11–20 of 128 posts
celebfakes is the next Reddit hand grenade: the site has 'involuntary porn' as a category for reporting posts, yet simultaneously has a popular subreddit dedicated to involuntary porn.
celebfakes is the next Reddit hand grenade: the site has 'involuntary porn' as a category for reporting posts, yet simultaneously has a popular subreddit dedicated to involuntary porn.
It seems like they could establish some basic moral rules they prefer and then objectively apply them. But they choose not to for some reason.
Outside of porn, I'm wondering if this could be used in other ways, e.g. government propaganda. Putting leaders in situations that make them look good or putting their opponents in compromising situations.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/11/lip-syncing-obama...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25118156
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/gchq-using-online...
On the flipside, this gives anyone basic plausible deniability. No baby, that homemade porn video on my phone wasn't me! I just used a program to stick my face on something I found on the internet.
> It isn’t difficult to imagine an amateur programmer running their own algorithm to create a sex tape of someone they want to harass.
If it's trivial to fake a porn video with anyone's face on it, then the burden of proof is on the harasser to demonstrate how this one's real.
Or you can take said video and put some famous people's face on it as a response.
Also, the source video probably existed before and was more or less publicly available, which is proof that the version with your face is the fake one.
(And if you're facing an enemy that has enough ressources to shoot a specially-made porn video just to smite you, you have bigger problems to worry about).
What does self-completion mean?
On the flipside, this gives anyone basic plausible deniability. No baby, that homemade porn video on my phone wasn't me! I just used a program to stick my face on something I found on the internet.
Plausible deniability doesn't really work in real life though. Very few people are going to give you, or anyone accused of an indiscretion, the benefit of the doubt on the basis that a video might have been faked with AI. That is much less plausible than someone cheating and getting caught. If you think anyone is going to accept that a video is fake, even if it is , then you're woefully naive.
Hopefully, since it can't be stopped, it becomes so routinely used against so many people that everyone stops caring any more if it's real or fake.
It's sad that our attitudes (if not behaviour) towards sex are still so fucked up and judgemental thanks to thousands of years of religious/Victorian/puritanical brainwashing and guilt-tripping.