Thank you. I really can't find words to explain how baffling this whole thing feels. "Integers aren't just positive" strikes me as a similar title, and the tone isn't "hey other people without a background, I think something clicked for me" so much as "ahhh i've found something they missed!"
"Nonconsensual AI porn" is a weasel term because it implies that it should be necessary to get someone's consent to create fake porn using their faces.
Nonconsensual porn laws generally aren't restricted to commercial use, and some include fake images with intentional and recognizable use of likeness (some also don't, its a mixed bag.)
Yes, commercial use of likeness is also an issue, and it may or may not be violated simply by distribution of something use the likeness on a commercial website like civitai.
Right now CivitAI is basically Stable Diffusion social media. It doesn't seem profitable at all, even of they are selling user data or getting subs or whatever.
But if they start charging for downloads or whatever, they may cross a line into making money off likeness, and not just "hosting user content" like Facebook and Twitter and any oldschool image hosting service gets to say they do.
How can that possibly be enforced though? You can't really stop people from drawing or photoshopping stuff for personal use, and this is essentially a further extension of the technology.
Well said. If you fancy using my likeness as a dartboard, or in a meme, or as a Photoshop asset, or painted on a canvas, or drawn by AI, or mistakenly randomly generated, etc, great! Have fun. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
I'm not entitled to categorically own/forbid using a look. That's nonsense and leads to self-inflicted quandaries: How do I know a video of unknown provenance contains me, not a dead ringer that gave consent? How different must a depiction be to not require my consent? 9 pixels? 30%, whatever that means? At least an eye color change?
It's impossible to consistently enforce, presumptive, and effectively thought-policing a concept. In short: it's absurd.
> How do I know a video of unknown provenance contains me, not a dead ringer that gave consent?
> It's impossible to consistently enforce, presumptive, and effectively thought-policing a concept. In short: it's absurd.
I mean, come on. It’s fine to disapprove of the law, but this isn’t some uniquely difficult thing that the legal system couldn’t possibly handle. It’s certainly nowhere near the level of complexity and ambiguity of, for instance, criminal fraud law, where things like the intent of the accused and the “reasonable person” are routinely crucial elements.
Actually it is arguably higher level of complexity, because while intent is not normally an element for right of publicity, it has been looked to along with effect to disambiguate which cases that aren’t simple image or voice likenesses (such as voice impersonations) are nevertheless covered.
Across the internet spreads a noisy video. It's pornography with an absolute dead ringer celebrity face. There are no context clues -- physical SMT, celebrity references, video provenance, etc.
I mean, if you don’t know who is responsible, what do you ever do? What if you find a dead body but no clues about how they died? What’s uniquely tricky about this particular type of crime?
“In the United States, the right of publicity is a state law–based right, as opposed to federal, and recognition of the right can vary from state to state.”
So, the USA-specific answer is depends on the specific US state(s) whose law relevant to the action in controversy.
There are countries with national rights in this area, but the USA is (and your source highlights this) not one of them.
The irony of course is that people are only able to create deepfakes of non-celebrities because social media has already gotten the average user very comfortable with letting go of their privacy.
Taking a pornographic movie and putting someone's face in place of one of the actor's does not violate their privacy in any way, since nothing private was shared that wasn't private before (their face).
Sharing a photo on Facebook doesn’t imply a public license for any pervert to use it for pornography. Don’t complain when that gets codified in law either — people like you are way too cavalier with other people’s livelihoods.
People are too entitled in trying to own a look. Can I spread porn fakes of myself? What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?
Blame Disney, not me. And I'd argue most individual people are interested in controlling what is done with their own visage more than anything. It's the same legal logic as revenge porn laws. If you are my enemy, all I have to do is find your sibling's Instagram account and I could make entire <yourlastname>hub website.
> What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?
Taylor Swift's corporate legal team would already do a pretty fine job of excising that right from you. No additional legislation needed.
Now, if you are trading commercially on the appearance similarity in a way which presents, either explicitly or implicitly on your images as Swift’s, then you open yourself up to right of publicity claims in some jurisdictions, and the same may be true of revenge porn laws in some jurisdiction, even without the context being commercial.
If you genuinely believe that my kosher, not-Swift deep fakes would ever legally survive -- regardless of context/provenance claims -- then I have a bridge to sell you.
No they could not easily sue and win, especially if no money was exchanged and the video wasn't presented by the maker as a actually being of the video in question. There are plenty of porn sites who's sole existence is deep faking rich and powerful people performing sex acts. Those sites use the word FAKE or something akin to that in the title/intro of the video to add some protection.
There is a difference between Chinese society and western society. Chinese do not allow kids to play video games for too long because they know effects of games on the youth, they also restrict what can be viewed by children on Chinese version of tik tok for the exactly same reason. They restrict freedom of their kids because they believe it's more productive and better for society. In west we do not do that because freedom is important for us. What you need to understand is that there is no free lunch, freedom has a cost that you need to pay, and we are paying for it.
So while the US pacifies its citizens China tried to make foreign solders to send to the US. TikTok being a tool to "slow down" Americans while enabling foreigners. Seems pretty Sus to me.
Please stop telling people they’re uneducated on the topic in response to one comment. You’ve done it multiple times and it’s unnecessarily aggressive. Ask clarifying questions or provide counterfactuals.
I made a new account last week – totally blank, new device everything. The default FYP so far is all anti-Jewish – not anti-Israel, anti-Jewish – and far left-wing anti-American stuff. it intersperse with really low brow celebrity stuff.
Pretty intense stuff. Lots of “Jews run the world, and hate you” stuff that reporting doesn’t seem to work on. Lots of “America is a nightmare place” aimed at teenagers.
Pretty sure thats the CCP whipping up internal unrest here.
Shit I’ve had youtube try to brainwash me. I clicked on one lecture, that I watched and thought was generally good, if not slightly contrarian. Turns out his later work was hugely influencial in the red pill nonsense. Needless to say, just watching this one lecture led my entire feed to be filled with red pill nonsense.
I have no doubt if I had clicked on similar content on tiktok I would have deluged with similar nonsense.
We have heard about it.... you're just not getting your news from sources that mention it. There are multiple things they allow on American TikTok that they do not allow on Chinese TikTok. They allow these things because they know it helps with social decay in America.
What are you talking about?! Listen to yourself dude, you've completely fallen down a conspiracy rabbit hole. If the US exerted that level of control over private media you would call it a dystopia and a violation of 1A. China also has a policy that limits teenagers to 1hr of online video games a day, surely you wouldn't look at that and jump straight to Activation being a government psyop to stunt education.
TikTok would have to be doing something anything unique in this situation and they aren't. YouTube is the OG radicalization pipeline, Tumblr is more pro-communism than TikTok will ever dream to be, Facebook and IG pioneered doomscrolling before it was cool, and Twitter/Reddit ruined an entire generation of men with the enlightened technoconservatarian nonsense.
I promise you if there is one thing that is absolutely completely certain in America is that we need no help whatsoever in destroying the fabric of our own society and to say otherwise is an affront to American exceptionalism.
Not sure about "corrupting America's youth," but TikTok has been proven to selectively show content to different regions to promote only certain kinds of thought: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30917474
This was enough for me to resolve to never use it. And you're right that other social media isn't much better, though I don't think that was being called into question in the first place.
> Not sure about "corrupting America's youth," but TikTok has been proven to selectively show content to different regions to promote only certain kinds of thought
The example cited there seems a lot like it is to conform to local censorship policies, not to manipulate thought around some centralized objective of TikTok or the CCP.
Its a different thing, whether its better or not is a completely unrelated argument.
> Not to mention, being capable of one means they are capable of the other.
Neither one is a particularly deep capability, anyone with an information service with a personalized feed is capable of both, and if they don't conform to local censorship policies they simply will be banned where that occurs.
I agree with you in principle but there's no difference between that and what's allowed in other American platforms. Degenerate content is everywhere in all platforms.
For tiktok to be special in this regard they would have to allow something different that went way beyond what American platforms allow, and that's thus far not happening.
> For tiktok to be special in this regard they would have to allow something different that went way beyond what American platforms allow
I'm not sure that's true. There's a big difference between "Some amount of degenerate content exists on American platforms which are constantly fighting to identify and remove it" and "Adversarial foreign platform intentionally creates/curates degenerate content to push it to American audiences while keeping it from their own users"
Even if you're talking about content that both platforms fully allow, if one platform targets a group and floods their feeds with certain content with an intent to harm that group that is itself a problem. The fact that it is possible to find harmful content on youtube doesn't make it the same as a platform that intentionally and relentlessly shoves harmful content in your face. I can't say how guilty tiktok is of doing that however.
Personal interests extend far beyond personal desires. We cannot impose Western interpretations of "win" via libertarian interpretations on Nepalese society and culture.
I prefer that to what often happens with the GUI updater on my machine, where the name given is the first line of the package's description. e.g. "small, powerful, scalable web/proxy server" rather than "nginx"
I have to click on the line to see the actual package name in the more info section.
Perhaps, but it's pretty sad that we buy things just because they're expensive. In most cases it's just a waste, and you're only hurting your own bank account, but when it comes to diamonds, it actually causes harm.
And yes, I did buy my partner a diamond engagement ring. I wish I'd tried harder to see if she could be happy (or happier, even) with something else, or at least a lab-grown diamond.
its just a marketing stunt that became a culture icon in a society weak to commercial propaganda last century. Its basically a tacky display of status or a modern bride price, something socially incompetent nerds find funny outside the blood part
I completely agree. My point is that, even though buying a diamond is stupid, buying a cheap knock-off is even stupider. The only point of a diamond is to show wealth, since it's a rock - a knock-off can't even show wealth, so why buy it?
If you want to buy something useful instead, that's much better.
