Taylor Lorenz

Most people panic about political deepfakes, but 98% of deepfakes are porn, and 99% of those targeted are women/girls.

Companies profit by facilitating this abuse toward women, Google directs traffic to these sites, and the female victims of these attacks have no recourse https://nyti.ms/3PwNOGs

Opinion | The Deepfake Porn of Kids and Celebrities That Gets Millions of Views

It astonishes me that society apparently believes that women and girls should accept becoming the subject of demeaning imagery.

The New York Times
Mar 25, 2024 at 1:18amMastodon for iOS
Show threadEmelia 👸🏻Mar 25, 2024
@taylorlorenz there is perhaps stopncii.org as a means to prevent these videos being distributed further
Show threadocdtrekkieMar 25, 2024
@taylorlorenz The article points exactly at the problem: Section 230. As long as tech companies can't be held liable, they're not going to fix it. It makes them too much money.
Show threadDavid Abigt  🌎 🎄Mar 25, 2024
@ocdtrekkie @taylorlorenz
The absence of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would leave most social media platforms vulnerable to constant litigation. In situations where a post is actionable, the individual responsible for the post should be held liable for their actions. Furthermore, if any deepfake content is produced with the intention of embarrassing the subject, it should be subjected to libel laws.
Show threadocdtrekkieMar 25, 2024

@deabigt @taylorlorenz That is completely false. For example, neither your server, nor my server is protected by Section 230!

What you are likely misled by is the fact that Google especially has invested insane amounts of money influencing lobbyists, academics, and journalists to *claim* Section 230 is important, because removing it would mean they could no longer make billions on malware, scams, and other crimes.

Show threadocdtrekkieMar 25, 2024
@deabigt @taylorlorenz Nearly without fail, if you find someone claiming Section 230 is critical to the Internet or social media, you'll find that claim backed by an organization which the Google Public Policy team has funded. The politicians protecting it all also receive the maximum donation from Google's NetPAC. And the most popular "journalist" on the topic also runs a political lobbyist group which is funded by Google... aka... he's not really a journalist.
Show threadDavid Abigt  🌎 🎄Mar 25, 2024
@ocdtrekkie @taylorlorenz
You might want to read this
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-the-day-after-section-230-reform-look-like/
What does the day after Section 230 reform look like?

Getting rid of Section 230 is a seemingly straightforward way to press platforms to more aggressively moderate content, but repeal is likely to cause significant disruptions in the short to medium term. In the long run, changes will be far less dramatic than either proponents or critics envision.

Brookings
Show threadocdtrekkieMar 25, 2024

@deabigt @taylorlorenz Brookings has been paid by Google for multiple years to shill this garbage. Here's Google's most recent disclosure: https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/ddfc97f01d89290e37bc52abdd9704bc3314ec5598bebe9676c64cd7a5ba1a719acaf069c1f9c218986e507f58bf3b50c750119c778cb4e88e99f3fb4dd904b4

They were paid in 2021 as well. Thanks for playing!

Show threadDavid Abigt  🌎 🎄Mar 25, 2024
@ocdtrekkie @taylorlorenz
I see you think virtually everyone is on Google's payroll then. So no real point in pointing out any other of the the majority of experts agree 230 is needed for social media to exist. The only ones wanting 230 repealed are those that claim they are censored in some way or picked on and want to sue deep pockets.
Show threadocdtrekkieMar 25, 2024
@deabigt @taylorlorenz Again, definitely untrue. But the fact is Google has invented a lot of experts, and entire expert firms, like the one you linked, where they are paid to convert anti-regulatory positions into "research" by "experts" to feed Congresspeople who were also conveniently donated to by Google, to ensure they can't be held accountable.
Show threadocdtrekkieMar 25, 2024
@deabigt @taylorlorenz That "majority of experts" impression you have is *exactly what they're paying for*. And when people regurgitate garbage from shill outlets like Brookings without actually thinking, you actually reinforce this complete fiction they've established.
Show threadocdtrekkieMar 25, 2024
@deabigt @taylorlorenz If you were telling me smoking is good for you, and you pointed out a study about it, and I showed you Phillip Morris USA was paying for it... that's exactly what's happening here.
Show threadNicole ParsonsMar 25, 2024

@taylorlorenz

Forcing women into portrayals of themselves that they never wanted is how corporations profit off unfair & unsustainable social hierarchy.

If a couple teens can be sued or arrested, why not Google?

Meting out consequences:
https://www.wired.com/story/florida-teens-arrested-deepfake-nudes-classmates/

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/8/24094633/deepfake-ai-explicit-images-florida-teenagers-arrested

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-jersey-teen-sues-classmate-for-allegedly-creating-sharing-fake-ai-nudes/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/12/family-takes-fight-against-deepfake-nudes-to-washington

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_deepfake_pornography_controversy

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/taylor-swift-deepfake-x-falsely-depict-supporting-trump-grammys-flag-rcna137620

Florida Middle Schoolers Arrested for Allegedly Creating Deepfake Nudes of Classmates

In what appears to be the first criminal case of its kind, two teenage boys were charged under a 2022 Florida law for allegedly creating AI-generated images depicting middle school classmates.

WIRED
Show threadChristopher Bauer   Mar 25, 2024

@taylorlorenz WA last week signed into law HB 1999 - 2023-24 making some of whats mentioned here a felony charge (or gross misdemeanor depending on the victim's age).

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1999&Year=2023&Initiative=false

Washington State Legislature

Show threadC.Suthorn Mar 25, 2024

@taylorlorenz

Last year in october @hateaid tried to deliver a petition signed by 76937 people against deepfake porn to german minister for digital topics and traffic Wissing. Wissing was not interested.

https://p7press.eu/lsebcgmlseb

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Petition_Deepfake_Pornos_stoppen_-_HateAid_Berlin_2023-10-17

Petition Deepfake Pornos stoppen - HateAid Berlin 2023-10-17 24.jpg

License: cc-by-sa-4.0, click for more information

p7press.eu/
Show threadRasmus LindegaardMar 25, 2024

@taylorlorenz this is so incredibly messed up. It's hard to find the words to express what I would feel of someone did this to one of my daughters.

But extreme rage would be at the mild end of the spectrum, i think.

Show threadIgor SovcikMar 25, 2024
@taylorlorenz don’t forget to mention Facebook. Last two years soft-porn like Ai generated content on site skyrocketed.
Show threadDeborah SampsonMar 25, 2024

@taylorlorenz Interested in signing a petition?

https://myimagemychoice.org/

Home - #MyImageMyChoice

#MyImageMyChoice - A coalition of image-based sexual abuse survivors and advocates from across the globe.
Show threadSkyeMar 25, 2024
@taylorlorenz I'm just going to say, there was a saying back in the day "anything you put on the internet will stay there forever". So, people should blame themselves, atleast a bit, for publishing information on themselves on the internet. This was an inevitable outcome, because there always exist edgy and horny people out there, who want to make a quick buck. And also sick people.
This is in no way a defense of those perpetrators, but criticism of ppl uploading to obviously public data pools.
Show threadResistor McResistanceFaceMar 25, 2024

@taylorlorenz

"calling a thing intelligence is frankly a great way of empowering the stupid" - Advertising the, OG of pig butchering