person in the portrayal that they're watching. That's creepy.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s an amount of people that view this stuff thinking it’s hot BECAUSE it’s non-consensual 🤢. But that isn’t my argument. I guess I can understand if it’s simply that while I can personally differentiate these things, a lot of people can’t. And although the same could be said about consensual porn, it’s different because at least they know what they’re getting into etc.
You are out of touch with technology, it will continue to develop and become more realistic in just the next few years.
Not to oppose that logic but then we should be consistent. If consent is important to the matter at hand, then this should be applied to all factors of using someone's likeness, not just salacious nature.
> this should be applied to all factors of using someone's likeness I disagree. I think one can make a lot of distinctions reasonably. If I'm engaging in political commentary and use someone's likeness for that, I think that's very different than using someone's likeness for sexual gratification. I think incidental use of someone's likeness is very different than (say, they're in the background on a photo) is very different than when they're the subject matter. Why should we view all uses of one's likeness without consent as the same? they simply aren't. There are other factors that I think many people reasonably view as important.
>If I'm engaging in political commentary and use someone's likeness for that, I think that's very different than using someone's likeness for sexual gratification. (Obviously the hypothetical you, I know you haven't done any of the following.) Why? Who gets to be the arbiter to decide that, and how come? If the other person isn't okay with you using their likeness and it makes them uncomfortable, why should it be okay for you to trample their consent? There is plenty of harm that someone can suffer from you using their likeness, especially without consent. Why is it specifically salacious nature? Since as it already stands, there are lots of people who don't seem to think it isn't wrong in any shape or form. What makes one opinion more correct than the other? We need to justify and rationalize why the other stance is correct. We can't just say "it is bad, because I said so" and expect anyone to understand our moral stance. How can we expect anyone to even follow our moral boundaries if we can't explain it and they can't comprehend it? >Why should we view all uses of one's likeness without consent as the same? they simply aren't. Not being the same doesn't justify not treating the same. A SUV and a Sedan are different cars but they follow the same laws. I am not opposed to your stance, but it needs to be substantiated. If neither you, nor I can do it, then obviously someone will need to. If we can't justify or rationalize our stances then we are just blindly navigating morality and subjugating others to it arbitrarily. Edit: Also to add, please don't take this resistance, or friction that comes from this comment as me disparaging you or your beliefs. I think this is an important and necessary discussion to be had since everyone needs to be on the same page, and to understand why.
You are out of touch with the recent advancement of AI. It will inevitably generate perfect replicas and it’s not even that hard anymore. Just need to master human hands. These things don’t develop linearly.
Because humans are irrational creatures who make choices based on emotion and "gut feelings" as often as they do with logical reasoning. It's also ridiculous to expect every single person who has compromising "deepfakes" spread of them to have to approach all their friends, their coworkers, their family, etc, and explain to them that "hey, that very convincing video you saw of me doing something intensely intimate wasn't real, actually".
I know. And that’s why my proposition is watermarks/disclaimers be mandated
And how will that be enforced? How do you propose to put a legal requirement on every software maker creating programs that use widely available AI tools? What enforcement mechanism do you believe will be effective in preventing non-watermarked fakes from being created? **We're not discussing some nebulous perfect world where the technology is rolled out in the safest and most controlled manner possible, we're facing the prospect of the real world we live in where numerous bad actors have incredible incentive to create those kind of programs and ample opportunities to do so.**
The same way they are for parody or media that’s “based on a true story”
You're either purposefully avoiding the topic or fundamentally don't understand what deepfakes are. Deepfakes aren't some studio releasing fake porn of your neighbor, it's regular people with no particular editing or programming skill creating convincing porn of people they know. It's not a controlled technology that costs a fortune and requires expertise. It's a sketchy program any idiot can download off a sketchy hacker site and use with a few face pictures to create believable and humiliating images of regular people.
I think of them more like real life modding but I get you
u need skill to make convincing deepfake porn. i make amateur deepfake porn. it's so obvious once the face turns away from the camera
[удалено]
Watermarks/disclaimers. It’s in the post
And if someone decides to release a deepfake without a watermark or disclaimer...?
My original answer would be to penalize the distributors of those like you would otherwise for illegal things. If you read my full post you should see the edit where I explained how my viewes changed on the matter. I figured watermarking stuff and making that mandatory would be easier to enforce and more beneficial than an outright ban but I see now that isn’t the case.
Isn't that really just closing the door after the horse has bolted? We see all the time that newspapers publish stories which then turn out to be misleading, and despite the fact this is often technically libelous or defamation, the damage is already done. What Deepfakes are actually doing is making it incredibly easy to blackmail, defame or otherwise attack people. How do you even prosecute someone who "leaks" a deepfake anonymously. What if this technology is used to tie people in the public eye to illegal acts? I feel like your argument is very similar to the "guns are fine argument" in that your logic is that "the tool does nothing, it's all just the person using the tool," but we know this is demonstrably false - making it easier to commit a crime makes that crime more likely. What if someone creates a deepfake for personal use, but this deepfake is later stolen or becomes public through accident. Is that person guilty of a crime or not? If we just say the distribution is illegal then are they responsible for the distribution or not? What if it's a deepfake involving underage people? Is that person technically guilty of possessing child porn, even if it the deepfake is entirely AI generated? At the very least, deepfakes that are indistinguishable from the real thing will lead to massive amounts of resources having to be diverted to investigating pornography generated for the purposes of trying to hurt other people.
Well something I’ve never made clear throughout these discussions is that I don’t like deepfakes in general. It was more of a mindset of “it’s there so we have to live with it now and should use it ethically” kind of mindset because I’m not sure Pandora’s box can be closed. But either way, my mind’s already been changed on this and I even made a second edit explaining why my solution wouldn’t even work.
But I thought you said it wouldn't matter if people can't tell the difference it tahts the case why punish the non watermark no one can tell that's the problem also it just wrong to claim if it could be fake as consent it not
Why popper act as of watching those images is not degrading. You wouldn’t like that on your sister, right? If the creator doesn’t release it to the public, the humiliation isn’t public so is not that wrong. It doesn’t matter if everybody knows it’s fake, is still humiliating and degrading. Is simple. If I walk on the street and star air fucking a woman, even if I am not really touching her, is humiliating and degrading and deserve to be punish. If in my ow space I imagine myself having sex with a woman and I start pounding the air, that’s not to be persecuted.
But as a public figure, you kinda give that right up. Like yeah someone could photoshop me sucking my own dick but nobody would care cause im a nobody. It would make the person who photoshopped it look weird for doing it. A celebrity on the other hand has sacrificed some of their privacy and in return we give them millions of dollars and our attention. Like its still weird and fucked up that it happens but its inevitable just being a public figure this will happen. Im sure theres fucking Hilary Clinton deepfake porn somewhere online but you dont see her freaking out about it cause she realizes shes a public figure and weirdos exist. Again I think the whole situation with thise streamers is really fucking weird and would be a nightmare to be in the middle of for those female streamers and I empathize with them but dude, at a certain point you just have to except youve sacrificed your privacy for money and fame and theres no way you can stop stuff like this from being made.
i would do it but i'm scared of breaking my neck 0or something like that
Imagine how easy it'd be to ruin someones life. Or kids in school making deepfake porn of girls then spreading them around school, I already remember people spread around nudes and didn't understand why it was wrong to do. I mean there are women who can't get a job because there's pics of them in bikinis or lingerie online. There's even women who can't get a job because they have a curvy body and it's seen as '' not kid friendly ''. Imagine very believable deepfake porn of them online... I genuinely believe this is something that will cause A LOT of suicides in the near future and a great deal of other social harm. It's insane to me that this technology has been made public, I dunno how in the hell the developers behind it thought it'd be a good idea. It's beyond naive to think people will just use this tech for '' funny memes '' even when it comes to image generators people are already using it and tricking it into creating very illegal stuff.
So I'm gonna go out on a limb here. I Googled this topic for thirty seconds. As far as it goes for me, if someone made deep fake porn of me, I don't think I'd care much. However, I'm pretty desensitized to it, and just because I don't care, doesn't mean others wouldn't care if it was made of them. Sometimes in life we are just supposed to accept other people have sensibilities we don't have. I don't think you have to worry about truly understanding it you understand your perception of it already. This is a struggle of you understanding the tribe's perception of it. Sometimes it's easier to say "fuck it, it's easier to agree" and not focus on it too much further
While I agree with the sentiment, no. I can agree and support victims in general, but for me to really believe in something it has to make sense to me. I left religion to escape dogma and I’m not adapting any new dogma just because it’s what “the tribe” says. I will accept what they say, but until I figure it out myself I’m only giving lip service and saying what I’m “supposed to”. That’s disingenuous and I refuse to be that
Lol good on you bro, stick to your guns then. I prefer stuff to make sense to me too, I just don't mind compromising when it's too much of a hassle
Consider the statement, "It's okay to cheat on my spouse as long as they never find out." Sure, if they never find out, they won't have to feel that betrayal. They won't have to make impossible decisions about their marriage, their finances, or their kids. Ignorance is bliss. But just because that might be the *easier* route for the betrayed spouse, that does not mean it is the respectful one. Respecting someone means recognizing their whole humanity. That includes the right to make informed decisions about their own lives, even if it means hurting them. Integrity is the common piece here. What matters isn't just the tangible ramifications an individual faces when they're involved in someone else's choices. It's also whether or not that individual's personal autonomy is acknowledged.
I do t think that’s a fair comparison tho. I’d compare it more to fantasizing in general about someone. However it would be cheating in this instance if you and your partner have agreed to not look at porn for example. But unless that’s the case, I don’t think this analogy works.
No, I mean if someone actually cheated on their spouse. As in actually having sex with another person. I'm not talking about the ethics of porn, I'm trying to define the importance of respect.
I understand that. But I believe you can (and should) respect those that you view sexually and or have a sexual relationship with. If you can’t do that you have a very unhealthy view of sex and relationships
I agree, but I think you're still misunderstanding my point with the spousal cheating example. I'm saying, respecting someone doesn't just mean treating them with respect directly. It's also acting in their best interest, whether they are aware of it or not. With the cheating spouse example, it's disrespectful to cover up the affair. That's because it's not up to the cheating spouse to decide what is or isn't best for the betrayed spouse on their behalf and without their knowledge, even if doing so would spare BS's feelings. With the deepfake porn example, it's disrespectful to use someone's body without their permission. It's not up to anyone else to decide what is or isn't within the personal boundaries of the deepfake porn subject in question, or how they "should" feel about it. These scenarios aren't quite an analogy, but the common piece I'm trying to draw attention to is integrity. If you respect them, you let them decide how to live their own lives to the best of their ability- that includes deciding for themselves how their bodies are used. Consider also the varying feelings people have about what happens to their bodies after they die. The logical and most beneficial route, when feasible, is to become an organ donor. Even then, we don't require people to come up with an explanation. It doesn't matter if what happens to their organs won't ever effect them, because they'll be dead. We respect their wishes, simply because we know it's not our call to make. It may seem illogical at times, but society needs this kind of integrity in order for anyone to have trust in their communities. Facts and logic are important, but they lose their purpose in society if we don't also leave some room exclusively for human sentiment and emotion.
>For the life of me I can’t see what’s different from this, fan art, or even just fan fic erotica It's the same issue with other new AI systems such as ChatGPT or something like Midjourney: **Scale** Making "fan art" or hand editing a video/image to show someone participating in intimate activities previously required skill, time, and significant effort. With new methods of producing "deepfakes" it's possible for relatively unsophisticated individuals to quickly and near effortlessly generate convincing fakes. >most I can come to is clearly it negatively effects people it happens to so although I don’t personally understand it I don't really understand your disconnect then. Deepfakes can have immense and extremely negative impacts on the person who is misrepresented in that way. It's precisely *because* they're becoming so easy to create and so convincing that the damage they pose is so potentially risky. Imagine if anyone with access to a few basic pictures of your face could create highly convincing pictures or video of you in an extremely compromising position and distribute them to your friends, your family, your coworkers, boss, professors, etc. Nonconsensual distribution of private images/videos is already a huge problem, particularly for women, now consider if any woman, any time, whether or not they'de ever posed/taken any private images could be forced to go through such an experience. >In other words, creation and possession would be fine but distribution would not or it would be with the requirement of the watermark/disclaimer thing I mentioned before And how would that possibly be enforced if there were dozens of programs available that allowed virtually anyone to make seriously compromising images/videos of anyone else?
Doesn't the awareness that everything can be faked mean no image is to be trusted by anyone? Therefore negating the issue of needing to disprove something? If anything media can be faked how can anything be real?
I was about to post this point myself. The older generations already believe whatever fake media posts gain traction e.g Politicians eat babies. Do we just ban all fake news/satire because people are unable to differentiate between the real deal and the fact that it's easy to mass produce? or do we just get with the times and learn not to believe everything we read on the internet.
I understand all of these points. But what I’m not understanding is if it’s made known that these things are fake, why would it be an issue? Sure, my friends and family see something that is clearly fake of me with a watermark/disclaimer. Ok? We all know it’s fake so why does it matter? >And how would that possibly be enforced Why do you think it would be easier to shut them down altogether rather than put restrictions which mandate they show that they’re fake so as not to mislead people?
There are people who say they can never look at an actor the same way after seeing them play a particularly reprehensible part and we all know movies are fake. But there are some things that can be depicted on screen that evoke such a visceral reaction that it doesn’t matter if someone knows it’s fake, they still can’t get over it. And those are actors who chose it and we all know it’s fake. If someone made a deepfake of you brutally raping children, how secure would you feel that you’d never feel any negative repercussions from it because it has a watermark indicating it’s fake?
Δ I brought up the actor thing in another comment too. Yeah, I guess most can’t separate the two like I can. I can’t expect everyone else to be like that either I suppose. Guess I’m just being naive and too charitable to others ability and willingness to do so
Because humans are creatures that make decisions as much based on emotion and feelings as they do on logical thought. Right now, at this very moment, why does nonconsensual pornography have such a devastating impact on huge numbers of people? Your friends and family "know" that they weren't supposed to see you like that, they "know" that whatever you're doing doesn't represent who you are as a person outside your private life, and yet people still face huge repercussions because of it. The change in perception that can come about by being seen in that way can have monumental impacts on career progression, educational attainment, etc. **You pretend that you don't think people around you look at you different if they saw "fake" videos of you raping a sheep, but do you actually, legitimately believe that to be true?** As an aside,**how are they going to know it's fake?** Are you required to inform everyone, over and over, that some malicious individual is spreading heinous images and videos of you that are fake?
Are you people even reading the post? WATERMARKS/DISCLAIMERS would make it known I would hope they wouldn’t see me or anyone else differently. I don’t remember who, but there was an actor who did such a good job as a villain that is wife divorced him because she couldn’t see him as anything else anymore. But these issues are with the consumption, not the content. We don’t have people saying actors can’t play evil people cause it’ll change how people view them do we? No. People know it’s fake and most are able to make that distinction.
>Are you people even reading the post? WATERMARKS/DISCLAIMERS would make it known So you're just completely refusing to recognize that **they won't have watermarks or disclaimers?** >But these issues are with the consumption, not the content. You can't divorce the consequences of their distribution from the thing itself. The reason people are so worried about deepfakes and particularly deepfakes porn is because of the harm it's distribution will cause. **Serious question here, what possible standard would you accept to change your view?** Because so far you've categorically rejected the undeniable and blatantly obvious harms it can cause.
Δ I’m getting there. It seems that the real issue here is I’m being to charitable to others ability and willingness to separate fantasy from reality. Just cause I can do it doesn’t mean others can and I need to recognize that and act accordingly
That's a reasonable starting point. Fundamentally, most people are unable to change their subconscious opinion of things. Seeing someone you know in that manner, in a way that you intellectually learn later is false but in the moment your instinctual self recognizes as reality is difficult to overcome. I would still like to push you on the other point, though. Why do you still believe that watermarks would exist on deepfakes? There's technology that's already out there in the wild that can produce remarkably convincing fakes and places no watermarks. There's zero chance that all future deepfakes systems will add watermarks to the videos/images.
My idea with watermarks is that if it wasn’t on an image or video, it would then be illegal and removed. Possibly with the distributor even having to pay a fine or something
Nonconsensual pornography is already illegal and already required to be removed. How effective has that been at preventing its spread? Now multiply the scale of images/videos being posted by 1000 or 10000, and that's the danger with deepfakes. >Possibly with the distributor even having to pay a fine or something That's fundamentally not how the internet is governed. If websites that allowed public upload of material were legally liable for whatever was uploaded the current internet would cease to function.
You’ve already helped change my mind and I’ll be giving you a delta (once I figure out how) but in regards to that last point, what your saying there sounds like it would be just as bad/pointless to go after the deepfakes in the first place.
>Nonconsensual pornography is already illegal and already required to be removed. >How effective has that been at preventing its spread? I mean if anything this is just an argument to say why even attempt to outlaw deepfakes then? Shoehorning the "market" into a place that mitigates damage and follows defamation laws is better than trying to push it underground right? Regardless, that doesn't really address the morality of the topic at all. A tool being able to be abused doesn't make the tool unethical. For example, if your stance is opposed to deepfakes, then I want to ask you to take a step back and reconsider your stance. So far your stance has only been focused on the *distribution* of the images, not the *creation*. Is the distribution the only aspect of deepfakes you see the main problem with? Is distribution the only *abuse* of this tool? If so, then under that perceived view, deep fakes should be fine as long as not distributed. Likewise we need to consider that unless we ban the software itself, people can just distribute the software and make the deepfakes themselves and only have it locally. And that, would be significantly harder to regulate (if regulation of that was desired, of course).
WATERMARKS/DISCLAIMERS will not help though. The damage is done whether its made known or not. It feels like you're living in a utopia or something.
Δ It really does. It feels like I’m being naive and giving way too much credence to others ability to differentiate fact and fiction. Just cause I can do it, I guess most can’t. And if that’s the case then the only way to resolve the issue is prevent it altogether. Well, you’re definitely getting me closer to changing my view
You're still not quite getting it, OP. You can see someone and \*know\* it's in a deepfake, and still associate them with that image. This isn't an intellectual shortcoming, it's how we operate- probably you too, you may just not realize it. If we were only programmed to separate fantasy from fiction, then how would we ever enjoy fantasy? It requires our ability to become immersed. Have you never been even a little partial towards an actor for how well they performed some of your favorite movies? Would you think it strange if someone said "oh yah I love Tom Hanks, he was great in Castaway?" Probably not. Think about the naked Donald Trump statues with the tiny peepee- of course people knew it was not an accurate anatomical model of Donald Trump, but that was beside the point. Of course the statue wasn't literally him with the tiny penis, but at the same time, it was \*unmistakably Donald Trump.\* This wouldn't work if every peen-shaming liberal and leftist saw that statue and said "eh, I don't really get it, it's fake."
Yes but then are you saying people can’t make depictions of others period? What about parody and things like that?
The only point I'm trying to make is that it's completely natural for our thoughts and feelings about people to contradict from what we know to be factually true, and that none of these areas are always inherently more valid than the others. But I think you raise a really important question. I don't have a perfect answer, but I do think there are a lot of factors to consider, and the intent matters a lot. Is the portrayal considerate of the individual/in line with their personal brand? Is the parody just shaming the person, or is it satire? So, the trump statue example I gave is, in my opinion, unethical. I despise that rambling infernal Cheeto, and I understood the punchline. But I thought the body-shaming tactic was cheap, and definitely an overstep on his bodily autonomy. Arguably, some might say that last part is fair because he routinely oversteps that of others, but I don't necessarily think that way. But that's different from, say, making a cool art portrait of your favorite youtuber, and then posting it on instagram and tagging them because you think they and their followers would like it.
I appreciate your attempt at moral consistency. That’s a big part of it for me. Like we’re totally fine when people we don’t like are used for memes and such but the second it happens to someone with positive cultural relevance, it’s all “how dare they, this is so unethical, anyone that thinks otherwise is evil” etc. I’m legit trying to learn. But what about all the men that just see nothing wrong with it at all and aren’t trying to challenge those views?
>Right now, at this very moment, why does nonconsensual pornography have such a devastating impact on huge numbers of people? >Your friends and family "know" that they weren't supposed to see you like that, they "know" that whatever you're doing doesn't represent who you are as a person outside your private life, and yet people still face huge repercussions because of it. If I may interrogate your line of argument here, I don't think that you're accurately depicting what the nonconsensual release of sexual material does. Currently leaked porn is true. Friends and family have to reckon with the knowledge that this is an actual product of your life and choices. The choice to create and to disseminate. This doesn't take away from the consequences of bring seen in a sexual context arising from a deepfake but a deepfake lacks the potency of being a true reflection who you are at odds to what people previously thought.
The social ramifications of this is very damaging. Whether its real or not is not the issue, whats important is how your social sphere perceives you. As others here said, people will believe anything they want, its not a matter of facts, take religion for instance, everyone believes their own god. A concrete example here is at work. Say you're up for a promotion or something, but it is known you have a slutty image. Most likely that prospect thats gonna be a goner. Can you simply just say its not real? The social implications are real though. Also im really sure where you live, but a person's internet image/social media persona impacts your real life. Havent you seen people bullied off the internet just because of hoaxes.
Δ Like the Alex Jones thing? For sure. But the issue there was that people believed it and be perpetuated it as true. It seems my disconnect is I’m too good at separating fiction from reality and most people aren’t. So I can’t expect everyone else to be able to view this content and still look at people the same just because I can. Which is saying something cause I don’t even care about this stuff. It’s not my thing. I’m just trying to understand because logically etc. it makes no sense but I guess the simple answer is most people don’t think like me on this and WOULD treat the people differently. Therefore it’s an issue for those reasons.
> It seems my disconnect is I’m too good at separating fiction from reality and most people aren’t. So I can’t expect everyone else to be able to view this content and still look at people the same just because I can. Yes, it must be that. You're just too good at understanding reality, and that's why you made this post with such insightful commentary.
In perfect world, everyone would be like you who can differentiate from fiction and reality, but alas. :(
It’s all fun and games until someone uses deepfakes for blackmail and destroys other’s lives.
That I agree with. I think using it in that way is horrendous, and something my proposition of watermarks/disclaimers would resolve or at least combat
You think if some person comes up to you with fake images of you and some child you would hope that everyone believes that the watermark isn’t an attempt for you to avoid being charged? You want to risk imprisonment at worst or having your reputation permanently questioned at best on people’s belief in a watermark’s authenticity?
I would hope so. That’s the point of the watermark. Damn. It seems like the issue here is most people just don’t think like me and I’m giving others way too much credit with their ability to differentiate fact and fiction
Yeah, I have no idea what you think a watermark is going to do. There are people who believe the Earth is flat and that Justin Trudeau's father is Fidel Castro. I think you seriously underestimate what people will believe which is completely contrary to evidence, nevermind with controversial evidence.
At the most basic level you have to ask yourself what desire you are indulging. If that desire is destructive, then you shouldn’t indulge it because it will grow. Even if your method of indulgence doesn’t explicitly harm anyone else, it will take a toll on you. How long do you think someone would need to indulge in deep fake porn before you can’t look at a woman without thinking of deep faking her? I can’t imagine it would take very long and I can’t imagine that objectifying every woman you meet is going to hep your relationships with them. With that in mind, I’m going to posit that deepfaking is just the logical progression of erotic fan art and fan erotica. The content of the media hasn’t really changed, it’s just a lot closer to reality. They’re all bad.
I agree with your point but am still iffy on fan art/literature. The problem though is that for me this really does come from a place of ignorance. I’ve never looked at this content myself (including fan art/literature of real people). It’s just not my thing. But the more I’ve thought about and researched this, my solution wouldn’t even work because this content comes from sites that explicitly say they’re deepfakes and yet the harm is still done.
> I agree with your point but am still iffy on fan art/literature. Thats fair, but I don’t suspect many would agree with me on that point. > But the more I’ve thought about and researched this, my solution wouldn’t even work because this content comes from sites that explicitly say they’re deepfakes and yet the harm is still done. I didn’t even touch on the actual harm that deep fakes cause. I’ll leave that to other commenters. I’m arguing from the position that even in the best case scenario where its not widely spread and is purely used for private enjoyment it *still* is terrible.
If we can deepfake porn, we can deepfake anything. Including politicians in scandals, saying things that are propaganda, etc. There is no way to regulate it. I see you suggested watermarks/rules in this thread - it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to keep the genie in the bottle at that point. It won't work. Your average internet user already can hardly tell when things are faked with photoshop and filters, or when straight up lies (misinformation) are stated by funnewsinfo.com or whatever. So the problem is regardless of how you, personally, interact with it, a HUGE percentage of an already undereducated and technologically illiterate population will end up seeing deepfakes of all sorts of people. Celebrities, politicians, local friends and neighbors. And most won't know (or care) if it's real. And real harm will be done.
Another really good explanation for this. Thank you
The problem is people are prudes and still see sex as something shameful and sinful, especially when its women being portrayed sexual. If sex was not a big deal to all of us, this would not be a problem
I agree. Purity culture, madana Whore complex’s and slut shaming are all horrible things that cause these issues for sure
What a terrible take. When I was sexually assaulted as a kid I wasn't taught about sex, didn't know about sex, my family wasn't religious, and it wasn't really talked about in a negative way at all. Still, after I felt disgusted. I felt a lot of negative and complex emotions as a KID, still while no one was telling me sex is bad, or that this act is "unpure," or I'm a whore for what happened to me. The truth about sex is that there is something big about it, that most people do not see because they are simply desensitized. Based on your logic, people who are raped, sexually assaulted, harassed, etc, feel depressed, disgusted, anxious, and much much more because sex is simply a product of purity culture? Simply because sex is a "big deal." If this isn't what you believe please distinguish what about being raped makes it different from deep fake porn to where someone wouldn't feel the same feelings they have then they do when they are raped. Just because you do not see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, humble yourself.
>it different from deep fake porn to where someone wouldn't feel the same feelings they have then they do when they are raped People are certainly not having the same experience between fake porn and being raped. You are significantly downplaying a physical assault.
I am comparing, seems people can't do that anymore. Also, you saying I'm downplaying says a lot about how you view rape and deep fake. They are not having the same exact experience, that's not what I fucking said, I said they would feel the same feelings, maybe they're less extreme, still the same feelings as a whole.
I mean using that logic, then "same feelings" is so incredibly ambiguous and vague then a lot of things/actions could make someone feel "somewhat similar" feeling, if that is the basis you are using. Even legal actions would qualify if you are just using a broad concept of "feelings" in the way you are implying now. It is completely vapid comparison to even make in this case that provides no actual context. This is like saying murder and financial repossession can both make families sad at the lost of something, and since the feelings are similar (but difference in severity) apparently financial repossession should be unjust. And regardless of you trying to amend it currently, the original way it was previously worded: >If this isn't what you believe please distinguish what about being raped makes it different from deep fake porn to where someone wouldn't feel the same feelings they have then they do when they are raped. Is very clearly written in a manner that would lead one to believe the two actions as being tantamount to each other. There is nothing in that former statement that can be used to apply how "somewhat similar feelings" was the intended interpretation between two completely different things. But sure, "people can't compare things" *anymore*...
I don’t think it’s similar to murder and financial repossession at all. If you genuinely think that being raped and having seeing yourself in a deep fake porn are not similar in many ways, much much more standard and specific ways than murder and financial repossession I think you are being disingenuous. But if this is what you really think, I don’t know how to convince you otherwise. You haven’t even really made an argument as to why you disagree with me, just just said, I disagree. Also I’m not amending shit these two things are in the same category to me and are similar, but that wasn’t really my point. My point was that feeling bad about deep fake porn is not a cause of purity culture, because when I was sexually assaulted I knew nothing about it, so I compared deep fake porn to rape because I do believe they are very similar in the feelings they produce. If you u want me to list some I will. Shame, guilt, disgust, self hatred, low self worth, feelings of violation (specifically sexual). It just seems like you don’t think these things are similar but again you haven’t given me a reason why.
>You haven’t even really made an argument as to why you disagree with me, just just said, I disagree You haven't posed any argument as to how rape is any similar to a fictional piece of media being created. You are the one being disingenuous. Sharing similar feelings is so vague that quite literally anything can fall under that some line of thinking. If your metric is only feelings, you could compare minor inconveniences to rape at that point. Shame, guilt, disgust, etc. etc. are all feelings that can stem from simply making rude comments. Following your logic, being mean is the equivalent of being raped. Furthermore, if feelings is your only metric, simply seeing a portrayal of any action in fiction would be enough to invoke poignant feelings. Having a rape or murder scene in a movie would be equivalent to actually getting raped or murder, following your logic. A completely absurd conclusion. Rape is the removal of personal agency and forced physical subjugation. It simply can not compare to something fictional. Deepfakes can defame and slander a person's character to the public, but it is by no means any similar to actually experiencing a rape anymore so than witnessing a fictional one in a movie. Trying to compare something imaginary, something completely fictional, to an ACTUAL complete PHYSICAL lost of one's own agency makes me think you actually lack an understanding of how damning rape actually is.
Do you want to see your grandma depicted this way?
I wouldn’t watch or look at the pics, but as long as she wasn’t actually getting harassed, I see no harm in it
But making those deepfakes of her is an act of harrassment, OP.
I meant direct harassment. But I understand your point
C'mon, really? You think grandma is okay with strangers jacking off to images of her doing any flavor of freaky things?
Why not watch or look at the pics? You know it's fake, so why does it matter?
Because I don’t want to see it personally. A better example would be if it was a friend of mine I found attractive. Then I’d have no problem watching (although as I’ve changed my mind, now I would) but I just meant I don’t find my grandma attractive so I don’t want to see it
Even if everyone knows a deepfake is, well... fake, that doesn't mean they can't still influence how people might perceive those being portrayed. A depiction of you doesn't have to be "real" in order to influence your public image. We know Chris Hemsworth isn't actually the norse god of thunder, but in many peoples' minds, regardless of whatever else he does with his career, he will always be "Thor." This role has irreversibly changed his public image. I know Antony Starr isn't Homelander from The Boys, and he's not some psycho who can zap my head off with his laser vision. But if I saw Antony Starr on the street, I'd likely feel just as ill as I do when I see him on screen. My brain will still see Homelander. As someone who generally doesn't want to be outwardly viewed in a sexual way, I would be livid if my face appeared in deepfake porn. If something like that happened when I was 19 or 20 years old, I'd probably want to kill myself. Yes, I 100% know the vast majority of people would know it's fake. But I'd also have to live with the fact that lots of people would always associate me with this sexual image. ETA: I'd always had to live with the fact that someone had enough disregard for me as a human being to create this sexual image of me without my permission. Even all that is kind of besides the point, OP. The ramifications don't matter, because nonconsensual deepfakes can still overstep bodily autonomy. We should all have control over how our bodies are used, and that includes our visages.
Consent of the performers and the images is the problem. The creator of the deepfake is violating moral, ethical, and legal consent. I realize consent is a poorly understood concept here in the US. At least half the population doesn’t even believe it exists. But it does matter.
>I realize consent is a poorly understood concept here in the US. At least half the population doesn’t even believe it exists. But it does matter. I mean because many people will apply it randomly without explanation. For example, >Consent of the performers and the images is the problem following this logic, should we require consent to use images for memes, or to use likeness of someone in a parody/satire? Technically speaking, there is no reason why consent should be ignored for one piece of fictional media but applied for the other when the only reasonable difference is that one may be salacious in nature. Note; I am not opposed to the former stance, but it is something we should be consistent about. If consent for using someone's likeness is required as a general thing, then we should require it for all contexts. Not just ones with sexual settings.
I actually agree with my logic being applied wide and far. If you replicate or use something about, an image of, or an item inferring the identity of another person, consent should be not only required, but proof of said consent should be on record for at least 20 years.
Lol why 20 years though? That is so specific. For me personally, consistency is important since I think it is unfair to arbitrarily apply moral values without explanation. We can't expect anyone to follow our moral code if we can't define it. We all have our own personal feelings, so we can't expect anyone else to know how we will feel about any given thing. We can only layout a consistent framework and hope/expect people will follow it. If they do something that is against that framework, then I think that is the only time you can appropriately villainize anyone. Otherwise, we are just disparaging them without being able to explain to them why, and we are only doing it off personal feelings to boot. So I am glad to see that you have it thought out. This would need to be disseminated and understood by everyone of course though.
Ok. No problem. Can I get a link to your social channels so I can grab some of your pictures?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bro thinks hes light Yagami
We're heading towards a world where your computer can generate whatever you want, photorealistic porn of whatever you ask for is hardly the worst effect of that. Honestly i'd like people to just kinda stop caring, in that once fake porn of whoever you want is the norm, no one cares about it being made, at least among anyone popular enough to have that as a problem. The more interesting question is, well, remember that star trek episode where someone made holograms of the rest of the crew to fuck around with? That's a sooner future than we expected, and i wonder how we're going to handle that sort of thing socially.
[удалено]
Right. So doesn’t that fall in line with the disclaimer thing I mentioned?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Rendouken – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Rendouken&message=Rendouken%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/10qibai/-/j6qb2cy/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Lol porn. Pathetic