Taylor LorenzMar 25, 2024

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
Show threadocdtrekkie
@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.
Mar 25, 2024 at 1:33amWeb
Show threadDavid Abigt  ðŸŒŽ 🎄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  ðŸŒŽ 🎄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  ðŸŒŽ 🎄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.