Comment

Comment on The White House wants to 'cryptographically verify' videos of Joe Biden so viewers don't mistake them for AI deepfakes

<- View Parent

General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

What makes the original comment legally problematic (IMHO), is that it is expected and intended to have a chilling effect pre-publication. Effectively, it would end internet anonymity.

It’s not necessarily unconstitutional. I would have made the argument if I thought so. The point is rather that history teaches us that close control of publications is a terrible mistake.

The original comment wants to make sure that there is always someone who can be sued/punished, with obvious consequences for regime critics, whistleblowers, and the like.

source

Sort:hotnew top

vithigar@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
So your suggestion is that libel, defamation, harassment, et al are just automatically dismissed when using online anonymous platforms? We can’t hold the platform responsible, and we can’t identify the actual offender, so whoops, no culpability?

I strongly disagree.

source
- Supermariofan67@programming.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That’s not what the commenter said and I think you are knowingly misrepresenting it.
  
  source
  - vithigar@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I am not. And if that’s not what’s implied by their comments then I legitimately have no idea what they’re suggesting and would appreciate an explanation.
    
    source
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
We need to take history into account but I think we’d be foolish to not acknowledge the world has indeed changed.

Freedom of the press never meant that any old person could just spawn a million press shops and pedal whatever they wanted. At best the rich could, and nobody was anonymous for long.

Personally I’m for publishing via proxy (i.e. an anonymous tip that a known publisher/person is responsible for) … I’m not crazy about “anybody can write anything on any political topic and nobody can hold them accountable offline.”

source