[greenhexagon]

| If you want to fight against non consensual AI porn, you need someone to be the face of it

Isn't this just an emotionally charged way of suggesting people fight against artistic freedom, freedom of speech, etc?

I have literally zero concern about someone making AI porn that looks like me (or my spouse, family, celebrities, politicians, etc). People have already had photoshop and before that imaginations. It's maybe a little weird, icky or uncomfortable to think about, but that's a small price to pay for living in a free liberal democracy.

I'm far more concerned that this will give powerful people another tool to crack down on journalists, artists, activists, documentary filmmakers, etc. Or even just any independent creative who attempts to publish work outside of one of the major copyright cartel corporations.

[anonymouskimmer]

Whenever anyone says "I have literally zero concern about someone doing X about me" they should probably take a moment to check their privilege and consider first why someone else could be concerned about that. Maybe try a search.

As an example, I searched for "effects of fake porn" and got the following article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-and-sex-in-the-...

: Kristen Zaleski, Director of Forensic Mental Health at USC’s Keck Human Rights Clinic, recently told the Washington Post that she’s been working with a schoolteacher who lost her job after parents and administrators learned about deepfake porn using her likeness.

: One recent study reports that 96 percent of deepfake victims are sexualized, and nearly all them are women, though males (especially politicians) and even children have also been abused in this way. The same research finds that many victims are harassed or extorted based on this artificially generated imagery.

Are you male, by chance, and not a celeb or politician? Then you're not the target of fake porn, so are unlikely to have been exposed to the unexpected consequences of such.

Edit to add another article: https://healthnews.com/mental-health/anxiety-depression/the-...

: What’s more chilling is that anyone can use deepfake porn technology to humiliate and degrade a woman sexually without her consent. The problem is becoming so widespread that a woman is not even safe going to the gym anymore without being at risk of having her photo taken without her consent and placed in a deepfake video.

Can you step outside of your own point of view enough to imagine what such a scenario could do to a person who fears being made an object of lust or ridicule? If you can't, then just click the link and read down a little bit, because the article explicitly mentions the possible psychological harms.

[greenhexagon]

Can you step outside of your own point of view to realize this is all kinda silly?

When you walk down the street, people might look at you and imagine you in ways you don't like. They might whisper about you to their friends. They might write a story where you're the villain or the fool. They might draw an unflattering picture of you. You might experience anxiety or fear or other "psychological harms" worrying about any of these things happening.

I have compassion and sympathy for the fears, anxieties and discomforts people might experience from worrying about how other people imagine them, or use their likeness in works of fiction. But that sympathy doesn't mean I want the government to police people's thoughts, stories or art.

[anonymouskimmer]

I did step outside of my own point of view to consider others' points of view, and post a reply to you highlighting those others' points of view. Like you, deepfake porn is not an issue that impacts me, therefore I'm privileging those it does impact when discussing whether or not it should be clamped down on.

Do you not realize that the actions in your second paragraph turn into already illegal harassment if done sufficiently?

Mass distributing, or targeted distribution, are their own things. It's not people's "thoughts", or even their stories or art when not involving others, or when kept sandboxxed in appropriate limited forums, or depending on the "speech" when properly labeled as fictitious (though some speech is wrong regardless of its labeling).

[Dweller1622]

> or depending on the "speech" when properly labeled as fictitious (though some speech is wrong regardless of its labeling).

What's an example of this?

[anonymouskimmer]

In general insulting or threatening statements that end with an "I'm just kidding".

"For legal purposes I have to state that everything I'm writing is fictitious. :wink:

Got that? Everything I'm telling you to do here I'm not actually saying you should do. You obviously shouldn't do it because it's illegal. :wink:

Here's how to get guns and other weapons.

Here's where we should gather and at what time.

Here's the rest of the plan for killing all of those X people and tearing down the government.

I'm definitely not saying to do this. :wink: This is just criticism and parody of what actual bad people would do."

That's a pretty extreme example.

Less extreme examples are "based on a true story" accounts that demonize some real people just to make a good villain.

[Dweller1622]

Ah, alright. I suppose it comes down to the fact that even thought labeled as such, this speech isn't actually fictitious. I see your point here.

[djur]

Are you opposed to libel laws?

[bsder]

How about we also fix the fact that doing something legal outside job time can somehow result in you losing your job?

With the amount of distribution the internet enables, it needs to get fixed.

[anonymouskimmer]

Just realized you're commenting about the teacher. From the WP article:

: “The parents at the school didn’t understand how that could be possible,” Zaleski said. “They insisted they didn’t want their kids taught by her anymore.”

There's not much you can do if your clients insist on no longer working with you.

It's also only a matter of time, if it hasn't been done yet, that a teacher and student will be targeted with deepfake porn that looks real. Even if it is eventually discovered to be fake, you're still dealing with a massively disruptive experience with mandatory leave during the investigation.

[ryandrake]

> “The parents at the school didn’t understand how that could be possible,” Zaleski said.

I guess -a- root cause here is the general public’s ignorance of the capability of computer software. Not sure how to fix that besides giving it time. As soon as it’s widely accepted that computers can generate believable fake video, you’d expect deepfakes to be disregarded, but then again we’ve been saying “don’t believe what you see on the Internet” for how long and people still believe what they read on the Internet.

[bsder]

> There's not much you can do if your clients insist on no longer working with you.

Then that's where the law needs to step in to protect people from the ignorant.

[anonymouskimmer]

So you're saying that the law should force people to stay in a business relationship? Like let's say this wasn't a teacher employed by a school district, but an independent tutor directly employed by parents. The law should force those parents to continue hiring the tutor? What if the parents have an independent plausible (or real) reason to cease doing business with the tutor?

[bsder]

> So you're saying that the law should force people to stay in a business relationship?

If the school receives public funding? Absolutely.

How many of the parents whining about the teacher actually had students in her class? Normally, in cases like this, you'll have something like one parent with a student in the class and a bunch of the Fox News pearl-clutcher brigade who don't even have children in the school.

> Like let's say this wasn't a teacher employed by a school district, but an independent tutor directly employed by parents.

That's a tougher problem. I still don't like it, but there's probably not a lot that can be done in that case. However, the mob mentality is also a bit dampened since the interactions are both individual and unforced.

[dragonwriter]

> So you're saying that the law should force people to stay in a business relationship?

If by “force” you mean “impose a legal duty that, when violated, incurs a liability from the violator to those harmed by the violation”, sure, and nondiscrimination law already does that, and has for a long time: the discussion here is about the scope of that mandate.

[anonymouskimmer]

For most things that a person would do outside their job I completely agree (general caveats for the likes of spokespeople, etcetera).