If there were ever a title to a post that could be considered pure clickbait, my title would fit the bill, since it blends three of the biggest news items currently going: Taylor Swift, porn, and AI. The media attention that Swift is getting both for her music and her relationship with a football player is astounding. I have not heard her music nor do I follow football but thanks to the ubiquity of the coverage of her in the news, I know that she is in a relationship with someone playing for the Kansas City Chiefs. Why this receives such massive coverage from even mainstream news outlets mystifies me.
But my post is really using those three things to argue that the current ability of anyone to so easily produce deepfakes using AI may well herald the demise of some truly ugly practices.
It turns out that someone had used Swift’s image to create a pornographic video that appeared on Twitter/X. The site took down the video and blocked searches on the singer’s name but not before the video had amassed a huge number of views.
Female celebrities are particularly prone to this kind of deception. One estimate is that last year alone, 143,000 deepfake porn videos were created. Scarlett Johannson has also voiced her concerns over such use that have included her image and voice being added to sex videos and also in advertisements for products. Fake AI-generated celebrity images are now being produced on an industrial scale.
This is obviously a terrible thing. If there is a silver lining to the whole sordid business, it is that the widespread knowledge of the prevalence of deepfakes will make it easier for the targets to plausibly dismiss the images as fake. Before the emerge of deepfake technology, there were instances of famous people whose videos of sex acts were released into the internet without their permission. Those people had a hard time getting them taken down because the internet never forgets. But now you can simply say that it is fake and are likely to be believed.
Seeking out video of famous people engaging in sex acts seems pointless at best and becomes even more so if the video is not genuine. I suppose some people will still search for those images for reasons only known to themselves.
Another possible outcome of deepfakes affects those who are not famous, in that it might kill the phenomenon known as ‘revenge porn‘. This is where someone engages in sexual acts that are caught on camera by one of the partners. But after the relationship turns sour and the couple breaks up, sometimes the man (it is almost always a man) in anger anonymously releases the video as an act of revenge on the woman who dumped him.
Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent. The material may have been made by a partner in an intimate relationship with the knowledge and consent of the subject at the time, or it may have been made without their knowledge. The subject may have experienced sexual violence during the recording of the material, in some cases facilitated by narcotics such as date rape drugs which also cause a reduced sense of pain and involvement in the sexual act, dissociative effects and amnesia. The possession of the material may be used by the perpetrators to blackmail the subjects into performing other sexual acts, to coerce them into continuing a relationship or to punish them for ending one, to silence them, to damage their reputation, and/or for financial gain. In the wake of civil lawsuits and the increasing numbers of reported incidents, legislation has been passed in a number of countries and jurisdictions to outlaw the practice, though approaches have varied and been changed over the years. The practice has also been described as a form of psychological abuse and domestic violence, as well as a form of sexual abuse.
There was not much the woman could do in those situations but now she can simply dismiss the video as a deepfake even if it is not. The ability of ordinary people to produce high-quality deepfakes makes such a denial plausible. The person who released the video could go to some lengths to show that the video is genuine but that would only open him up for condemnation and possible prosecution.
“Deepfakes exist, so revenge porn is no longer a problem because women who are victims can just say ‘it’s a fake’ and, y’know, get over it”
Pop quiz: was the above suggestion written by
(a) a woman
(b) a man.
I mean good grief.
Where is that quote from?
Semi-OT:
The funny thing about the MAGAt backlash against Swift and Kansas City is that now the MAGAts will have to root for San Francisco. Imagine that.
Women who have had faked pornographic videos of them posted online say that even if the fake is obviously a fake, it is still deeply disturbing: they feel it as a sexual assault. So the fact that they can say “it’s a fake” (whether or not that is either true or if true, obvious) doesn’t actually solve any problem. They may feel they have to bring up the abuse they have been subjected to in job interviews, on first dates, etc. And it’s going to be out there, potentially reappearing, indefinitely.
…it is almost always a man…
Sooner or later, we will probably see a spate of limp-noodle non-sex videos released as revenge-revenge-porn.
@chigau, 2:
That, there, is a quote from post 2.
“Where’d you read that?” is a paraphrase/summary of post 2.
See the difference?
Post 1 is not a quote from anything, it’s a summary of the original posts points, quoted here:
Do I need to explain why that sounds like an point only a man would make?
> Sooner or later, we will probably see a spate of limp-noodle non-sex videos released as revenge-revenge-porn.
And suddenly I can’t get the image of a mushroom headed limp noodle romping with Stormy Daniels out of my head.
Damn you Pierce !
/s
re Patrick Slattery @7: Several years ago, someone made some nude statues of The Orange Felon that were unflattering, to say the least. Of course brain bleach was needed after seeing pictures of those. Not sure what ever happened to those. (Not that I want to see them again.)
sonofrojblake #6
Quotation marks indicate a quotation, not a paraphrase.
Claiming that a “summary” is a quote is lying.
@chigau, 9:
I’ve explained the difference between using the {blockquote} html tag to explicitly denote an actual quotation and using simple ” marks to denote something I’m paraphrasing. Refuse to understand the distinction if you choose.
I assumed, to be honest, that any marginally intelligent person would be able to understand that the stuff in the ” marks was intended to be a condensed characterisation of the original post, not a literal quotation from somewhere/something/someone else. You were evidently not able to understand that. I forgive you.
(note: if I’m posting from my phone rather than a PC with a keyboard, I will from time to time choose to use ” marks to denote an actual quotation. This is laziness, and if you pick me up for that I’ll hold me hands up to it.. If you’re going to quote someone, you use {blockquote}. That’s what it’s for.
But “lying”? Nah. I never claimed that “summary” was a quote. If you chose to interpret it that way, that’s on you.
sonofrojblake #10
I will continue to interpret the use of quotation marks to indicate an actual quotation.
You may take your forgiveness and wrap it around a dead porcupine.
sonofrojblake @#1 and #10,
I have never heard of people using quotation marks to signify a paraphrase. It is almost always used to signify a direct quote of someone else. That is an extremely common, standard, and clear way of distinguishing between a quote and a paraphrase. The fact that blockquotes can also be used in html to signify a quote does not mean that the quote marks have lost their meaning. While quotation marks (single or double) may be used in a few other ways such as for titles or as scare quotes or irony, they are never used as paraphrases. Can you point to any style guide that supports your contention?
Because I knew that I had never said any such a thing in my writing, I knew that you were just making stuff up. But people who do not read everything I have written may well think that I had said it because of your use of quotation marks. You seem to think that putting words in other people’s mouths (which is what quotation marks signify) and then making snarky comments based on it, is clever. It is not. It is a dishonest form of argumentation. But then, it may be that I think that because I have not reached the level of being a “marginally intelligent person” (where I use quotation marks as they should be used).
The only person who actually wrote ““Deepfakes exist, so revenge porn is no longer a problem because women who are victims can just say ‘it’s a fake’ and, y’know, get over it”” is you.
But wide spread use of fakery will make the need for denials more pressing. Knowledge of the problem does not mean it is not a problem, the target still has to endure the social bullying enabled by these things.
But is that actually a good thing? Bad faith actors who legitimately did an thing can also make use of this plausible deniability to dismiss true footage. The casualty is truth.
Quotation marks are called quotation marks as they typically denote quotation as opposed to paraphrases. The exception to this usage is the scare quote, which is also not a paraphrase.
Before I get started on the meat of this, just this, from the OP:
I think if you’re honest you know perfectly well why “some people” search for porn.
@12: OK, fair enough: you said precisely all of what follows in the blockquote:
Yeah, sure. Women who are the target of deepfake porn can just say that it’s a deepfake and then just get the fuck over it, right? You suggest it will, AND I QUOTE, “kill the phenomenon known as ‘revenge porn'”.
Are you not going to respond to the point that that’s a massively disingenuous suggestion that (deliberately?) misunderstands the effect on women of being the victim of this shit, probably because it’s qualitatively different than the effect it might have on a similarly “victimised” man because of the inherent sexism in society?
Nothing to say about that, just nitpicking about what constitutes a quote? Really?
I wonder if fakes will help more people get over bad ideas about sex. I would imagine it would get harder to cling to weird purity fetishes if any public figure that you imagine exemplifies such ideas has porn videos.
I wouldn’t want to be the first people targeted by the media over this though. It sounds like the kind of thing that would lead to a media feeding frenzy. Those are hard to fight back against. The only tactic I can think of would be to quickly and very publicly tie their advertisers to the accusations. Urge people not to buy their product because they’re profiting off of defaming you. Court cases after the fact might work too but courts aren’t great with technology so it would be very iffy. The victims might be stuck educating the public on how deep fakes work while one is undermining their credibility.
sonofrojblake @#15,
You may try to dismiss it as nitpicking now that you have been called out on your deceptive use of quote marks. But it is not nitpicking because by using a fake quote, you changed the meaning of what I supposedly said. My post spoke clearly about how terrible and ugly deepfake and revenge porn was. It said that a “silver lining to the whole sordid business’ (the ‘silver lining’ metaphor implies something that mitigates slightly what is a major negative of a cloud) was the ability to say that they were deepfakes, an option that was not available before deepfakes.
You, so eager to imply sexism, wanted to imply that my post was trivializing the whole thing. So you manufactured a quote because there was nothing in the original post that suggested that I was making light of it and plenty that said how serious it was. Pointing that out is not nitpicking but showing an attempt at serious deception on your part. The actual quotes that you now list do not come close to what your manufactured quote implied, that I was trivializing the issue, so your statement that it was a paraphrase of my words is not credible, since a paraphrase is supposed to stick as close to the original meaning as possible.
[As an aside, you are once again falsely quoting me when you write that “You suggest it will, AND I QUOTE, “kill the phenomenon known as ‘revenge porn’”. In my post, I wrote that it “might kill the phenomenon known as ‘revenge porn‘”. [Italics have been added by me in both cases for highlighting purposes-MS] You left a key word outside the quoted part and changed it to suit your purposes. Accuracy matters, something you clearly do not appreciate, and which provides further evidence of your dishonest style of argumentation.]
“simply”.
Two can play that game.
I wrote: “You suggest it will, AND I QUOTE, “kill the phenomenon known as ‘revenge porn’”.
Yeah -- you suggested that it would. You weren’t definitive, nor did I say you were.
But you know what? Not a single actual woman has turned up to suggest that what you said -- that women can “simply” brush off being a victim of revenge porn by dismissing it as a deepfake is not OK -- is anything other than fine. So I’m going to stop whiteknighting and fuck off.
Good choice.
sonofrojblake @#18,
Really? That is what you are now reduced to? Your whole case that I was trivializing the issue of celebrity and revenge porn boils down to the presence of the one word ‘simply’? That is pathetic. You are clutching at straws.
What the word ‘simply’ means in that context (which should be clear to even a “marginally intelligent person”) is that it is simple to issue a statement dismissing the videos as deepfakes, as Swift and Johansson have done.
@#7 , 🤣 ,
I think my late teen , young adult old adult years are markedly different from yours (or perhaps its the company i keep).
@sonofrojblake
FWIW, I read the OP as here is an option of plausible deniability as opposed to this would solve the issue. it would be fair to point out that plausible deniability is usually not the chief concern of the targets but im not sure of the need to phrase it as you did.
Heh. not a single woman objected either :).
But now you can simply say that it is fake and are likely to be believed.
Not by people who already hate the target — even if they know an unflattering video of the person they hate is fake (or at least admit they can’t be sure it’s real), they’ll still cling to it and remember it to reinforce their hate or prejudice toward the target. Tell them it’s fake, and they’ll just go on believing what they want to believe anyway, with or without saying anything.
Moreover, pornographic images almost always make an instant and permanent impression on whoever sees them. Once you see something like that — whether or not it turns you on, however you feel about the person(s) depicted, whether or not you think it’s real — you can’t unsee it (the Internet will forget it long before you do), and there is at least some chance it will affect your feelings about the person(s) depicted, whether or not you’re conscious of it. Telling people it’s fake won’t erase it from their minds.
Also, there’s very little chance a victim’s counterclaim will be heard by even half of the people who see the porn itself.
So all in all, no, widespread knowledge that deepfakes are a thing is NOT likely to make things much easier or fairer for defamed parties.
Mano, have you considered rethinking your banning policy? The one the guy at astralcodexten uses works well IMO, not least because he regularly posts lists of the people banned and links to the comments that banned them (his policy is that comments must be at least two of: true, necessary and kind). Once the recidivists that can’t help themselves go away, I fully expect more reasonable people to comment who don’t want to join in what is right now a complete shitshow. You can warn those who need time to get used to the change.
[OT]
Well, that’s quite the silly policy, F13.
No comment is ever necessary, for a start.
Not to mention that matters of opinion are always true to whoever holds them.
Where kindness comes into it is itself subjective and has problem cases, such as being cruel to be kind.
Me, I reckon intimating you think Mano’s policy needs a rethink is equivalent to claiming Mano is doing it wrong, and whether that’s kind is arguable — apparently, he is supposed to appease your particular need.
It’s not something that can be either true nor false, other than it is your opinion.
And it was most certainly not necessary, was it? 🙂
(his policy is that comments must be at least two of: true, necessary and kind)
For these purposes, “true” would likely mean something like “something the commenter could plausibly claim to believe to be true, or at least not showing reckless disregard for known facts.” Instead of “necessary,” perhaps say “timely and relevant to the conversation,” as opposed to OT comments or threadjacks. And “kind” would likely mean “not mean, hateful or insulting, and not using insulting epithets.”
RB #27
Yeah, something like that. He goes into more detail on the site, but if you think of what is allowed, it does makes sense. When it’s necessary to make a point or dispute something another commenter said, all that’s asked is that your comment has to be true (not obviously untrue anyway), or if it isn’t, then kind (eg. sometimes people offer words of comfort that aren’t strictly true). And if it’s an entirely unnecessary comment, that’s ok if it’s both true and kind.
Certainly when compared to here the comments are like a breath of fresh air. Knowledgable, on topic, and free of endless sniping.
It is never necessary. Nobody is gonna die, nobody is gonna get ill, etc.
And your suggestion that Mano’s policy could do with rethinking was never necessary, it is not at all true, and it is not at all kind.
(Hypocrisy is not something I find admirable)
Your passive-aggressive sniping is hardly obscure, F13.
Let’s hope it’s not also endless, though it clearly is not on topic and stinks.
I’ve already explained to you how that’s just silly.
That’s both true and kind.
—
BTW, PZ had a dungeon at one time (you know, the list of banned commenters and links to the instances); it was fine for a while, then a couple of things happened: (1) detractors went on and on about it because of its (to me) felicitous name, and (2) trolls quite deliberately came in and trolled hard specifically to get their nyms put on that list as an “achievement”.
It is never necessary. Nobody is gonna die, nobody is gonna get ill, etc.
How necessary was it for you to say that in TWO comments?
On a more serious note, if someone cites or quotes things that are not only false but dangerously so, then it would indeed be NECESSARY to debunk such falsehoods, quickly and clearly. One doesn’t necessarily have to respond every time “someone on the Internet is wrong!!!”; but if the wrongness is something that creates or increases a known danger to other people, then yes, it would be NECESSARY to pounce on such wrongness and debunk it as promptly and conclusively as possible. (Examples include anti-vax disinformation, pseudoscience used to justify harmful discrimination, fraudulent advertizing of dangerous medical quackery, defamatory allegations, malicious disinformation from foreign adversaries, etc.)
Not at all necessary. That’s my thesis.
(How necessary was it for you to ask me whether it was necessary? Not at all!)
<snicker>
Nope.
But hey, tell me you subscribe to every possible blog you can and carefully scour their comment sections just in case it’s NECESSARY to debunk what you perceive as a falsehood.
(If you don’t do that and the world still exists, well, it is not NECESSARY, is it?)
—
You really should learn the distinction between NECESSARY and desirable.
It would save you a lot of confusion. Be aware that necessity relates to a preferred outcome.
PS https://xkcd.com/386/
I already know that distinction: in this case, “necessary” means a moral or practical obligation to do something beneficial for someone who might otherwise harm others, or be harmed. It’s not just “desirable” to debunk harmful disinformation, it’s something sensible adults have at least some moral obligation to do, when/where we can. Part of that larger “getting along with others in a civil society” thing…
Be aware that necessity relates to a preferred outcome.
No, it relates to a NECESSARY outcome. Freedom from lies, scams and disinformation isn’t just a “preference,” it’s a need.
Excellent, RB, a convo!
So. I concede that if you want to define your terms ad hoc, I can’t stop you, silly as it is.
Nothing wrong with the Humpty-Dumpty approach, other than it makes for easy mocking.
Me, I don’t ever, ever feel obliged to comment. It’s always a discretionary thing. Yet I comment quite a bit, as you may have noticed. It helps that I don’t hold myself to only ever comment when I think it’s NECESSARY (since it never is), or when I think it’s kind (but I do like being kind, I just don’t restrict myself to kind comments).
I grant I do want what I write to be not wrong. I achieve that the overwhelming bulk of the time, so I am content.
Your intimation that sometimes you feel compelled by necessity or moral obligation to post a comment on a blog and thus consider it a necessity (oops, NECESSITY) is noted, but it really isn’t. That’s just your perception. This is me being truthful.
Rubbish. That’s what it means to you, but clearly you are unversed in philosophic matters.
Moral or practical obligations are quite different domains — morality is 100% subjective, and practicality is contingent on one’s circumstances. Neither is universal.
Um. We’re talking about posting comments on a blog, because F13 considers that Mano’s moderation policy is too lenient and should be more subjective yet strict. Specifically, the criterion of purported ‘necessity’. The silliest one of the three.
See, something like breathing is necessary (sorry, NECESSARY) if one needs to remain alive.
If one does not, it is not necessary, but of course it is desirable if one desires to remain alive.
Let me try an example for you: if you need to drive an ICE car, you need fuel; therefore fuel is NECESSARY in order to drive such a car. But, if one does not need to drive such a car, then that fuel is not NECESSARY.
Get it? NECESSITY is contingent on desires.
Words mean things; I know, I know… you’re now gonna say you don’t care for me arguing semantics. I get that a lot.
Who cares what words and concepts mean, when one can just talk and think in slogans, right?
And of course I get along in society perfectly well; that’s easy as anything.
Of course, it’s much when one is not an obsessive ideologue who holds themself up to impossible standards, or gets worked-up over trivia, or pesters others to follow one’s own fancies. Hectoring others is not, in my estimation, NECESSARY.
Heh. Good one! Not that I believe you for one second.
But hey, what exactly happens if that NEED is unmet? Does the world end? What?
Me, I don’t give a shit. I prefer it when I can tell something is a lie, or a scam, or disinformation, but no biggie if I am exposed to them. I am not a feeble thing that wilts when someone lies to me, so I don’t feel such a NEED.
—
Anyway. I presume you concede that none of the comments you or I have made since F13 dropped its little nugget of wisdom were NECESSARY. They were, in fact, elective. We elected to make them. There was no NEED.
So, two criteria (or is that CRITERIA) remain: are they kind? I venture to say, no.
Are they true? Again, not in some ultimate objective, factual, context-free sense. That’s rare as anything.
They are our true opinions, unless of course you are just trolling (I don’t reckon you are, but of course I know I am not).
So, by the standards for which F13 advocates, we meet but one criterion, and that rather indirectly.
(We should not be making these comments, and Mano should ban us. But then, F13’s own comment fails its own criteria, too)
Now, if one were to replace ‘necessary’ with ‘apposite’ or ‘topical’ or ‘relevant’ or similar, it would sorta make sense. The very opposite of F13’s comment, actually.
(Semantics!)
Me, I don’t ever, ever feel obliged to comment.
OMG that’s fucking hilarious. And yes, I did feel a tiny bit “obliged” to say that.
Why is it supposedly hilarious?
I never feel compelled to engage in coitus, either, but I do that a fair bit, too. I like it.
Do tell, RB.
…Says the only commenter here to a) state he was done with an argument and would desist, and b) immediately falsify that statement. Hilarious!
Holms, you are, as usual, quite wrong. I did stop, exactly as I said, I just did not stop immediately.
I did not say I would stop immediately, you just gleefully jumped on that perception. As I knew you would.
(Go back and look, if you disbelieve me)
My memory is longer than John’s.
Heh. Thanks, Holms, I was getting bored.
Be aware that I did stop — about the subject at hand, as CD did. Exactly as I wrote.
My basis for stopping was that, in these matters and about that sort of topic, I defer to her.
She’s the expert. So no more weighing in by me.
(We’ve (she and I) had out share of arguments, vehement at times, but because she left it there, so did I)
Point being, that does not mean I’ll ignore your efforts at a jibe towards me.
They are never the topic, are they? Not unless the post is about me.
Look, Holms: you get these moments when your wishful thinking overcomes your judgment, and then you come face-to-face with the reality when your attempted gotchas fall flat. As ever.
(Heh. Used to be three obsessives regarding me who indulged in their Mitty fantasies regarding me, but one has apparently ceased posting here, the other has put on blinders to my comments, and so only you remain. For the time being, of course)
—
FWIW, even had your claims been true instead of wishful fantasies, they would still not vitiate the point that my commenting here is entirely optional for me.
Just because I like doing it (did you get the little joke about fucking I chucked in response to RB’s use of the word? I’m sure he did not) it and it amuses me does not entail that I find it needful; well, not unless you fall back onto redefining need as desire.
Nice try, but Crip said she was ending the conversation there -- conversation, not merely subject -- and your response was “I hereby stop, too.”
And then you resumed.
Claim falsified.
Heh.
Heh heh. It’s not a try, I remember it fine; you might have got excited in that it was a previous occasion to the one I referenced (it’s an ongoing thingy with you) but which even you could not dispute, but that’s how it went. No more talk about the subject about which you stand under the sword of Damocles, as I stated.
Retorting to your feeble ejaculations was not part of the conversation, you know. You might fancy yourself, but you are basically a chew-toy.
Equine hydration syndrome. Already told you how it went.
And no, not in the slightest.
That you feel compelled and find it needful to comment is your problem, I just like to do it.
I don’t need to comment; this comment was not necessary. But it does amuse me to drive the point home.
Oh, now you’re trying revisionism. That is conspicuously not how you stated it. Reminder: you agreed with Crip that you were stopping “this conversation” -- no mention of subject.
Your ‘doesn’t count, personal jab’ was pathetic back then, but it is hysterical that you are still trying it almost five years later. Also very telling was the fact that you led your comment with an excuse to make that comment -- shows you were already defensive about it. But I will show you how it is done, by ending this conversation and not returning to it, even if your retort contains a personal jab.
Gotta love your efforts, Holms. Squeak, squeak.
Well, you want to go all Walter Mitty it, no worries. Already told you how it was.
You even posted the link!
Besides, I already told you that whether or not your perception was true (its not), it is utterly irrelevant to the point I am making about the lack of need to make comments. That I make a comment does not entail that comment was necessary.
How to do what; not make a comment? Well, you will be proving my very claim that they are not needful.
Thanks.
See, you latched on to this because F13 thought it made sense to have a criterion for comments being necessary, and my own claim (the one you are futilely trying to dispute) is that there is no such necessity is what you are endeavouring to sustain.
(My other points, well… apparently you found them indisputable, since you never even tried to address them)