Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#71

Post by excalibur » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:28 AM UTC

typomatic wrote: post #25

excalibur wrote: post #13

Fake porn of celebrities has been prevalent on the Internet for a long time. I don't have precise statistics, but I think it might predate the web. For the most part it hasn't been particularly controversial. Now that advances in technology have significantly improved the quality, everybody suddenly has a problem with it. Let's back this up a few steps. You're an actor, you appear on television. By being filmed and a…

Usually people use the slippery slope to avoid things, not encourage a descent into depravity, but to each their own. In any case, you shouldn't pretend as if this is morally okay just because you can focus in on each individual step and find a way to justify it. There are a lot of crimes that clearly fall into this bucket: stalking, for example. Any one interaction may be innocent, but it's the sum total of actions…

You may want to have a look at this other article from today. Forcing everything into a black-and-white dichotomy could be a sign of serious psychological issues.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16322782

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#72

Post by flycaliguy » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:30 AM UTC

basqueballoon wrote: post #62

bradbeattie wrote: post #14

I'm on the fence on this one. If I draw a stick figure and put your name above it, is that unethical? What if I add a speech bubble saying something risqué? What if I'm a talented artist and I draw something pretty life-like? I don't see the lines here being too clear without claiming down on all expression.

I was also, but now think that I disagree with Reddit's decision. I do not think there's a good argument for it being in the same class of phenomenon as nonconsensual porn. Here's why: 1. r/deepfake exists, draws novelty, and has appeal in part because it's explicitly identified as fake. It's part of the name. So there's not only any claim to it being real, it's explicitly identified as fake. It's hard to argue how t…

At point 3 you skip over the public humiliation that a published deepfake can be responsible for. By creating something and keeping it to yourself, you are basically demonstrating the behaviour Reddit wants. They want you to keep that "content" offline in your basement and not on Reddit being spread and commented on.

If that fake sex gif you made of your wife gets spread around her workplace, you better believe that would be an extremely humiliating and emotionally traumatic experience. An experience these rules will be created to prevent.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#73

Post by mark_edward » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

yakitori wrote: post #43

Cynddl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can actually be considered as a form of harassement or defamation. While it might be a gray area in the US, it is likely not going to be the same in Europe.

Europe is fairly backwards when it comes to free speech. A guy who made a silly video of his dog doing a nazi salute is getting charged in britain. Someone who criticized the turkish leader almost got prosecuted by the german government. Poland just enacted a law where if you call something a "polish death camp", you can be jailed. Russia loved europe's censorship laws so much, they copied it. For some ridiculous rea…

Do you actually think a slave-driving genocidal America invented freedom?

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#74

Post by Spivak » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #51

yakitori wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they? Yes. > If you distribute movies and media to the public, you normally are breaking laws. That's not what we are talking about. You can transform any public image for parody, criticism, etc. Porn is considered speech so anyone can make pornographic parodies/etc. This is especially true if fans are doing so for fun and not for profit. Of course reddit has a right to ban it from their platform, but you as a…

That's not what we are talking about. You can transform any public image for parody, criticism, etc. Porn is considered speech so anyone can make pornographic parodies/etc. This is true. It's not censorable free speech, meaning the government can't prohibit it ahead of time. But speech can be subject to tort claims despite surviving the First Amendment. A deepfake victim can sue for damages in civil courts, and there…

What would their suit entail that isn't covered by existing porn parodies? So long as the final composition is labeled as a fake I don't see them winning on damage to reputation. Use of likeness might go through in a few states that cover non-commercial use but in most states as long as it's fan-made they would probably be okay.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#75

Post by Somasis » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC

excalibur wrote: post #71

typomatic wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually people use the slippery slope to avoid things, not encourage a descent into depravity, but to each their own. In any case, you shouldn't pretend as if this is morally okay just because you can focus in on each individual step and find a way to justify it. There are a lot of crimes that clearly fall into this bucket: stalking, for example. Any one interaction may be innocent, but it's the sum total of actions…

You may want to have a look at this other article from today. Forcing everything into a black-and-white dichotomy could be a sign of serious psychological issues. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16322782

Arm-chair diagnosing someone you don't agree with with psychological issues isn't very helpful to a conversation, you know.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#76

Post by Spivak » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:58 AM UTC

llukas wrote: post #64

superkuh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily in the free world we don't need "rights" in order to do things. In third world countries people are often put in prison for photoshoping their leaders. Hopefully this trend towards that kind of authoritarianism doesn't continue in the west.

Did you really just mix for profit deepfake porn with fight for political freedom?

Freedom shouldn't discriminate based on fields of endeavor.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#77

Post by earenndil » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

irrational wrote: post #28

So, subreddits that do "safe for work" deepfakes are still around and allowed. This tells me that the technology will just get better and better and the use for it to create NSFW deepfakes will likewise get better and better (while existing underground?) until it really is impossible even for an expert to tell that they are fakes. That is what I assume will happen anyway.

> until it really is impossible even for an expert to tell that they are fakes

I hope that happens, and as soon as possible. Otherwise, there will be an 'uncanny valley' period of sorts, where people are able to mass-produce this video, but not everyone is aware that it exists. When it really is flawless, or close enough to, societal change will begin. This will also mean that video evidence will likely no longer hold in court (which is good because it was already possible to fudge manually with videoediting tools).

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#78

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 3:59 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #76

llukas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you really just mix for profit deepfake porn with fight for political freedom?

Freedom shouldn't discriminate based on fields of endeavor.

My rights begin where someone else's rights end. Freedom is not "free to do whatever you want".

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#79

Post by sandov » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 7:14 AM UTC

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #24

bradbeattie wrote: post #14

I'm on the fence on this one. If I draw a stick figure and put your name above it, is that unethical? What if I add a speech bubble saying something risqué? What if I'm a talented artist and I draw something pretty life-like? I don't see the lines here being too clear without claiming down on all expression.

None of these examples are really anywhere close to deepfake porn videos. - Porn is done under consent, where participants should be reasonably aware that it will be published - Porn tarnishes reputations If you pasted Daisy Ridley's face in a crowd in, say, China, doing every day stuff, no one would rightly care because there's no real potential unless you are doing it for some ulterior motive.

What if I paint a specific person being physically attacked?

What if I make a fake video of a specific person being physically attacked?

He didn't consent to be attacked and it may tarnish his reputation. Is it unethical to do any of the above?

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#80

Post by numismatex » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 8:19 AM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #20

excalibur wrote: post #13

Fake porn of celebrities has been prevalent on the Internet for a long time. I don't have precise statistics, but I think it might predate the web. For the most part it hasn't been particularly controversial. Now that advances in technology have significantly improved the quality, everybody suddenly has a problem with it. Let's back this up a few steps. You're an actor, you appear on television. By being filmed and a…

> people are still 100% within their rights to combine images legally obtained in this way. And post them online. Are they? If you distribute movies and media to the public, you normally are breaking laws. (Hence the infamous FBI warning on movies for a couple decades now.) Likewise, you cannot just use people's likeness in marketing and other public uses without their permission. So I'm not at all sure that just bec…

Generally there are loopholes for creative works and editorial use. Add in that several people may look alike -- Google "Doppleganger". Creative works that are derived from a character's, or a person's appearance aren't copyrightable. They can sue based upon defamation of character and damages but outside of that there isn't much recourse. And if it's done in an editorial fashion, for humor or other art, good luck with the cases.