top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 97 points 1 year ago (16 children)

"Thing that everyone said was going to happen happens, but now it's happened to one of our betters so it's news."

Haven't kids been killing themselves over deepfake porn being passed around school for years?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    So what you're saying is release Trump in deep fake porn so he kills himself?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    This is adults standing room only, children that self censor themselves because they got TikTok brain need not apply and the exit is posted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Just say the word. Suicide. Self censoring denies it of its purposely impactful meaning

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm really trying. But even my image search is filtered (see) and when I type UNALIVE my phone replaces it with UNALIVE.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago*

    Unfortunately I'm going to go commit suicide and won't be able to respond further. How could I respond? I'll be dead after all.

    Oh shit did I say suicide, I must have been fucking around this whole time. Yes I think the word is dumb too. Now I'll go back and edit the original to make this chain confusing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    So is walled garden censorship, if you'd like to be a good little slave censoring the internet for your big tech overlords — stay on those platforms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    We've been warning about this for years. Now it's too late, especially because the people in power have a vested interest in NOT policing deepfakes.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    I think this is similar to the gerrymandering issue where, since only the Republicans have abused it for years, they have had 0 reason to vote for any legislation put up against it.

    Now that the D's are doing it, they might consider the risk is higher than the reward with Gerrymandering and say nobody is allowed to do it.

    Just gotta start pumpin out gen images of Rs for them to reconsider their stance.

    To be clear, I am very against AI gen images. But, like you were saying, I don't see any reason for them to take any action against it until it affects them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Excellent comparison! I just fear that the GOP will always be more unscrupulous than the Dems, and so will ultimately always be OK with gerrymandering (or deep fakes, or what have you).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The problem with this theory is that Republicans regularly say truly awful shit and it never sinks their career because their voters are horrible people themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Their voter base is not the most educated, so they are VERY susceptible to misinformation. Also, they have raised their base to be extremely reactionary.

    It is not really the politicians these would be aimed at, even though some have very fragile egos and may act solely because it hurts their feefees.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Just make a bunch of deep fake pedophile shit, there's enough links there that an investigation could happen and given they're republican politicians you're pretty likely to find actual pedophilia in doing so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's kind of upsetting that anyone is shocked or surprised by this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's a real worry. I watched a Rachel Maddow video on youtube recently and got several minutes in before I realised it was fake, it was very convincing. How is society going to function when none of us know what's real and what's not?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Fight fire with fire.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I mean, fuck. Watching that sultry little temptress squeeze into a Canadian tuxedo three sizes too small with her bouncy little funbags on the screen staring at you, piercing through the core of your soul with those ocean-blue eyes that could resurrect the Führer from his grave in Argentina, is something that should alarm every American citizen because in America, beauty is not defined by whiteness.

  • source
  • 23 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Hard to imagine how they're going to take down deepfakes without limiting freedom of information or how they will prove who made the content.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Well they already have a leg up with the TAKE IT DOWN Act that Democrats worked with Ted Cruz and Trump to get passed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    To my knowledge, that only covers pornographic content.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    And the Patriot Act was only implemented to catch terrorists. What's considered "pornographic content" is entirely subjective and up to the personal feelings of a particular judge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's no judge in the world who could make the leap that this is pornographic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Ah, but with the definition having multiple meanings then can easily make that call.

    the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

    So all those things posted online like “food porn,” “travel porn,” etc can be classified as pornography because now we have a definition that isn’t necessarily sexual.

    It’s bullshit, but they can still make it the definition used to make their case about why it’s “bad.” GOP is good at using broad strokes to paint their evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • Similarly, libs hated guns so much, they let the fucking COPS have the right to arbitrarily deny you a gun permit* under so called "may issue" laws.

    Yea no fuck that lol. They would just let white people have guns and non-whites seeking a gun for self-defence will be denied because "they look suspicious"

    You can never trust the police. Arm yourselved, form a well-regulated militia to protect your community.

    *"may issue" laws were in effect in many Democratic jurisdictions until 2022, when, ironically, the fascists on the supreme court struck them down.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Klobuchar will just use this as another rallying cry to tear down Section 230 and make the internet even worse. You can read it yourself, but earlier this year she tried to use a 19 year old ODing on fentanyl he bought off Snapchat as a reason to "... get rid of or reform section 230 ..."

    Not sure how that's going to stop people from ODing on adulterated narcotics, but maybe supporting harm reduction and mental health services would be a better use of my tax payer money.

    https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2025/2/klobuchar-urges-action-at-senate-judiciary-hearing-on-fentanyl-epidemic-featuring-minnesota-mom-s-testimony

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So where is this video? Genuine curiosity, I'd like to see how real it looks

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's this one, although I can't find the original, only the reaction to it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYub79GEcFw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Ok, that's actually funny for once and not just full of spite, but the douchebag on the left forgets how easy it is to troll the right. Remember how hard they lost their minds for calling them "weirdos"? Case in point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I mean... fuck Amy Klobuchar? There I said it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I mean... Yes, that is what deepfakes are. I am sorry it happened to poor old Amy, and I whish her vulgar, algorythmic doppelganger wouldn't have said awul things but... If this is news to you you might have not be paying attention for a while.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think this is a good thing. Now there's plausible deniability for anything you might have said in the past that surfaces - that's just a deepfake! Don't cancel me, it's not real.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, what a good thing, the end of consequences and easily proven fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    We've got a world "leader" who pioneered the end of consequences and showed that easily proven facts weren't worth the bits they were sent over the internet with, so that ship has already sailed.

    Enjoy the freedom that comes with never having to answer for your crimes. Kick a puppy. Call someone a slur. Steal a game ball from a kid at the world series.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Are you sure it isn't fake?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    She has a well earned reputation of sounding in private just like in the video . I’m sure the video is not her, but it was really accurate in tone; which is why it’s getting traction

  • source
  • parent