[Probuin]

I understand the laws against distribution, but can anyone explain why creating/possessing deep-faked porn for private use is so morally reprehensible or even criminal?

I can't identify a victim in this scenario. Whose business is it? I genuinely couldn't care less if someone did this "to" me, but then I recognise that as a middle aged dude that's not ever happening so I may have a blind spot here. How would I even know unless, ironically, the investigation and prosecution publicised the fact that it exists?

[Ekaros]

Similar reason with drugs. Use is not generally illegal, possession is. Possession is very easy to prove. Thus criminalization makes sense. Same goes for this type of material. If it stays private no one has idea and it won't be a problem. If it goes public, well now you have conclusive proof.

And the harm comes from sharing this material. So stopping people from possessing it as with lot of other material is not worse way to stop spread. Defence of I did not create it is not usable anymore.

[brabel]

It’s indeed thought police. But i suppose there’s a huge difference when the material is used for blackmail… and there’s also a risk it may be stolen and then shared publicly in which case it can be devastating for the victim. But if you keep the material well hidden it’s similar to if it was just in your imagination and hopefully that’s not illegal yet.

[Probuin]

That's exactly my point though. It is. From the article:

>in September, legislators passed an amendment that made possessing and viewing deepfake porn punishable by up to three years in prison.

This is insane.

[obscurette]

While thinking can't (and must not) be criminalized, materializing a fantasies even in "nonharmful" way can damage people a lot – these materials can be found for example.

[lazide]

You’re getting downvoted because it triggers some really deep ick feelings. Ick feelings that as a middle aged dude you’ve likely never had (or will likely have), so can’t appreciate. If you’ve had a crazy stalker (truly crazy), you’d probably think differently.

For instance, that Star Trek episode where Barclay was simulating the crew and having ‘relationships’ with them on the holodeck - in ‘real life’ the crew would have ostracized him, at the minimum.

In ‘real real life’, he might have just gotten murdered, ahem, ‘had a transporter accident’.

It’s similar. Yeah, logically ‘no one was getting hurt’, but people aren’t logical that way. For a reason, frankly.

And if you think of it as a prelude to something much more disturbing and direct happening (which it well might), then it makes sense to have the ‘disproportionate’/illogical reaction. Those emotions are warning people of an imminent threat, and they’d be fools to ignore them, regardless of what anyone says.

[int_19h]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be grossed out by someone generating porn of other people without consent for their own personal consumption. But when it comes to legislation, surely that should be driven by harm assessment? Distribution of such images is clearly harmful and should be illegal, but I find it hard to come up with any reasonable arguments for criminalizing mere possession.

[lazide]

It’s just an expansion of the same rules as CSAM (which typically - but sometimes not for a short period of time in some locales - includes generated content).

I imagine it won’t be long before this is used to try to ban porn entirely, since ‘there is no way to be sure’. And then crack down on chat groups, social media, etc. since that is where any of the legit problematic content is going to be distributed most of the time eh?