this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
475 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
74983 readers
2813 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You may not have noticed there was an AI deepfake of Trump that's been viewed tens of millions of times, aired on Comedy Central.
That’s satire though.
Under any reasonable court (big caveat for American courts right now) that’s free speech.
And under any court at all, so is this. That's the problem.
how can an ai bot pull a free speech defense? free speech is, ostensibly, reserved for people...?
Are you under the impression that the AI bot was not created by people?
So? The manufacturer of the product is not responsible for how people use the product. Otherwise there would be no gun manufacturers anymore.
They are, however, responsible if the product they created does illegal things.
I disagree here, but I’m not a lawyer
Based on what? Who have you seen be convicted of making deepfake porn? Under what law?
Take it down act
On April 28, 2025, Congress passed S. 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill that criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including "digital forgeries" (i.e., deep fakes), in certain circumstances.
Is providing it over a private channel to a singular user publication?
I suspect that you will have to directly regulate image generation
Its already being done to help prevent fake CSAM.
That should have been standard from the start.
I don't think anyone has any delusions that Twitter is private, not even DM's.
It absolutely is private insofar as it is a channel between the software running on their end -> user who is operating the software. The lack of end to end encryption does not make it not private it makes it insecure which doesn't speak whatsoever to the issue raised which is that creation of an image by a user isn't likely to be considered publication until they share it.
It's highly probable that keeping people from generating deep fake nudes requires additional law.
Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet?
Definitely not convicted. That'd be some crazy speed.
However, your insistence that it hasn't happened yet so can't happen is insane. There has to be a first case in which it hadn't happened before.
It would be insane if that was what I had insisted, but that didn't happen. You just made it up.
Then you're provided a law where it'd be illegal:
This seems to heavily imply you don't believe it's illegal until someone's been convicted.
It doesn't imply that at all.
I disagree that Grok appears as any form of satire here
No one said it was. What I said was that it doesn't matter if it's satire or not, it's still classified as free speech, until a court proves otherwise.
Uhm, there have been plenty of cases of people getting in trouble for sharing deepfake porn yes. It's sexual harassment.
Well, at least over here in Europe, and it's mostly been with teenagers, I don't know the situation on the US
But generally, making and sharing porn of real people is.. well.. that can very easily count as sexual harassement
Well no, that was a practical effect.
Only it was mostly real
Not anymore real than these photos from Grok.