-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Fake-porn videos are being weaponized to harass and humiliate women: ‘Everybody is a potential target’
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
Do not post any photos of yourself on the internet, the deep fake tech requires data about your facial structure to be fed into them. The more data, the more realistic it looks.
Hell we'll reach a point where companies will literally try to sell the photos of your face to other companies to synthesize new faces. Welcome to your cyberpunk dystopia.
Hell we'll reach a point where companies will literally try to sell the photos of your face to other companies to synthesize new faces. Welcome to your cyberpunk dystopia.
If it was explicitly made clear it was satire or parody it might be protected.
If it's intended to deceive or damage someone then it's definitely defamation
this is the most important part
if theres 50 videos of ariana grande fucking some guy, it wont matter if theres a real one in there or not
Photoshopping has been available for how long now? You still can't make a perfect doctored image that can beat an analysis. Video editing is a magnitude harder to do without obvious errors. It'd be painstaking as all hell and it still wouldn't be perfect.
Can be duplicated and edited out. The "watermark" would have to be encrypted into the images somehow.
We did and we pretty much all said this would be weaponized eventually as soon as it was revealed.
You're right. I'm not dismissing that. I'm just saying, keep informed and let others know; there are ways to combat this.
While I agree with you about the harmful effects, I don't see how it could be banned by law, at least in the United States.
Grammatically, let's forget the debate around its offensiveness, I don't think females is even correct. From my very cursory research, the only correct usage of the word female as a noun is to refer to certain animals. So I feel like it should be obvious why it's demeaning.
This will hurt social media companies. A lot of people will no longer want to have any significant presence of their own selves online such as photos or videos. Plenty won't mind, but a lot of people who aren't getting any fame out of social media will just opt out, far more than would otherwise have.
What this means is it couldn't be made a crime but it is also likely a civil infringement if it's used with hostile intent.
This is like trying to stop the internet. You can slow it down, sure, but others will research it instead.
Maybe the software couldn't but the usage could be fineable or punishable by jail time.
Yeah you're right I just wrote that off the cuff. I haven't applied any serious thought to it.
This will lead to an entirely new frontier and era in fascist propaganda. You were all warned here.
These dudes are scumbags. Should be just as punishable as posting genuine revenge porn, if not more so.
You really tone policing after telling a suicidal poster to kick rocks because you didn't like his post history?
I helped my friend deepfake his wife and yeah, it's scary how good off the shelf tools are getting these days.
Wait, don't call the FBI, it's not like this (and yeah, that was clickbaity, sorry), he had a video of her drunk doing the "i'm funny how" bit from goodfellas and I helped him put her face on Joe Pesci as a surprise for her birthday.
Wait, don't call the FBI, it's not like this (and yeah, that was clickbaity, sorry), he had a video of her drunk doing the "i'm funny how" bit from goodfellas and I helped him put her face on Joe Pesci as a surprise for her birthday.
I hope this kind of targeted assassination of specific women doesn't end up demonizing porn in general
That's another thing, there's going to be a lot of reasons for people to want to use deep fakes to put their own faces in movies and what not for a laugh, and share the results. Heck, watch some movie have the option to replace any actor's face with your own, or the faces of you "Friends". Maybe Facebook would. Recast a whole movie with your face and your friends' at the click of a button. Even couples will want to put their own faces in some porn movies lol.
I'm a VR pessimist but an AR optimist and neither will have the potential for social harm that this will. VR and AR have very obvious "good" applications. Every application I can think of for this ranges from "crass commerialism" to "character assassination". VR and AR both require enough hardware to be simply legislated and regulated like any other physical product. Deepfakes threaten the veracity of information itself and what "truth" means in society.
Too late, the cops are already on their way.
The optimistic take is that people will just stop caring. I mean, people have been photoshopping celebrities on nudes decades before we even had photoshop and on the whole it didn't end up being a huge deal. But I think considering the general atmosphere on the internet and the proliferation of bad faith actors, vigilance is merited, even if I don't personally know what should be done about any of this.
I see where you're going. Point taken... for now.
(Then computers can also do the analysis. It's cat and mouse, always will be.)
This. When deepfakes became a thing there was some pretty interesting things done with it unrelated to porn and revenge tactics. While I don't think the "fun" deepfakes are worth the risk of having this tech around, the cats out of the bag already. It be great if machine learning could ID fake videos uploaded, and report the IP and user information to the local authorities. You wouldn't be able to stop it from popping up in places, but at least anything meant to defame would be kicked to the corners of the internet. Get youtube, pornhub, and a few other sites on board or fine sites that don't, and you could curb a lot of this, with people caught using it for malicious purposes being charged with a crime.
Then the crime of defamation would be in those that are reproducing it for purposes of defamation not the creator itself? I dunno...
Say I write a parody fake news story in a parody website with a parody disclaimer, and then someone copies it and spreads it as real, then I don't think I can be liable for defamation.
IMO, this is one of the only ways forward in terms of deterrents.
First off, I'd appreciate you not bringing up cross-thread drama, if you have an issue with me or my posts you are free to use the report feature or the block feature. Secondly, maybe take some time to talk to that user and ask about the conversation we had outside of that thread through PM's before running your mouth without all the facts.
Edit: Thirdly, that isn't even "tone policing", I didn't say anything about their tone.
This:
Has nothing to do with tone policing, it has to do with the message. Try again next time.
Last edited:
If it's a task that humans don't know how to do, raw computation power can only go so far, especially since you would need examples for training (unless you could somehow work backwards from a real image).
You wouldn't be, yes, if you've encrypted to prove that "I made this, yes, but it was satirical" like one of those "I do not own anything here, all licenses are the property of their blah blah" disclaimers on YouTube. But it has to be done on the images itself rather than the metadata because of video capture technology.
If someone spreads a fake you make as real they can easily claim "I saw it somewhere else and assumed it was real". Graphical encryption is the most foolproof way of make sure fakes aren't misused and that you wouldn't be held liable for any damage they do.
It's not a crime to retweet fake news and it's impossible to police or to prove innocent or guilty intent. "I thought it was real and retweeted it" is a blanket defense I imagine.
well tbh never knew calling someone a female was demeaning I just did a quick google search and saw a artical on why it's could be demeaning, but I've been saying women or female, male etc depending on which one I think is grammatically correct and never meant to offend anyone.
I even see the word being used often on Instagram and Twitter by both male and female ,but I'll edit my post, gotta be carefully these days, everyone take things too personally or always looking for something negative even though the message wasn't intended to be negative.
Outside of the women it hurts, yes.
Defamation laws have a long way to go with stuff like this, but i think its about time they start getting revised, but i guess it can only directly appeal to someone's real life image as opposed to say a drawing or something.
In any case, there should be criminal punishment of one can actually be caught creating and distributing this sort of thing
You're looking at it in a bit weird way I think.
Look at it this way, if you're gonna use "females" like this in your speech or writing, a people would assume you're a sexist, and if you don't want people to think that you're a sexist (and why would you?) the easiest thing to do is not to just use it like that.
I don't think it's a huge deal.
I saw some of this when it was allowed on Reddit and it is incredibly believable. I'm not sure what can really be done about it.
Any person doing this shit just needs to tossed in jail. No fines. No soft shit. Straight into a prison cell.
Really the best way to deal with this is to get through it the hard way as quickly as possible.
In a disturbing bit of irony, more deep fakes of more celebrities--even patently unrealistic ones--might de-weaponize this fastest.
In a disturbing bit of irony, more deep fakes of more celebrities--even patently unrealistic ones--might de-weaponize this fastest.
Now you know. I'm sure you can find many things on Twitter and Instagram. Not sure why that would be a good barometer for judging things.
Like I said this is the first time I've ever heard the word being sexist, but I guess context matters and I could see why people who think the word is sexist could have seen my post of me using it as sexist, cause that's just how they think but I went back and edit it.
Anyway like you said I don't think it's a huge deal. Don't want to derail the thread anymore with my post of the real issue the OP is trying to tell us
I recommend you read this: https://www.masstlc.org/the-more-machines-learn-the-less-we-understand-them-for-now/
The problem with machine learning is that sometimes it works like a black box. Data goes in, data comes out, you can't explain that. The machine can produce results. Humans can manually confirm the results, but the machine can't tell the human about the process it used to arrive at the result. An example of what this looks like in practice.
After AlphaGo made the news in 2016 for repeatedly trouncing the world's top Go players, we knew it was a superior Go "player", probably the best in the world. However, what we can't do is ask AlphaGo to tell us how it wins nor can we ask it to teach us its strategies because it doesn't have a concept of "strategy". It does a thing, if it works, it does the thing again. If it doesn't, it tries another thing.
The only person who can tell whether the machine is doing a good job is the technician overseeing its data training. This does not mean that the trainer has control over the machine's process. The trainer only confirms or rejects results according to their desires and goals. This is where the danger of deepfake really is, because it's ultimately the trainer's moral compass that decides what results get accepted and which ones get rejected. The machine's capabilities are already beyond what humans are capable of, but human morality guides what the machine produces.
Bit of a turnaround from "please don't bring up other posts" like 10 minutes ago.