Deepfake Discussion Thread: How bullshit is it that people have been pasting celebrities' heads on naked girls' bodies for decades now, yet somehow now because it's in video form there are liberal bloggers all over the place waving their fists in the air about it.
It's obviously not illegal, clearly protected under the 1st amendment, yet now it's banned all over the internet. Under what grounds?
If it becomes too realistic and can be passed off as an actual sex tape, then that is slander, which is illegal.
This should give you an idea of the types of retarded articles that are out there:
>papermag.com
I don't think you know what 1st amendment means. It means that governments can't inhibit free speech.
who cares fag why jack off to fakes you fuckin dweeb
Nobody's been passing it off as an actual sex tape, they've been under the name "deepfakes" the whole time, meaning they're not claiming to be the real deal. Also that's kind of a moot point, there have been plenty of people who have released fake celebrity photos for years claiming them to be real, no "slander" charges there.
Exactly, so why then would the government wipe all indexed clearweb search results of deepfakes? I think you and I agree this is clearly covered as free speech, so it doesn't make sense why the government would have a hand in this.
>why then would the government wipe all indexed clearweb search results of deepfakes?
I didn't realize that Pornhub and Reddit are state-owned enterprises
They're not, obviously they can ban whatever the fuck they want, but that's not the legal issue. If you search up "deepfakes" or "face swap porn" under any search engine(Opera, DuckDuckGo, etc.) you'll pul up no relevant search results, even in images. That means they were deliberately wiped from the index. Normally this means there's a legal reason for doing so. However, there doesn't appear to be any such thing, thus my question.
>Remember when masturbating meant going onto Pornhub and looking up your favorite porn star's videos?
No. I remember my friends and me having to scavenger old porn mags from the local woods.
Bro, you're just way too retarded to understand the 1st amendent. It only protects you from the government. Sup Forums and reddit can do whatever the fuck they want about your shitty fake celeb nudes.
I'm it sure what is your definition of relevant, but when I search it I find links to all the news websites reporting about it. I also found the links to old subreddits that have been banned.
It's more of the principle of the thing, I don't think most of the videos are even particularly well made. Which begs the question: why are people trying so hard to eliminate it? Shouldn't free expression be, you know, free?
Haha, that's so true. The world was a better place back then.
ikr? What a time to be alive!
see
How do I make one of these with my wife's face on a random homemade porno chick??
>muh liberals
Uh, all the businesses you mentioned are private, which means that they have chosen to remove it.
>implying private companies have to be unbiased in any way, shape or form
Yo, am I getting banned for this?
Exactly, that's precisely my point. All you find are news articles reporting on it. What do you not find? Any actual deepfakes, even on images. That means they've been wiped deliberately from all search results, which I find unconstitutional.
You might be too late, they had a whole subreddit dedicated to making them with the technology and everything. I'm sure if you search around enough you'll be able to find it.
So I just tried searching for deepfakes on those search engines and DDG even SUGGESTED some results for me. I was able to find Emma Watson Deepfakes on Redtube because of it.
Either you don't know how to operate a search engine or you're really exaggerating your argument here.
It's called the FakeApp
these deepfakes can be used to exploit someone
Yes, but you don't find them on the actual indexed web, only on a local hosting site like Redtube. If it were the other way around there'd be no problem, but sadly it's not. I'm not saying that you can't find deepfakes anywhere, they're still out there, you just can't find them on indexed images when searching through an engine, which you should.
>bLOGgers
Yo dog you just raped at least 4 million women by posting this
How the fuck is photo shoping a head onto another woman's body protected under free speech. This generation is a whole lot of fucking stupid.
It is actually deformation and copy-write theft if they own their likeness rights.
Fucking noobs thinking they know anything about laws.
seeandnah u good
But they're not, that's like saying we should ban bitcoin because it could be used to fund terrorism. It COULD, but that's not what it's being used for, and what it's being used for ISN'T harmful or illegal.
I can't stand people that think constitutional rights should be upheld in private businesses and even foreign places. Are you sure the servers of the website you're using are even in America, dumb fuck? Even if they are, it's a private business and they can censor the fuck out of you as much as they want.
it's a parody and therefore exempt
Your search skills suck. I found this indexed
Finally see daisy ridley in something i like and they take it away. Bullshit.
And this was indexed as well.
Member how David cage was sued for including a celebrity face on a nude game character in one of his games without permission?
Yeah same thing. Concent to use the likeness of someone that isn't you in any way shape or form is important.
Because it is, a person doesn't OWN their own face, that's why it's legal to take photographs of people without their knowledge or consent, as long as it's in a public space(otherwise, a lot of paparazzi would be going to jail). Once the photo is taken, it's the property of the person who took that photo. They can then do whatever they like with it. It's not illegal to photoshop someone mountain biking or skiing, so it shouldn't be illegal to paste their head on a pornstar's body.
Now if the pornstar herself(or her agent) or the person who took the photo of the celebrity has a copyright claim on the photo, that could be subject to a suit, but the type of banning that's been happening has been a priori. That means nobody has filed suit, Taylor Swift didn't request that all her fake images be taken down, they were taken down under nobody's request by free will of some government agency. THAT'S what I have a problem with.
>It's not illegal to photoshop someone mountain biking or skiing, so it shouldn't be illegal to paste their head on a pornstar's body.
you're not going to severely harm someones reputation with a video of them cycling or skiing
...
But that's different, nobody's been sued. They were taken down by a government agency under no claim or suit. Obviously if someone requests that their likeness be removed from something they'd have more of a claim, but this is no such thing. Daisy Ridley didn't file suit over this, it was taken down by a government agency.
Where is the proof that a government agency did this??? How can you tell?
My point is that in order for the photo to legally be taken down, the issue has to be brought by the legal claim owner first. If not, it's free domain until that point.
probably, but i'm talking in regards to it as a moral issue
Need Ariana Grande and/or Kylie Jenner deepfakes
It was removed from all indexed search results. Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Opera, all of these search engines show nothing when searched. Usually the only reason for something to be wiped entirely from indexed searches is if it's from an illegal nature, like cp. Then, it is automatically wiped indiscriminately without suit because it's illegal. This, however, has no clear legal challenge unless brought by a copyright holder. That means the only way it was completely wiped from all indexed searches was per request of a government agency, the only question is "under what grounds?". The content isn't innately illegal, so it should be free domain unless it's requested to be taken down by a copyright holder.
no it wasn't
Yeah I get why you think that's what happened. But is there any actual proof that shows this government agency actually deleting things?
>Under what grounds
It's simple. They're rich. The laws are irrelevant.
You're an idiot if you think government agencies can be this effective. Try going to the DMV, then say this, but you're probably too young for that.
Well morally you could be right, I actually think that's a deeper question. Is it right to frame someone doing what could be described as an embarrassing act for entertainment? Maybe, maybe not. But then again, a lot of things done for entertainment are mean. The very concept of "roasting" someone or writing a mean song about someone could very well damage their reputation, but many people find it very enjoyable nonetheless.
Regardless of whether or not it's enjoyable to laugh at the expense of another person, I still think it should be legal. As much evil can come out of something often you can get just as much good out.
truth
How do I make my own deepfakes?
Try going to the deepwep
roasting someone and framing someone is quite a bit different though, especially for something like making them look like they were in porn; some careers, like anything involving children, can get cut off to you if you've been in porn
Try images. Doesn't it seem strange to you that although deepfakes have been so big there are no pictures of the fakes? That's because they've been deleted. Obviously some people still hold them on local sites, but that's not the point.
Hellooooooo?
POST DEEPFAKES PLS
My jaw is still on the floor from all the outrage.
All this fucking talk about "consent" and "violating human rights" is such shit.
Nobody gets hurt, nobody has a right to intervene in what's essentially digital art, it's just entitled leftist cunts thinking they can burn anything that bothers them to the ground.
>Doesn't it seem strange to you that although deepfakes have been so big there are no pictures of the fakes?
You dense mofo. I already posted a few pics that I I found indexed
Lol, this
everyone talking about deepfakes and nobody posts 1 ? wtf. what has Sup Forums come to?
Janice Griffith, not fake
They're not on the images section. If you've seen any of the actual deepfakes videos, you'll notice that when you search "deepfakes" or "face swap porn" all you get are unrelated photos, NONE from the actual videos themselves, when they were there only a matter of weeks ago.
Yes, you can still find them on local websites, that's not what I'm talking about.
These things are probably legal, but that does not mean that private parties have to index/host/whatever them. Google, et al are private, non-governmental entities that can decide for themselves what to index or host. Don;t like it? Fine, but unless you're gonna start up deep fake search dot org, take your whining elsewhere.
Anny mega link?
I still have a scar on my wrist from climbing an old cyclone fence (with the pointy tips) to get a penthouse some degenerate left in the woods.
Christ, that was like 1983, I think.
I'm not sure wtf you are talking about because I found these on the search engine
Is she saying 'tomato' over and over? WTF?
She's saying "do me", thus conclusively proving it is not a fake
Yes I suppose that's true but that's more a reflection of society's values, more subjective than anything. What if someone didn't want to date someone because they heard a really nasty joke about them? Or what if they were so socially alienated by a mean rumor someone started about them that nobody would talk to them? Many things can cause strife in society for someone, but then again I believe if you weren't ever permitted to be mean to someone we'd live in a very unhappy fake society.
I think that when it comes to free expression where some people get their feelings hurt and unfree expression where nobody gets their feelings hurt, free expression is the lesser of two evils.
It's a deepfake of Ariana Grande on Janice
I prefer tomato, tbh
...
What search engine did you use?
Your head looks like a tomato
I totally agree with you. It's bullshit that these "laws"/decisions get made seemingly overnight and for the average person the only recourse is to break the "law" by turning to increasingly 'off the grid' methods.
I really do miss the days of P2P networks, you could share or download anything.
Make the Internet Anonnymous Again.
>It is actually deformation
>copy-write theft
>Fucking noobs thinking they know anything about laws.
Or spelling?
Ops, wrong one.
An actual search engine. It's called Google.
Here is something else I found on image search. A screenshot from xvideos that leads you to the actual video if you click on the link
I like tomato
Also, here is the link for you faggots that are interested
That's not a deepfake though, and neither are the other two you posted. These are regular fakes where a cut out video is pasted over the head of the porn actress.
Check again, bub
I've tried google and got nothing, maybe it's a regional thing. Are you outside of the US? All I know is I've tried every search engine I could think of and I found it very unnerving how few search results came up despite deepfakes being a huge phenomena. At the very least I know it's true of every other search engine, I've tried.
Ask mommy to turn off safe search.
While no one really believes the deepfakes, they do show the potential the other user pointed out of framing.
I have a wife and kids, if you deepfaked me cheating on her it could ruin my entire life socially and financially. There should be a legal defense against those sort of actions, they cause real lasting damage.
I believe it has something to do with SEOs, and the fact that the query "deepfake" is trending, meaning you will only get the popular, most visited sites. Which also explains why it was easier to find a few weeks ago. Try some variation to the search term, to go around it. I searched "deepfake porn".
> Those cold, dead eyes
They are all over bing, google and duckduckgo, all you faggots saying you can't find them need to change your search settings or contact your ISP. This is not a government conspiracy just some faggots on Sup Forums with safesearch turned on.
That's true, but does that mean we should ban its use entirely? Just because bitcoin CAN be used to fund terrorism doesn't mean that it merits banning the use of bitcoin entirely. As far as I know there are no reported cases of fakeapp being used to frame anyone of a crime, so I think many of these concerns are purely speculation at this point. Maybe at some point in the future that will be a concern, but I don't think we should preemptively jump to banning its use as a whole.
>a girl has no eyes
Kek'd
Lel
Kek, that's a standard Amerifag response.
>Mass shootings every month
>Can't ban guns though just ain't right
>App released to make dirty videos
>BAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!
As long as it is used in a non damaging way sure. Bitcoin is used to fund terrorism almost certainly, but I'd agree it has merits outside of that. I'm uncertain what the merits of deepfaking are, they are exclusively used to anonymously misrepresent people - regardless of how believable the situation is.
>I'm uncertain what the merits of deepfaking are
hth
for those grey areas, like jokes, i agree, and tend to err on the side of freedom of expression, but for something like this i don't see why someone needs the right to create fake porn of someone, i can't think of any legitimate reason for someone to do it, but can think of a lot of legitimate reasons why the person being targeted would oppose it, beyond just not wanting their feelings to be hurt.
are there any deepfakes of Kylie Jenner or Nicki Minaj?
Lol, in print its called libel. Your understanding of the subject is obviously poor.
> merits of deepfaking
It's not really a mystery.
Much like Bitcoin these deepfakes aren't really special in and of themselves. It is the underlying technology that is interesting. For Bitcoin the underlying blockchan technology has the potential to impact a lot of industries.
For deepfakes it's merely the idea that AI is accessible to everyone, thanks in large part due to the push of Google(the FakeApp is using Google's Tensoraflow machine learning framework) and other big techs. They like to call this 'democraticizing AI".
To be clear I am not defending the deepfakes, but it's merely an interesting use case of the underlying technology that is becoming available to anyone. Imagine amateur content makers using this to make unlimited content.
C'mon guys!
>the government doesn't work because there are lines at the DMV
k
I think the argument about deepfakes is pretty interesting. I'm a free speech advocate but I don't think it qualifies as free speech when it enters the misrepresentation level.
I'd agree that banning the base technology is inappropriate.