Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
This is a ridiculous & unconstitutional policy, all of this was possible before AI. The state will manufacture outrage wildly out of proportion to any real & present danger in order to destroy 1st Amendment protections. Deep fakes, like all parody, are free speech: full stop. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/technology/california-deepfakes-law-social-media-newsom.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Lk4.sJNI.9vkLVQbMbc8w&smid=url-share
4 replies
1 recast
7 reactions
alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
Don't you think there are levels to this though? Grouping deep fakes with parody is a bit dishonest in this case imo. Parody is supposed to make you laugh and often exist within a context (an identified parody account, a parody TV show, etc...). A Deepfake is used by legitimate accounts to manipulate people. Clearly not the same stakes here. The degree is different too. Photography was a major revolution in the realm of portraying Vs painting. Deepfake is of the same nature in the realm of creating "fake" content. Parody requires wearing costumes, imitating voices etc...Deepfake is way beyond that.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
All CGI is fake. All artistic expression is "fake." Would you have banned H.G. Well's War of the Worlds being read on the radio just because some may think it's real? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(1938_radio_drama)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
I don't recall War Of World being presented by HG Wells as facts, or being introduced on the evening news though, was it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Yes, all creation is fake/imitation, but I don't believe the intent of this law is to ban every creation? So contexts and intents are important and will without a doubt be considered in court, as it always is.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
We cannot assume how the law will be used against us. I'm all for open-source labeling of deep fake content, I'm not for penalizing and burdening citizens for expressing their right to create CGI content.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
This is not an assumption, this is facts. Context is always considered in court, it's a legal principle.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
You can't see how an unscrupulous administration this would be used against you? Court is not a panacea.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
That's the exact reason why the 3 powers are separated, to avoid this kind of manipulation. You can't build a body of law solely on the assumption that the government *might* use it wrong or politicize it, because if you think like that, any law can potentially be politicized and used in twisted ways., so you'd end up with no law at all.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
I see what you're saying in the diminutive sense, but I feel this ignores the main innovation of our constitution: to set boundaries on the *government* to respect our natural born rights, including free speech. Free expression is not violence. Those who want to punish free expression are violent. These are not the same
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
I feel there is a perception difference here, me being from France, and here talking about the US. Free speech expression is not a natural born right. I mean, you can consider it is, but in a world without government, if you say something I don't like, I can just kill you and there will be no consequence for me. So the government is the literal entity that is guaranteeing your free speech, by its very existence. If anything, government should be reinforced rather than have many boundaries. But that's where perception difference comes in, because the US is federation of states Vs Franc being a unified nation state. Free Speech is not violence but it can very practically lead to violence. Wouldn't you want the government to protect you if I had a following of 10M ppl on twitter and told my followers "Please someone go kill Daniel Fernandes, I really hate him!"? Or you think this should be protected by free speech?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
First, thanks for mentioning you're not from the USA, we have a very different free speech tradition compared even to our neighbors in Canada. No, we do have limits to free speech, namely (1) direct invitement to violence, like your example and (2) "obscene" content namely CSAM. There have been storied debates over whether "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is free speech. But what should not be in debate is any branch of the government deciding what is political "fake news." We combat fake news with real news that points out how the fake news is fake. Not by sending men with guns. By the way, we are a heavily armed society and sending police to lock half the population in cages will not be successful.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
Yeah I wanted to mention it upfront cause I know history and philosophical approaches are different, so it can also explain differences in opinions. I'm glad you recognize that there are limits to free speech, so at least, we agree on that! Where I join you is on the definition of "fake news". It's one, if not the biggest, political issue of our time. What is a fake news, who gets to say what a fake news is, etc. But that's not the problem at hand here. The problem that's being dealt with here is, should we or should we not let Deepfake go unchecked. Given the potential outcome of very well orchestrated Deepfakes (could lead to violence, could lead to overturn elections etc), I sincerely believe they should be kept in check, just like freedom of speech is kept in check when crossing certain lines.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction