this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
95 points (91.3% liked)
Technology
59020 readers
2987 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, I think it's good to identify why non-consenting pornography is considered a bad thing. And why it being considered a bad thing is different than what you are saying here.
Deep fake pornography for the people targeted (which is not just famous people) is incredibly invasive. Your image is out there doing things that you would be horrified to have on camera. It can destroy people's health and cause huge problems, especially for people who are being harassed by others.
It's not Pearl clutching. It's a rather damaging technology that benefits no one.
By default, creating and publishing "deepfake porn" of a real person constitutes defamation against that person, as it carries the false statement "this person posed for this picture" which is likely to cause that person harm. Often, the intention is to cause harm.
As such, we don't need new laws here. Existing laws against defamation just need to be applied.
How well do you think logic will hold up with high school teens?
Let's see you put your money where your mouth is after we get some deep fakes of your turd eating fetishes get sent to your friends.
Or their boss.
Look folks, it's the Simone Biles of mental gymnastics. You have some serious growing up to do if that's your argument. Just because it's potentially fake doesn't make it any less of an invasion of privacy. So your argument is that everyone shouldn't give a shit about privacy, especially their own?