No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: undefined
#2[flagged]
Re: undefined
#3While I agree with the message, the phrasing is overly aggressive against tech workers "bros". I don't get what they're trying to achieve here.
Re: undefined
#4Soooo the tech will never be deleted and people don't understand this so we make sure its illegal enough that people just do it more privatly?
I still think this is great: 1. twitter and all other normal websites should adhere to youth proteciton, which includes porn 2. possible denyability
We are not even able to make it illegal for shitty scam ads, we will never be able to block ai deepfake porn too.
Re: undefined
#5> Taylor Swift is just one of countless victims of deepfake videos.
Ruined life?? Puleeze...
Re: undefined
#6I don't think the article is meritless, it needs it's title adjusted to something less inflamatory. "Deepfake porn ruins lives and the law has to catch up".
Here is a link to the report the author references. https://www.homesecurityheroes.com/state-of-deepfakes/
A few interesting points - 74% of deepfake porn watchers feel no remorse, but 73% would want to report it to the authorities if it was someone close to them.
South Korea produces a large amount of deepfake porn ~50% and the top 8 of 10 subjects are South Korean singers.
Re: undefined
#7While I agree with the message, the phrasing is overly aggressive against tech workers "bros". I don't get what they're trying to achieve here.
SW here to second this comment as well as note that while deepfake porn seems to disproportionately target women, it has the capacity to do so to anyone and the article doesn't seem to use that frame of reference either. Reducing the problem to something "tech bros" need only to pay attention to is not helpful and arguably counter-productive.
Re: undefined
#8The law cannot catch up without a constitutional amendment. Bernstein v DOJ protects software as speech, and Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition protects art as speech.
Re: undefined
#9[flagged]
Re: undefined
#10While I agree with the message, the phrasing is overly aggressive against tech workers "bros". I don't get what they're trying to achieve here.
So I kind of agree with your criticism of the tone but less so after seeing this get flag-killed so quickly. A lot of us are very close to the tech and feel personally attacked by criticism but that is a fraction of the stress being experienced by victims of these attacks and since many of them are school-aged they don’t have the same level of support and self-confidence to laugh them off.
I think the real question here should be what policies would help reduce abuse without being too restrictive. Politicians are going to keep receiving calls for action from [rightfully] angry parents so efforts to not hear about it here just mean that debate is happening somewhere else.