An AI generated video of her saying something she never actually said in real life*
And which is painfully obviously satire, even if it’s stupid and mean.
Satire is protected speech for a reason.
There are better ways to fight this than giving Republicans even more tools to censor their critics.
That South Park deepfake ad dogging Donald Trump that everyone loves so much would technically be illegal under her proposed rules as well.
Deepfakes are a real problem, but this is a stupid, short-sighted solution.
The deepfake puts it into murky waters for me.
If you have an actor who is obviously not the person represented saying a bunch of stupid and mean shit, I’ll defend your right to do it while also calling you a worthless piece of shit for thinking something so mean and petty is funny. This is basically the MadTV model and it has a right to exist for sure.
Deepfakes feel different. The ridiculous realism casts it in a light that feels a lot more like misinformation, which I do not believe is defensible, in the same way yelling fire in a crowded theater isn’t defensible.
I’m not saying it should be banned, but I guess I’m more open to like a serious and healthy debate over it.
That’s how they got Schwarzenegger in The Running Man…
Luckily this video is over the top. If that script is a bit more subtle, with a more serious tone, saying stuff that has a different message but in a way that she would typically phrase it, they could have her promoting fascist or nazi messages just as easily. She would have to start denying every video that was ever made about her.
Its not okay. Never will be.
Its not satire at that point. Its impersonating a representative of the people and spreading a message of hate that she wouldn’t support in real life. Not saying it has happened yet, but it could have just as easily been done.
Do we get ahead of it now? Or wait until you cant tell whats real or fake?
We should be getting ahead of it, just not in the particular way that Klobuchar wants it handled, at least not in the circumstances we currently find ourselves in.
Look, we literally have fascists in charge and they will abuse her proposed legislation as a tool to silence real criticism. She’s suggesting handing them the proverbial keys to shut down real satire speaking real truth to power. These are already lawless fascists, but they love to hide behind the idea of law, and laws like this that they can abuse to shut down dissent are their favorite kind.
Maybe a law like this could fly if we weren’t in a cold civil war, but right now it’s foolhardy because the people with the most power aren’t reasonable people and will abuse this to silence criticism.
Wouldn’t this just stop deep fake satire? What does banning deep fakes do to completely ban satire?
Well what do we do then?
Well first we have to disabuse ourselves of the notion that “law” is going to save us in the circumstances where the lawless have taken hold of every lever of power in government.
While we shouldn’t be descending into outright anarchy, it’s obvious the law isn’t going to save us and even Gavin Newsom is only doing something half-hearted. He’s not going balls-to-the-wall and saying “look we literally have fascists in charge, it’s time to do the unsavory to take the power back and hold them accountable, and that means ignoring the law as much as they do.” He’s proposing doing what the other side is doing but only if they actually do it. Unfortunately, to win against the lawless, you must become lawless yourself. Taking the high road has done nothing but get us deeper and deeper into this mess, and we’re past the point of no return. The time to handle this was by putting war criminals like Bush and Cheney in the Hague, or even further back, Ronald Reagan and Oliver North being taken to trial for Iran Contra. We no longer have the option of just trusting the law to sort things out. The other options we haven’t aren’t easy, but the most non-violent of them is a national strike, and a national strike will require groups to have first built parallel systems to support one another during a strike. Nobody is out here building parallel systems or getting organized to fight this in the only ways we can. I don’t know what to tell you about what else we can do, I’m not some master tactician in a crumbling society on the verge of outright civil war, but pretending that we can trust in the law when the lawless are in charge is foolish and naive.
Perhaps that’s why they made it over the top. Literally everything anyone does can be turned into “if they had done this instead it would be illegal”
Right now it’s just a random video floating around the Internet, but what happens when videos like this end up in campaign ads, smearing a candidate with false statements or behaviors? Or get used to force a candidate out of office? With a little subtlety, and the ability to suppress the MAGA inclination to exaggerate, videos like this could keep candidates tied up explaining themselves and defending themselves, instead of effectively campaigning. And we all know which party is most likely to employ this strategy, even though they’ll blame the other.
On the other hand, a poorly behaved candidate can simply wave off a genuine video as a deep fake, and their followers will believe it. If Boobert’s gropey date video were released today, she’d probably claim it was fake. Why not float that excuse? There’s no downside in making the claim, and perhaps they actually get away with it with their own supporters.
Must be marked as deep fake or you’re liable for defamation suits.
I don’t imagine they are afraid of defamation suits atm
This is simply impossible. The oly real solution to this problem (which will get much worse) is digitally signing genuine content rather than trying to stamp out fakes. If it doesn’t have a signature, assume it’s a fake.
This will absolutely ruin open mike and other accidental recording, unfortunately
How do you determine what is genuine, and who holds the keys to digital signing?
You can look up what Adobe are doing in this space.
Long-term it’s going to be something like every secure device comes with its own inbuilt unit for cryptographically signing the raw files. These signatures can then be matched against manufacturers databases of approved signatures.
This doesn’t guarantee that nothing has been tampered with, but it does provide a link back to the original device allowing you to inspect it.
There are huge privacy concerns as well, anything that’s used to indicate authenticity can be used to track.
Fake signature. Checkmate.
Mic drop
I agree with Techdirt’s ultimate opposition to the no fakes act. But in a world where Trump and the GOP are taken seriously, this is NOT obvious satire.
Luckily she’s a Democrat so nobody will take her seriously.
That is why I am again working across the aisle on a bill to give all Americans more control over how deepfakes of our voices and visual likenesses are used. The proposed bipartisan NO FAKES Act, cosponsored by Senators Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, Thom Tillis and me, would give people the right to demand that social media companies remove deepfakes of their voice and likeness, while making exceptions for speech protected by the First Amendment.
The thing that should actually be bolded here is that it’s cosponsored by Marsha fucking Blackburn.
Nah, the article headline is shit because it is expressing that it’s “breaking the internet”, but she’s not going after free speech. She wants major companies to label or take down deep fakes if asked. Hyperbole much?
Why just deepfakes? I should have every right to have everything about myself deleted, period.
I would love a socially and not legally adopted “/s” on altered content (that’s a pretty broad brush) when it isn’t obvious it’s satire- maybe just in general (I’m kinda dumb). I don’t know who this person is, and, while a bit of research would have revealed this a fake, I can see less with-it people, as well as anyone motivated to believe this is true, just believing it. I catch myself just believing things that confirm m’bias all the time (sad!)!
Ugh. She’s for real? What a klob. 🖕🏽🤪
Old people should be soylent greened.
