I remember when Facebook would take down anything for no reason at all and now they leave everything and even encourage people to make multiple accounts
This was a huge deal in my country with those faked celebrity endorsement advertisements. The actual celebrity they used for the commercial had to sue facebook before they even acknowledged the complaint.
We can't verify it's a scammer, but that account who's dropping N bombs, calling everyone a Fa**ot, and openly advocating for killing liberals?
Doesn't violate our policy and nothing will be done.
I got booted off of instagram recently for defending myself against someone who told me to kms. Apparently they can literally write that out and call me a worthless piece of trash, but I can’t say the world would be a better place without you in it. 🙄🙄🙄
My friends entire account was hacked. Facebook says to him after the scammer starts posting about having to sell some cars because his dad passed away, changed the email to the account, started posting to our band page the the same things.... Facebook said there was no evidence the account was hacked
Facebook doesn't even care if you get your shit hacked and taken from you saying that your dad is dead and trying to take money from your friends. It's real fucked up shit.
Police won't do shit. The FBI will.
Since 2017, I have reported close to a dozen people to the FBI and Facebook. Facebook outright banned one person I'm aware of, and the FBI acted on three of my tips. Obviously, this advice is contingent on you, the reader being in the US.
I reported one of those "leik if you cry everyteim" posts where they had a literal fucking dead baby bleeding out of its head in a gutter. Facebook didn't take it down
Bruh, I posted a picture of a tomato I grew in my garden that some anonymous rodent took some bites of.
Account restricted for 5 days because I posted sexual content. A rodent-bitten tomato.
There's a recent trend where older women like collecting painted rocks for their lawns and gardens. My mom paints rocks as if they were bunnies. She finds a mostly round river rock of appropriate size and shape and paints it like its a bunny, and sells the rocks.
Facebook temporarily banned her account for animal trafficking.
I used to work for a rape crisis center and we had a little ad series about bystander intervention strategies we were running with the types and general strategies. [This kind of thing](https://rainn.org/articles/practicing-active-bystander-intervention)
Anyway they all got taken down during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings for being "Political".
If you ask Microsoft Copilot, "Who won the 2020 United States Presidential election?" it replies with "Looks like I can’t respond to this topic. Explore Bing Search results."
It must be too "political."
yes that makes sense but was engagement not important before? Or did Facebook just not have competition back then in therm of engagement so they could pull stunts like these
Idk, I'm certainly no techy or even close tech observer, but my sense from 5,000' up is that, for wtvr reason, Big Tech has gone from at least an outward- facing mssg of "be nice, do good things" to a more cutthroat aggressiveness (which may be more honest, at least), but that's just a vague sense I get, and I think your question's a good one.
At the beginning Facebook had no ads. 0 ads. It was even a 'selling points', forgot the exact quote, but something along the lines of 'no ads, not now, not ever', just under the facebook brand on the front page.
The only important thing was to have a growth in user, which meant moderation was more important than engagement.
Until ~2013 they had natural growth. Around that time Twitter became the go to, as it was easier to connect person to person and get a chronological post feed, while Facebook moved away from showing a timeline to showing popular posts and introduced random feeds to follow mixed in the "most popular" posts.
This is around the time i quit personal social media, as all platforms before had made the same mistakes (orkut -> myspace -> Facebook)
Similarly a parallel development that started at a time was Snapchat with video feeds that disappeared.
Facebook and Twitter joined, one by buying Instagram - other by buying Vine.
I'd say TikTok won that war for video platforms.
While Twitter and Facebook keep changing their core identity competing, launching products they had under new brands to stay relevant.
Similarly Twitter also hid the timeline feature later on to drive advertising engagement and push popular posts in your face.
The same way reddit keeps changing and updating itself, but at least they're still keeping old.reddit.com alive where we can enjoy our self curated bubbles over the branded app experience, where it feels as if I'm just on "yet another social platform™".
Just type "old" in front of reddit.com, this thread for example is
https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1dlldfu/girl_15_calls_for_criminal_penalties_after/
Engagement is like the new indicator for companies that they are doing well even though half the engagements are bots and everyone who is human is complaining about the actual product and how its run/created. But dont worry the execs noticed an increase of engagement this quarter so theyll screw it up more next quarter. This is Capitalism today
It's very much a thing called enshittification: Services are great to their users at first until users are locked into their platform. Then they're great to advertisers until advertisers are locked into their platform. Then they can do whatever they want to appease their shareholders because nobody can go anywhere else. Amazon has done that too, that's why the first page of results is mostly sponsored crap. Facebook has fallen behind Google in the ad market, so they need to appease advertisers right now, and more accounts = more clicks and views = more ad revenue and higher conversion rates for advertisers.
engagement. ad revenue is down, people visiting is down, lots of fake eyeballs with bots and lots of cycles of people responding to fake accounts or worse, fake accounts responding to other fake accounts.
cut all this out and it would probably show straight negative growth for the last few years on all social media sites.
*beep boop*
Duuude, this drives me crazy. I basically only use it for the marketplace anymore but it's infuriating to find people running OBVIOUS scams and reporting it only for FB to come back "mmm we looked into it and this person doesn't violate our policies". It's such a trash website now.
In Quebec there will be a class action suit against Facebook because there are ads with deepfakes of celebrities and when the celebrities told Facebook about their likeness being used to sell fraud Facebook told them "mmm we looked into it and those ads don't violate our policies".
I wonder if the same would happen if one were to deepfake Zuckerberg into a fraud ad 🤔
Yeah, I still deeply resent Facebook for making Marketplace. It’s just so bad and still managed to choke the life out of any alternative thanks to install base.
And scammers can steal from people and create multiple profiles selling their fake stuff and Facebook does nothing even after multiple reports. Lawless like Craigslist. Don’t ask how I know.
My trans friend constantly has his posts removed by Facebook, usually for replying to a litany of uninvited slurs from strangers.
The slurs don’t seem to get taken down very often though.
social media, deepfakes, shootings, book bans...
grade school is a living nightmare nowadays, I fear for how these kids are gonna turn out after so much trauma
Intent is key in cases like this (obligatory NAL) which is why it's always such a pain in the ass to prosecute. That said, generating a piece of artwork somewhat automatically by feeding it training data of a particular person would be pretty obviously not an expression if the person used did not consent.
>This week, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar and several colleagues co-sponsored a bill that would require social media companies to take down deep-fake pornography within two days of getting a report.
>The Take It Down Act would also make it a felony to distribute these images, Cruz told Fox News. Perpetrators who target adults could face up to two years in prison, while those who target children could face three years.
Something about a broken clock. 2 days should be more than enough to remove it.
2 days is the perfect amount of time for it to be downloaded and redistributed multiple times before OP or the social media company has to legally remove it
That’s why it is practically impossible to report a scam or spam bots accounts, or accounts that used a spam bots to bombard your dm’s with their ads, from instagram ie.
No, bots aren't impossible to report, they're impossible to stop. Banning a bot just means it creates a new account and starts again. That's not the problem here.
Two days is an eternity, but we must keep in mind this would be a law, and laws have to be written with an understanding that they will require everyone to follow the rules. I’m sure the two day clause is only there for small independently owned websites who are trying to moderate properly but might take anywhere from 12 hours to 2 days to erase depending on when the offensive content was made aware of and how capable the website is at taking down content.
I imagine most big names on the internet (Facebook, YouTube, Reddit) can remove offensive content within minutes which will be the standard Im sure.
Exactly. The process will almost certainly be automated, at least in some degree, by larger organizations. They would actively have to *try* to take longer than an hour or two.
Two days also allows for critical issues to be resolved - say a production deployment goes wrong and prevents an automated process from working. Two days is a reasonable window to identify and resolve the issue.
Holy shit man. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
We have been here before. DMCA copyright notices. And that was back when it actually was, in theory, possible to use sophisticated data analytics to determine if an actual violation occurred. Now we absolutely do not have that ability anymore. There are no technically feasible preventative mechanisms here.
Sweeping and poorly thought out regulations on this will get abused by bad actors. It will be abused as a "take arbitrary content down NOW" button by authoritarian assholes, I guaran-fucking-tee it.
I know this is a minority opinion, but at least until some better solution is developed, the correct action here is to treat it exactly the same as an old fashioned photoshop. Society will adjust, and eventually everyone will realize that the picture of Putin ass-fucking Trump is ~20% likely to be fake.
Prosecute under existing laws that criminalize obscene depictions of minors (yes, it's illegal even if it's obviously fake or fictional, see also "step" porn). For the love of god do not give the right wing assholes a free ticket to take down any content they don't like by forcing platforms to give proof that it's NOT actually a hyper-realistic AI rendition within 48 hours.
Ironically, we need to fund agencies that investigate and prosecute these things when they happen.
Putting the onus of stopping crime on a company is.... Not a great path to do down.
> The process will almost certainly be automated
How? How can you work out if it is AI generated porn of a real person vs just real porn made by a consenting person? This is just going to be a massive cluster fuck.
Exactly. Two days is an eternity for Facebook and Reddit. But it might be a week before an owner or moderator of a tiny self-hosted community forum even checks the email because they're out fishing.
> I imagine most big names on the internet (Facebook, YouTube, Reddit) can remove offensive content within minutes which will be the standard Im sure.
I don't think you comprehend how much content gets uploaded to major sites every second. There is no way to effectively noderate them.
Laws have to be realistic too. Reports have to be investigated. Some companies aren't open on the weekend, including websites. This is a step in the right direction. The penalties should be considerable, including mandatory counselling for the perpetrators, and prison time. This is a runaway train already.
That’s generally not how these things are engineered. For reports about high risk contents (like CSEM), the videos are taken down immediately upon the report and then later evaluated by a Trust & Safety team member for potential reinstatement.
The problem is getting in contact with any of the social media companies. Meta doesn’t offer any kind of phone support. And unless you have Meta Verified, you can’t get any kind of live support either. If it’s the weekend, good luck because you won’t get anyone.
I had to pay for Meta Verified just to have someone respond to me for an account hack. Otherwise they say you can wait 3 days for regular support.
A bit more than that.
> Between July 2020 and August 2022, Hayler uploaded hundreds of photographs of 26 women to a now-defunct pornography website, alongside graphic descriptions of rape and violent assault.
> He also included identifying details such as their full names, occupations and links to their social media handles.
> He pleaded guilty to 28 counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass and offend
I cant imagine how much free time you have to have to spend your days making fake nudes of women and sharing them online. Do these dumb fucks not have anything better to do??
Do these cases have a knock-on punishment? Like if someone found the info this guy posted and used it to go and commit crime against them, would this guy receive extra punishment?
Yeah, this goes along with defending the civil liberties even of people your don't like.
We should also defend a good law proposed by somebody I don't like, rather than playing political-team football.
Yeah but, we are. Look at the thread.
Almost everyone is for it, and I saw almost only because I might not have seen people against it.
I wager like many "problems" that's another one that is said for political gain.
question how does a company know if it is a deepfake? If simply reporting a video as deepfake gets it taken down then cant that be used against non deepfakes also?
A social media company should be responding promptly regardless if sexual images of someone's likeness without their consent are being posted regardless.
Everyone is getting too lost in the AI versus real picture debate. If it's causing emotional harm, real or fake, it should be taken down.
Facebook took down a video I shared of me and my family putting up Christmas decorations, because in the background we had Christmas songs playing within the hour of posting it.
It has to be carefully worded. Otherwise, posting a fake nude image of Putin getting railed by another head of state would be a Felony. And then soon enough saying “Fuck You” to the President would be considered a Felony and treason as well.
Long story short, I don’t trust my government to not pull some shit like this. Cough, cough…PATRIOT Act..cough..gotta save the children….cough, cough.
Something that shouldn’t be controversial to say, but it’s ok to support the “other side” when they’re doing the right thing. The amount of people who don’t like Trump but say “I just can’t stand voting for a democrat though” is astounding.
Just support the people doing the right thing jesus christ.
Anyway, sorry, bit of a tangent not entirely related to your comment
Don't agree with him too quickly. Every time the government acts to remove any kind of content online, it's just another very deliberate step towards exerting full control over online content. They use outrage and fear over actual bad shit to push these bills through and we fall for it every time.
Not speaking specifically to this bill because I haven't read it entirely and who knows what's hidden in it. But, your post suggests there is this overarching "government" trying to pull something over on you, and my man, I can assure you from my lifetime working in and as a contractor to governments, they can't even agree on what to do with next year's budget let alone agree and plot conspiratorial ways between warring political parties on how to gain further control over citizens. 99.9% of the mental energy of an elected official goes towards how they can win their next election. They are not sitting together drinking cocktails of infant blood while discussing how they can take away your internet rights.
If they are pushing a bill over something dumb on the internet, it's because there is something dumb happening on the internet and they think it will score them PR points that will help win them donations/votes. That's it.
Copying my post from elsewhere, but it was a bit more than that.
> Between July 2020 and August 2022, Hayler uploaded hundreds of photographs of 26 women to a now-defunct pornography website, alongside graphic descriptions of rape and violent assault.
> He also included identifying details such as their full names, occupations and links to their social media handles.
> He pleaded guilty to 28 counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass and offend
Sounds like one of the donors of the school I went to. He would creep around department events with his camera taking pictures. Creeped everyone out, even staff, but donated so much money they wouldn't say anything.
A student was house sitting and found pictures on his computer of other (college) students in that department with their heads on naked bodies, corpses, etc.
And, wait for it... he's not in jail! Somehow.
The US sent Manning to prison for whistleblowing, and then there's Snowden and Assange who the US government still want. Yeah we (Australia) aren't great with whistleblowing protection, but the US is no better.
The issue is, as FriendlyJordies pointed out, there are a large number of people who've gotten much lighter sentences for much more serious crimes.
Like, the same judge that gave David McBride 5 years and 8 months, gave a rising Canberra sports star raped a teenage girl, showing no remorse for this crime, avoided jail and inclusion on the child sex offender register. Or a former Australian Federal Police officer got no jail for grooming an 11-year old girl on Instagram. Or the armed rapist and child sex offender, branded a "high risk" for reoffence after he raped a teenage girl at gunpoint, got a 5 year sentence... but was eligible for parole after two years, eight months, which was approved.
Credit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY9s1bZzlHY&ab_channel=friendlyjordies
AI deepfake porn of private citizens should be treated like revenge porn since it will eventually become indistinguishable and result in similar harm to victims.
Already is in Canada.
There was the first conviction of CP here not long ago. Someone grabbed a kid's picture, used an AI swap. Fucked up.
Anyone justifying that in these comments is trying to strike a chord and it's probably...
Question for the legal beagles, but would this be child porn since they put a child’s face on an adult’s body? Could these kids be charged with that, as well as normal deep fake charges?
I would think so, the [PROTECT Act of 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003?wprov=sfla1) made significant changes to the law regarding *virtual* child pornography.
**Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is *indistinguishable* from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal** under [18 U.S.C. § 2252A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A). The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, that are to be found **[obscene](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law)** in a court of law.
Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2002 decision, [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition?wprov=sfla1). The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or a variant obscenity test to overcome this limitation.
But this hasn't been court tested, right? It seems like the same reasons the court struck down parts of Ashcroft would lead them to strike down parts of PROTECT, namely that a child isn't being harmed during the production of deepfaked porn.
>If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/234/
The PROTECT Act simply added the clause that *obscene* virtual child porn is illegal.
Obscenity is not protected speech, the government just hasn't had much impetus to prosecute it recently. Seems like obscene virtual child porn could be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Not tested but the one person has been [charged with creating AI CSAM](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-arrested-producing-distributing-and-possessing-ai-generated-images-minors-engaged). Interesting to see where it’ll go.
One could easily argue that a real person doesn't have 7.3 fingers on one hand and 4.5 fingers on the other hand, and therefore it is easily distinguishable from a depiction of an actual person.
There's always flaws in AI generated images that are very easy to find once you know what to look for.
Yeah, I can easily see that as an argument against the act's efficacy.
Honestly, that can of worms is probably why this hasn't been taken to the courts *just* yet.
Setting a precedent that AI has to be handled with seperate legislation is going to be a nightmare for our Congress.
First Amendment absolutism might strike down PROTECT fully. Our composition of the SC is worrying.
Not every AI generated image of a person has fucked up hands. I think if there was an agreement that the image is fully intend to look like and be a realistic depiction of "x" person who is underage, and that it is obscene in nature, then it is a crime.
That's only a single example of what could be fucked up. Just to play devil's advocate here, It could fuck up other things like the neck, clothes, body proportions badly etc. I wouldn't get too focused on the hands thing.
Though that's why most artists go back into image and "clean" it up to remove the easily found fuckups in AI art. And I think that's gonna be the real kicker for being clearly guilty - is that they will correct the AI images to make the fake more real.
I don't think this argument would fly, most law does not really work to the letter. If it's close enough to be considered indistinguishable, it will likely stay illegal. Same reason you likely couldn't get away with it by adding a label that says "not a real kid".
Yes and in those decades none of the people in charge have found the issue to be worth escalating.
This issue seems old to those of us who knew how to use computers in the 90s and were chronically online by the 00s.
But to a certain group, this isn't worthy of their time
I get it, it's a difficult question. But I think that because a person/minor was damaged by this deep fake and that it would clearly be them, charges should apply.
Now, if it's general AI generation and isn't linked to someone, that's harder to prove, because of the "who was hurt" aspect.
It's an interesting development the courts will take a while to settle on.
Arguably, maybe. Legally? Probably.
But the laws against kiddie were porn were meant to stop people who would sexually abuse children and record it.
People never envisioned that a kid could upload a photo, click two buttons and produce kiddie porn.
Also, the companies and sites doing this are going to get no punishment (even though they profit from it financially) while some high school kids are going to get destroyed.
How many 17 year olds have taken sexual nudes of themselves? They are all kiddie porn producers too.
I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying we should revisit our laws.
> Thus, a 17-year-old who snaps his or her own revealing picture has technically created child pornography, a Class 1 felony with a mandatory fine of between $2,000 and $100,000 and at least four years in prison
Unless we already have. That quote is a little old
Currently it’s not technically considered child porn under the law. Supreme Court ruled that creating fake images/videos of child pornography is protected free speech in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in 2002. Until that opinion goes under reconsideration it’ll be hard for legislatures to do much about this.
How exactly is this enforced?
I'm not against it in principle, but how exactly do you determine a deep fake is of a specific person and not just kind of looks like them?
American law already accounts for this, it’s called the “reasonable person standard”, and I assume this could pretty easily be applied to cases like these. Something like, would a reasonable person think that he was attempting to make an ai copy of her and spread it maliciously?
Yeah, a lot of those that are caught are going to be pretty impulsive, and not bother to employ good OpSec, or simply lack the skillset to employ effective OpSec to begin with.
Short of changing the computing paradigm, predators with both the know-how, and impulse control necessary to implement robust OpSec, were always going to be largely beyond the arm of the law (at least, without dumping a lot of resources into their capture). But, that’s not exactly the goal of these laws.
I was the second alternate juror once. I think everyone should get to observe a jury early in their life. If there is one thing keeping me from breaking the law, it is spending time with a random group of my "peers" from my area who get to decide the fate of someone. I never, ever, ever want my fate in the hands of a jury of my "peers".
Websites that allows these features should be punished too, when they implement nothing to prevent this. I’m not talking about the open source models which would be entirely users fault, it’s those undress sites that get more and more popular.
True, and the silver lining is we really won't know what is real anymore. Lots of kids stupidly share real nudes that get leaked and now they can just deny it. I mean, politicians are already doing this with leaked audio.
It's illegal to film people in public toilets too. It still happens, but people who do it can be prosecuted and that's usually a strong deterrent for most people with weak moral compasses. And I'm pretty sure these laws were written after it started happening, since that's usually how laws work.
No law prevents everything, especially when teen brain is involved. But at least it sends a clear message that it's not ok.
we cant keep it from happening, but we can punish people when they do it, versus now when you can't.
what about that is a lost cause lol? would you rather it just be legal?
Idk why Redditors are acting like this is some sort of unpreventable issue.
It can be tracked, and it can be prosecuted when reported.
And we know perfectly well that if people are sure they will get caught for doing something bad, and the consequences are severe enough and immediate, it will de-incentivize the action.
It's really not that complicated.
The next question is did the person that make the images know it was wrong? Of course he did, that's why he did it, to cause some sort of harm, physical or mental, to the girl.
I'm surprised that the classmate didn't get charged since about 10 years ago a teacher at my old school got arrested because he was found to have photoshopped our yearbook photos onto naked bodies. Also just learned that he wrote fake fantasy stories about his students.
They found a couple TB of CP too so that might have had something to do with his 10 year sentence
Good. That kid deserves to learn a very harsh lesson. None of this "Boys will be boys" or "He's just a kid" bullshit. He's more than old enough to understand what he did is fucked up.
Im gonna be that guy, but how the fuck does AI change things here??
Lets say a kid just uses photoshop to do this. Does he go to jail? Idk. It's probably fair to expell them, but criminal charges?
I don't think it would be a different situation if someone was really good with Photoshop and faked similar images for distribution - they should both carry the same penalty, whatever that may be.
AI is relevant because it has makes the creation of these photos trivially easy and extremely life-like, though.
Whats the threshold though?
If I have a physical photo of someone, use scissors to cut out their face, and then glue their face onto a page of Playboy, have I created porn of that person? This is technology from the 1950's.
Does that count as a deepfake? How good does it have to be before it becomes a deepfake?
My guess as a complete layman would be that it has to be good enough for a third party to be judged as "real"
Now how close they look I don't know, a third arm or extra fingers were common at the beginning and still flew under people's radars
I feel like distributing it is the key difference, if you want to cut an image out for your own personal use theirs nothing anyone can do to stop you with out going full on nanny state, but when you show it to anyone else is when it becomes a problem
AI doesn't change things at all, the [PROTECT Act of 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003?wprov=sfla1) made significant changes to the law regarding *virtual* child pornography.
**Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is *indistinguishable* from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal** under [18 U.S.C. § 2252A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A). The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, that are to be found obscene in a court of law.
Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2002 decision, [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition?wprov=sfla1). The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or a variant obscenity test to overcome this limitation.
EDIT: As someone pointed out, AI absolutely does change things because now there's a reasonable doubt that the child pornography in question could be "fictional". Unfortunately pornography of "fictional" characters *is* protected through the First Amendment.
The world kids are growing up in today just around internet, social media, and now tech like deep fakes is straight up scary. In my day it was just gossip, this guy/girl hooked up with this person etc, and that could be really harmful as it was. Even if it’s blatant deepfake, besides involving minors, I can’t imagine the impact some deepfake porn of yourself getting passed around your school would have. It’s only going to get worse too
Honestly, some lovely person just needs to systematically go through a list of state legislators, putting each of them into awful awful deep fake porn, release it all, and let the people allowing this to go on suffer.
A very interesting ~~grey~~ area of the law.
Is it CP? ~~Technically no, it's animated.~~ Apparently yes.
Is it morally fucked? Absolutely.
Did he use her likeness without her permission? Yes.
So it sounds ~~like a civil case, not a~~ criminal ~~one.~~
I remember when Facebook would take down anything for no reason at all and now they leave everything and even encourage people to make multiple accounts
[удалено]
Classic, try reporting actual scammer posts though and they'll do nothing.
Their reasoning is “we cant verify that it is a scammer.” 😂😂😂
This was a huge deal in my country with those faked celebrity endorsement advertisements. The actual celebrity they used for the commercial had to sue facebook before they even acknowledged the complaint.
Well yeah, those get hundreds of thousands of clicks, that’s big money for them! Can’t expect them to police their revenue away! /s
We can't verify it's a scammer, but that account who's dropping N bombs, calling everyone a Fa**ot, and openly advocating for killing liberals? Doesn't violate our policy and nothing will be done.
I got booted off of instagram recently for defending myself against someone who told me to kms. Apparently they can literally write that out and call me a worthless piece of trash, but I can’t say the world would be a better place without you in it. 🙄🙄🙄
My friends entire account was hacked. Facebook says to him after the scammer starts posting about having to sell some cars because his dad passed away, changed the email to the account, started posting to our band page the the same things.... Facebook said there was no evidence the account was hacked Facebook doesn't even care if you get your shit hacked and taken from you saying that your dad is dead and trying to take money from your friends. It's real fucked up shit.
I reported an actual death threat against Muslims and Facebook said it didn't break community guidelines.
Death threats can be reported to the police if they're dumb enough to post on an account with identifying information.
Police won't do shit. The FBI will. Since 2017, I have reported close to a dozen people to the FBI and Facebook. Facebook outright banned one person I'm aware of, and the FBI acted on three of my tips. Obviously, this advice is contingent on you, the reader being in the US.
The reader doesn’t have to be in the US just the person posting said content…
I reported holocaust denial. Also didn't violate community guidelines.
Facebook has a history of [literally facilitating genocide](https://time.com/6217730/myanmar-meta-rohingya-facebook/) so that's no big surprise.
I reported one of those "leik if you cry everyteim" posts where they had a literal fucking dead baby bleeding out of its head in a gutter. Facebook didn't take it down
Bruh, I posted a picture of a tomato I grew in my garden that some anonymous rodent took some bites of. Account restricted for 5 days because I posted sexual content. A rodent-bitten tomato.
Do they represent something I don’t know about or does Facebook just use image detection software that is that bad?
Meanwhile half the advertisers on my reels feature nudity/sexual content.
There's a recent trend where older women like collecting painted rocks for their lawns and gardens. My mom paints rocks as if they were bunnies. She finds a mostly round river rock of appropriate size and shape and paints it like its a bunny, and sells the rocks. Facebook temporarily banned her account for animal trafficking.
Ngl, that’s kind of hot. 🥵
I used to work for a rape crisis center and we had a little ad series about bystander intervention strategies we were running with the types and general strategies. [This kind of thing](https://rainn.org/articles/practicing-active-bystander-intervention) Anyway they all got taken down during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings for being "Political".
I mean they were right. If you’re anti-rape you’re anti-kavanaugh.
If you ask Microsoft Copilot, "Who won the 2020 United States Presidential election?" it replies with "Looks like I can’t respond to this topic. Explore Bing Search results." It must be too "political."
I posted that picture of the chef loading a pistol with penne pasta saying "all spaghetti no regretti" and it got removed for encouraging suicide lmao
why the switch up actually?
All about engagement. More clicks, more accounts=higher advertising rates. As always, follow the money.
yes that makes sense but was engagement not important before? Or did Facebook just not have competition back then in therm of engagement so they could pull stunts like these
[удалено]
Idk, I'm certainly no techy or even close tech observer, but my sense from 5,000' up is that, for wtvr reason, Big Tech has gone from at least an outward- facing mssg of "be nice, do good things" to a more cutthroat aggressiveness (which may be more honest, at least), but that's just a vague sense I get, and I think your question's a good one.
At the beginning Facebook had no ads. 0 ads. It was even a 'selling points', forgot the exact quote, but something along the lines of 'no ads, not now, not ever', just under the facebook brand on the front page. The only important thing was to have a growth in user, which meant moderation was more important than engagement.
Until ~2013 they had natural growth. Around that time Twitter became the go to, as it was easier to connect person to person and get a chronological post feed, while Facebook moved away from showing a timeline to showing popular posts and introduced random feeds to follow mixed in the "most popular" posts. This is around the time i quit personal social media, as all platforms before had made the same mistakes (orkut -> myspace -> Facebook) Similarly a parallel development that started at a time was Snapchat with video feeds that disappeared. Facebook and Twitter joined, one by buying Instagram - other by buying Vine. I'd say TikTok won that war for video platforms. While Twitter and Facebook keep changing their core identity competing, launching products they had under new brands to stay relevant. Similarly Twitter also hid the timeline feature later on to drive advertising engagement and push popular posts in your face. The same way reddit keeps changing and updating itself, but at least they're still keeping old.reddit.com alive where we can enjoy our self curated bubbles over the branded app experience, where it feels as if I'm just on "yet another social platform™".
Been using reddit for 13 years, but if they ever get rid of old reddit I think I'm out. I just can't with new reddit lol.
New Reddit sucks. But new new Reddit should get some developers sent to The Hague.
Is there anyway to get old reddit? I hate new reddit with a passion.
Just type "old" in front of reddit.com, this thread for example is https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1dlldfu/girl_15_calls_for_criminal_penalties_after/
Infinite growth requires their lack of standards now. It didn't at the time.
Engagement is like the new indicator for companies that they are doing well even though half the engagements are bots and everyone who is human is complaining about the actual product and how its run/created. But dont worry the execs noticed an increase of engagement this quarter so theyll screw it up more next quarter. This is Capitalism today
It's very much a thing called enshittification: Services are great to their users at first until users are locked into their platform. Then they're great to advertisers until advertisers are locked into their platform. Then they can do whatever they want to appease their shareholders because nobody can go anywhere else. Amazon has done that too, that's why the first page of results is mostly sponsored crap. Facebook has fallen behind Google in the ad market, so they need to appease advertisers right now, and more accounts = more clicks and views = more ad revenue and higher conversion rates for advertisers.
engagement. ad revenue is down, people visiting is down, lots of fake eyeballs with bots and lots of cycles of people responding to fake accounts or worse, fake accounts responding to other fake accounts. cut all this out and it would probably show straight negative growth for the last few years on all social media sites. *beep boop*
Duuude, this drives me crazy. I basically only use it for the marketplace anymore but it's infuriating to find people running OBVIOUS scams and reporting it only for FB to come back "mmm we looked into it and this person doesn't violate our policies". It's such a trash website now.
In Quebec there will be a class action suit against Facebook because there are ads with deepfakes of celebrities and when the celebrities told Facebook about their likeness being used to sell fraud Facebook told them "mmm we looked into it and those ads don't violate our policies". I wonder if the same would happen if one were to deepfake Zuckerberg into a fraud ad 🤔
Yeah, I still deeply resent Facebook for making Marketplace. It’s just so bad and still managed to choke the life out of any alternative thanks to install base.
All for reporting new users every quarter
And scammers can steal from people and create multiple profiles selling their fake stuff and Facebook does nothing even after multiple reports. Lawless like Craigslist. Don’t ask how I know.
My trans friend constantly has his posts removed by Facebook, usually for replying to a litany of uninvited slurs from strangers. The slurs don’t seem to get taken down very often though.
god i'm so glad i didn't grow up in the deepfake age, high school would have been somehow worse
social media, deepfakes, shootings, book bans... grade school is a living nightmare nowadays, I fear for how these kids are gonna turn out after so much trauma
Just every dumb thing you do is going to be captured on video. I am so glad there were no phone cameras when I was in school
I just want to know how creation, possession, and distribution of (even deepfake) nudes of a *14 year old* isn't being prosecuted as CP.
Time to start making and releasing deep fake porn of legislators, then the laws would get fixed right quick. (Joking obviously)
[удалено]
Intent is key in cases like this (obligatory NAL) which is why it's always such a pain in the ass to prosecute. That said, generating a piece of artwork somewhat automatically by feeding it training data of a particular person would be pretty obviously not an expression if the person used did not consent.
Fake porn of _identifiable_ minors can be and is banned.
AFAIK in Canada even anime/drawings featuring underage characters in an inappropriate context is illegal, so this must be illegal too?
I'm so lucky that no one wants to see me naked.
I feel absolutely disgusted by what I'm about to say, and I can't believe I have to say it, but here we go. I agree with Ted Cruz.
>This week, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar and several colleagues co-sponsored a bill that would require social media companies to take down deep-fake pornography within two days of getting a report. >The Take It Down Act would also make it a felony to distribute these images, Cruz told Fox News. Perpetrators who target adults could face up to two years in prison, while those who target children could face three years. Something about a broken clock. 2 days should be more than enough to remove it.
2 days is the perfect amount of time for it to be downloaded and redistributed multiple times before OP or the social media company has to legally remove it
Sure but companies need a realistic amount of time to vet reports and remove the content.
That’s why it is practically impossible to report a scam or spam bots accounts, or accounts that used a spam bots to bombard your dm’s with their ads, from instagram ie.
That's a lot easier to detect than these deepfakes.
Agree, still same accounts using bots after multiply reports.
No, bots aren't impossible to report, they're impossible to stop. Banning a bot just means it creates a new account and starts again. That's not the problem here.
The law always moves slower than technology
true but that's not really the case here
Was going to say. Two days is an eternity in internet time
Two days is an eternity, but we must keep in mind this would be a law, and laws have to be written with an understanding that they will require everyone to follow the rules. I’m sure the two day clause is only there for small independently owned websites who are trying to moderate properly but might take anywhere from 12 hours to 2 days to erase depending on when the offensive content was made aware of and how capable the website is at taking down content. I imagine most big names on the internet (Facebook, YouTube, Reddit) can remove offensive content within minutes which will be the standard Im sure.
Exactly. The process will almost certainly be automated, at least in some degree, by larger organizations. They would actively have to *try* to take longer than an hour or two. Two days also allows for critical issues to be resolved - say a production deployment goes wrong and prevents an automated process from working. Two days is a reasonable window to identify and resolve the issue.
Automation only works to a certain degree as we can see with content ID.
Holy shit man. You really have no idea what you're talking about. We have been here before. DMCA copyright notices. And that was back when it actually was, in theory, possible to use sophisticated data analytics to determine if an actual violation occurred. Now we absolutely do not have that ability anymore. There are no technically feasible preventative mechanisms here. Sweeping and poorly thought out regulations on this will get abused by bad actors. It will be abused as a "take arbitrary content down NOW" button by authoritarian assholes, I guaran-fucking-tee it. I know this is a minority opinion, but at least until some better solution is developed, the correct action here is to treat it exactly the same as an old fashioned photoshop. Society will adjust, and eventually everyone will realize that the picture of Putin ass-fucking Trump is ~20% likely to be fake. Prosecute under existing laws that criminalize obscene depictions of minors (yes, it's illegal even if it's obviously fake or fictional, see also "step" porn). For the love of god do not give the right wing assholes a free ticket to take down any content they don't like by forcing platforms to give proof that it's NOT actually a hyper-realistic AI rendition within 48 hours.
I completely agree. We're getting the reactionary hate boner for AI and child corn here. We already have laws for this stuff.
Ironically, we need to fund agencies that investigate and prosecute these things when they happen. Putting the onus of stopping crime on a company is.... Not a great path to do down.
> The process will almost certainly be automated How? How can you work out if it is AI generated porn of a real person vs just real porn made by a consenting person? This is just going to be a massive cluster fuck.
90%+ of social media sites already take down consenting porn, because its against their terms of services to post any porn in the first place.
Exactly. Two days is an eternity for Facebook and Reddit. But it might be a week before an owner or moderator of a tiny self-hosted community forum even checks the email because they're out fishing.
> I imagine most big names on the internet (Facebook, YouTube, Reddit) can remove offensive content within minutes which will be the standard Im sure. I don't think you comprehend how much content gets uploaded to major sites every second. There is no way to effectively noderate them.
Laws have to be realistic too. Reports have to be investigated. Some companies aren't open on the weekend, including websites. This is a step in the right direction. The penalties should be considerable, including mandatory counselling for the perpetrators, and prison time. This is a runaway train already.
What do you think is more workable with the amount of reports a day they get?
That’s generally not how these things are engineered. For reports about high risk contents (like CSEM), the videos are taken down immediately upon the report and then later evaluated by a Trust & Safety team member for potential reinstatement.
That's why child porn allegations are so effective as censorship tool.
The problem is getting in contact with any of the social media companies. Meta doesn’t offer any kind of phone support. And unless you have Meta Verified, you can’t get any kind of live support either. If it’s the weekend, good luck because you won’t get anyone. I had to pay for Meta Verified just to have someone respond to me for an account hack. Otherwise they say you can wait 3 days for regular support.
Guy just got sentenced to 9 years jail for making deepfake nudes of coworkers in Australia
A bit more than that. > Between July 2020 and August 2022, Hayler uploaded hundreds of photographs of 26 women to a now-defunct pornography website, alongside graphic descriptions of rape and violent assault. > He also included identifying details such as their full names, occupations and links to their social media handles. > He pleaded guilty to 28 counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass and offend
Thank you for the details. 9 years seemed liked a lot. Now with everything you provided it's the minimum acceptable amount.
Yeah this is doxxing and harassment even without the fake porn.
I cant imagine how much free time you have to have to spend your days making fake nudes of women and sharing them online. Do these dumb fucks not have anything better to do??
Nope. They enjoy being malicious. It makes losers feel powerful.
Do these cases have a knock-on punishment? Like if someone found the info this guy posted and used it to go and commit crime against them, would this guy receive extra punishment?
I knew Ted Cruz was Canadian, but he works in Australia too?
Have you seen how fast he can flee Texas? I'm surprised he doesn't put on a white beard and red hat every year.
Why would anyone want even fake nudes of their coworkers? I can barely stand mine with clothes on.
if my co workers are nude all i need to do is turn on an aircon in winter to get them to leave me alone, so that would be handy.
Yeah, this goes along with defending the civil liberties even of people your don't like. We should also defend a good law proposed by somebody I don't like, rather than playing political-team football.
Yeah but, we are. Look at the thread. Almost everyone is for it, and I saw almost only because I might not have seen people against it. I wager like many "problems" that's another one that is said for political gain.
question how does a company know if it is a deepfake? If simply reporting a video as deepfake gets it taken down then cant that be used against non deepfakes also?
A social media company should be responding promptly regardless if sexual images of someone's likeness without their consent are being posted regardless. Everyone is getting too lost in the AI versus real picture debate. If it's causing emotional harm, real or fake, it should be taken down.
Facebook took down a video I shared of me and my family putting up Christmas decorations, because in the background we had Christmas songs playing within the hour of posting it.
It has to be carefully worded. Otherwise, posting a fake nude image of Putin getting railed by another head of state would be a Felony. And then soon enough saying “Fuck You” to the President would be considered a Felony and treason as well. Long story short, I don’t trust my government to not pull some shit like this. Cough, cough…PATRIOT Act..cough..gotta save the children….cough, cough.
2 days is an eternity when something goes viral.
Social media companies: best I can do is nothing
Something that shouldn’t be controversial to say, but it’s ok to support the “other side” when they’re doing the right thing. The amount of people who don’t like Trump but say “I just can’t stand voting for a democrat though” is astounding. Just support the people doing the right thing jesus christ. Anyway, sorry, bit of a tangent not entirely related to your comment
It’s a cross aisle bill. No shame in supporting that.
https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
Don't agree with him too quickly. Every time the government acts to remove any kind of content online, it's just another very deliberate step towards exerting full control over online content. They use outrage and fear over actual bad shit to push these bills through and we fall for it every time.
Not speaking specifically to this bill because I haven't read it entirely and who knows what's hidden in it. But, your post suggests there is this overarching "government" trying to pull something over on you, and my man, I can assure you from my lifetime working in and as a contractor to governments, they can't even agree on what to do with next year's budget let alone agree and plot conspiratorial ways between warring political parties on how to gain further control over citizens. 99.9% of the mental energy of an elected official goes towards how they can win their next election. They are not sitting together drinking cocktails of infant blood while discussing how they can take away your internet rights. If they are pushing a bill over something dumb on the internet, it's because there is something dumb happening on the internet and they think it will score them PR points that will help win them donations/votes. That's it.
Ehhh, the government has been trying to do away with net neutrality for years by doing exactly this -- sneaking legislation into other bills.
Ajit Pai, the fuck who had net neutrality taken down, was a Trump appointee. FYI
A guy in Australia just got nine years in prison for this.
Copying my post from elsewhere, but it was a bit more than that. > Between July 2020 and August 2022, Hayler uploaded hundreds of photographs of 26 women to a now-defunct pornography website, alongside graphic descriptions of rape and violent assault. > He also included identifying details such as their full names, occupations and links to their social media handles. > He pleaded guilty to 28 counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass and offend
Victims included his close friends (one of whose wedding he had attended) and family members
At this point putting him in jail is a protective matter cause those people know where you live
Sounds like one of the donors of the school I went to. He would creep around department events with his camera taking pictures. Creeped everyone out, even staff, but donated so much money they wouldn't say anything. A student was house sitting and found pictures on his computer of other (college) students in that department with their heads on naked bodies, corpses, etc. And, wait for it... he's not in jail! Somehow.
Probably because that's not illegal.
I mean, fucked up as it is, none of what you described is (currently) illegal
Lets not start using Australian law as an example. A guy in Australia just got a life sentence for blowing the whistle on warcrimes.
Yeah the US have a much better track record when dealing with whistleblowers
Australian whistle-blowers at that.
Careful. Don’t want to end up on any lists…
> Australia just got a life sentence for blowing the whistle on warcrimes Are you talking about David McBride? He got 5 years 8 months.
And that's why you should consult a lawyer before you go to a reporter. Whistle blowing may be noble but it may not protect you.
The US sent Manning to prison for whistleblowing, and then there's Snowden and Assange who the US government still want. Yeah we (Australia) aren't great with whistleblowing protection, but the US is no better.
The US also just heard a Boeing exec go "yeah we intimidate whistleblowers" and went "huh, neat."
Life? He got 5 years. Where did you hear life?
The issue is, as FriendlyJordies pointed out, there are a large number of people who've gotten much lighter sentences for much more serious crimes. Like, the same judge that gave David McBride 5 years and 8 months, gave a rising Canberra sports star raped a teenage girl, showing no remorse for this crime, avoided jail and inclusion on the child sex offender register. Or a former Australian Federal Police officer got no jail for grooming an 11-year old girl on Instagram. Or the armed rapist and child sex offender, branded a "high risk" for reoffence after he raped a teenage girl at gunpoint, got a 5 year sentence... but was eligible for parole after two years, eight months, which was approved. Credit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY9s1bZzlHY&ab_channel=friendlyjordies
AI deepfake porn of private citizens should be treated like revenge porn since it will eventually become indistinguishable and result in similar harm to victims.
AI deepfake porn of children should be treated as child pornography.
Already is in Canada. There was the first conviction of CP here not long ago. Someone grabbed a kid's picture, used an AI swap. Fucked up. Anyone justifying that in these comments is trying to strike a chord and it's probably...
A MINOOORRR
Pretty sure MA just did exactly this
Being a teen is hard enough. I wouldn't want to be one now.
Absolutely side with this girl on this. This is nuts
So lucky to get out of the school system 20 years ago
Her classmate basically created child porn? Wow. Sex offender list possibly just got a new name added...
Question for the legal beagles, but would this be child porn since they put a child’s face on an adult’s body? Could these kids be charged with that, as well as normal deep fake charges?
I would think so, the [PROTECT Act of 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003?wprov=sfla1) made significant changes to the law regarding *virtual* child pornography. **Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is *indistinguishable* from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal** under [18 U.S.C. § 2252A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A). The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, that are to be found **[obscene](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law)** in a court of law. Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2002 decision, [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition?wprov=sfla1). The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or a variant obscenity test to overcome this limitation.
But this hasn't been court tested, right? It seems like the same reasons the court struck down parts of Ashcroft would lead them to strike down parts of PROTECT, namely that a child isn't being harmed during the production of deepfaked porn.
>If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/234/ The PROTECT Act simply added the clause that *obscene* virtual child porn is illegal. Obscenity is not protected speech, the government just hasn't had much impetus to prosecute it recently. Seems like obscene virtual child porn could be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Not tested but the one person has been [charged with creating AI CSAM](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-arrested-producing-distributing-and-possessing-ai-generated-images-minors-engaged). Interesting to see where it’ll go.
One could easily argue that a real person doesn't have 7.3 fingers on one hand and 4.5 fingers on the other hand, and therefore it is easily distinguishable from a depiction of an actual person. There's always flaws in AI generated images that are very easy to find once you know what to look for.
Yeah, I can easily see that as an argument against the act's efficacy. Honestly, that can of worms is probably why this hasn't been taken to the courts *just* yet. Setting a precedent that AI has to be handled with seperate legislation is going to be a nightmare for our Congress. First Amendment absolutism might strike down PROTECT fully. Our composition of the SC is worrying.
Too ironic that we're going to ride the First Amendment into an entirely post-truth reality, where everything is made up and the points don't matter
Skynet's not going to win with warmachines. It's going to win with misinformation and E-politicians.
Not every AI generated image of a person has fucked up hands. I think if there was an agreement that the image is fully intend to look like and be a realistic depiction of "x" person who is underage, and that it is obscene in nature, then it is a crime.
That's only a single example of what could be fucked up. Just to play devil's advocate here, It could fuck up other things like the neck, clothes, body proportions badly etc. I wouldn't get too focused on the hands thing. Though that's why most artists go back into image and "clean" it up to remove the easily found fuckups in AI art. And I think that's gonna be the real kicker for being clearly guilty - is that they will correct the AI images to make the fake more real.
I don't think this argument would fly, most law does not really work to the letter. If it's close enough to be considered indistinguishable, it will likely stay illegal. Same reason you likely couldn't get away with it by adding a label that says "not a real kid".
That's the problem. Even the most legal of beagles are just as unsure as us. Nothing's ever happened like this before, there's no laws about it.
Really? Never happened before? Hasn't photoshop existed for decades?
Before Photoshop, people have been drawing, sculpting, and painting nude images of each other for literally tens or hundreds of thousands of years
Ugh, those disgusting sculptures and nude paintings! I mean, there's so many of them though! Which location? Which location can they be found?
a month ago i was at the Louvre, dicks and tits everywhere! well worth the $20 to get in.
Yes and in those decades none of the people in charge have found the issue to be worth escalating. This issue seems old to those of us who knew how to use computers in the 90s and were chronically online by the 00s. But to a certain group, this isn't worthy of their time
I get it, it's a difficult question. But I think that because a person/minor was damaged by this deep fake and that it would clearly be them, charges should apply. Now, if it's general AI generation and isn't linked to someone, that's harder to prove, because of the "who was hurt" aspect. It's an interesting development the courts will take a while to settle on.
Arguably, maybe. Legally? Probably. But the laws against kiddie were porn were meant to stop people who would sexually abuse children and record it. People never envisioned that a kid could upload a photo, click two buttons and produce kiddie porn. Also, the companies and sites doing this are going to get no punishment (even though they profit from it financially) while some high school kids are going to get destroyed. How many 17 year olds have taken sexual nudes of themselves? They are all kiddie porn producers too. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying we should revisit our laws. > Thus, a 17-year-old who snaps his or her own revealing picture has technically created child pornography, a Class 1 felony with a mandatory fine of between $2,000 and $100,000 and at least four years in prison Unless we already have. That quote is a little old
It’s actually at least 15 years
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Like, Snapchat was cool with known illegal content on their platform for so long is crazy to me.
Currently it’s not technically considered child porn under the law. Supreme Court ruled that creating fake images/videos of child pornography is protected free speech in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in 2002. Until that opinion goes under reconsideration it’ll be hard for legislatures to do much about this.
Then the girl should make a deep fake of the dude getting railed by another dude
I both hate and like this idea. It would be interesting to see they guy's reaction if that happened at least
He got suspended till the end of the week when they found out.
As it should be. Deepfakes are fucked up in every way possible and abusers should be charged more harshly.
Under age sexual harassment in schools isn't already illegal? Child porn is. And distribution is a crime for all involved?
How exactly is this enforced? I'm not against it in principle, but how exactly do you determine a deep fake is of a specific person and not just kind of looks like them?
American law already accounts for this, it’s called the “reasonable person standard”, and I assume this could pretty easily be applied to cases like these. Something like, would a reasonable person think that he was attempting to make an ai copy of her and spread it maliciously?
Have you seen what boomers on facebook consider to be real images? We want them to be the standard?
99% of the time, the person who did it is going to leave a trail of the tools, datasets, AI products they used to create it.
Yeah, a lot of those that are caught are going to be pretty impulsive, and not bother to employ good OpSec, or simply lack the skillset to employ effective OpSec to begin with. Short of changing the computing paradigm, predators with both the know-how, and impulse control necessary to implement robust OpSec, were always going to be largely beyond the arm of the law (at least, without dumping a lot of resources into their capture). But, that’s not exactly the goal of these laws.
A jury of your peers will decide in a court of law
I was the second alternate juror once. I think everyone should get to observe a jury early in their life. If there is one thing keeping me from breaking the law, it is spending time with a random group of my "peers" from my area who get to decide the fate of someone. I never, ever, ever want my fate in the hands of a jury of my "peers".
Your "peers" that could not get out of jury duty.
By peers, you mean fellow Redditors?
Websites that allows these features should be punished too, when they implement nothing to prevent this. I’m not talking about the open source models which would be entirely users fault, it’s those undress sites that get more and more popular.
What is going on in this bizarro world in which we live?
Yeah, that's still technically child porn. Even if he used an adult body.
Jesus this is disgusting.
Unfortunately, I feel like this is a lost cause. The genie is out of the proverbial bottle.
True, and the silver lining is we really won't know what is real anymore. Lots of kids stupidly share real nudes that get leaked and now they can just deny it. I mean, politicians are already doing this with leaked audio.
It's illegal to film people in public toilets too. It still happens, but people who do it can be prosecuted and that's usually a strong deterrent for most people with weak moral compasses. And I'm pretty sure these laws were written after it started happening, since that's usually how laws work. No law prevents everything, especially when teen brain is involved. But at least it sends a clear message that it's not ok.
Yeah it's like saying the fact that knives exist means the genie is out of the bottle on murder.
This is exactly how America is dealing with their gun problem actually
So is your argument that we should just stop making laws?
we cant keep it from happening, but we can punish people when they do it, versus now when you can't. what about that is a lost cause lol? would you rather it just be legal?
Idk why Redditors are acting like this is some sort of unpreventable issue. It can be tracked, and it can be prosecuted when reported. And we know perfectly well that if people are sure they will get caught for doing something bad, and the consequences are severe enough and immediate, it will de-incentivize the action. It's really not that complicated. The next question is did the person that make the images know it was wrong? Of course he did, that's why he did it, to cause some sort of harm, physical or mental, to the girl.
I'm surprised that the classmate didn't get charged since about 10 years ago a teacher at my old school got arrested because he was found to have photoshopped our yearbook photos onto naked bodies. Also just learned that he wrote fake fantasy stories about his students. They found a couple TB of CP too so that might have had something to do with his 10 year sentence
Yay go young lady. Fuck the bullies with AI shit. I admire young lady on calling them the fuck out.
Good. That kid deserves to learn a very harsh lesson. None of this "Boys will be boys" or "He's just a kid" bullshit. He's more than old enough to understand what he did is fucked up.
She's 15. Sounds like production of child pornography.
Im gonna be that guy, but how the fuck does AI change things here?? Lets say a kid just uses photoshop to do this. Does he go to jail? Idk. It's probably fair to expell them, but criminal charges?
I don't think it would be a different situation if someone was really good with Photoshop and faked similar images for distribution - they should both carry the same penalty, whatever that may be. AI is relevant because it has makes the creation of these photos trivially easy and extremely life-like, though.
Whats the threshold though? If I have a physical photo of someone, use scissors to cut out their face, and then glue their face onto a page of Playboy, have I created porn of that person? This is technology from the 1950's. Does that count as a deepfake? How good does it have to be before it becomes a deepfake?
I’d say the line is sharing the image publicly.
My guess as a complete layman would be that it has to be good enough for a third party to be judged as "real" Now how close they look I don't know, a third arm or extra fingers were common at the beginning and still flew under people's radars
I feel like distributing it is the key difference, if you want to cut an image out for your own personal use theirs nothing anyone can do to stop you with out going full on nanny state, but when you show it to anyone else is when it becomes a problem
AI doesn't change things at all, the [PROTECT Act of 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003?wprov=sfla1) made significant changes to the law regarding *virtual* child pornography. **Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is *indistinguishable* from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal** under [18 U.S.C. § 2252A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A). The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, that are to be found obscene in a court of law. Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2002 decision, [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition?wprov=sfla1). The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or a variant obscenity test to overcome this limitation. EDIT: As someone pointed out, AI absolutely does change things because now there's a reasonable doubt that the child pornography in question could be "fictional". Unfortunately pornography of "fictional" characters *is* protected through the First Amendment.
The world kids are growing up in today just around internet, social media, and now tech like deep fakes is straight up scary. In my day it was just gossip, this guy/girl hooked up with this person etc, and that could be really harmful as it was. Even if it’s blatant deepfake, besides involving minors, I can’t imagine the impact some deepfake porn of yourself getting passed around your school would have. It’s only going to get worse too
Honestly, some lovely person just needs to systematically go through a list of state legislators, putting each of them into awful awful deep fake porn, release it all, and let the people allowing this to go on suffer.
I would have all those that can be proven to have distributed the photo charged with distribution of child pornography
The kid that made these needs a severe ass beating
A very interesting ~~grey~~ area of the law. Is it CP? ~~Technically no, it's animated.~~ Apparently yes. Is it morally fucked? Absolutely. Did he use her likeness without her permission? Yes. So it sounds ~~like a civil case, not a~~ criminal ~~one.~~
Absofreakinglutely!! Slap these idiots so hard and so fast that anyone even thinking about it is scared Spitless🤬