As Mary Anne Franks, a George Washington University law professor and a leading advocate for strict anti-deepfake rules, told WIRED in an email, “The obvious flaw in the ‘We already have laws to deal with this’ argument is that if this were true, we wouldn’t be witnessing an explosion of this abuse with no corresponding increase in the filing of criminal charges.”
We’re certainly witnessing an explosion of media coverage of abusive deepfakes, as with coverage of everything else AI-related. But if there’s no increase in criminal cases, what’s the evidence that the “explosion” is more than that?
growsomethinggood@reddthat.com 3 months ago
Sigh, ACLU, is this really that high a priority in the list of rights we need to fight for right now? Really?
Also, am I missing something, or wouldn’t these arguments fall apart under the lens of slander? If you make a sufficiently convincing AI replica that is indistinguishable from reality of someone’s face and/or voice, and use it to say untrue things about them, how is that speech materially different from directly saying “So-and-so said x” when they didn’t? Or worse, making videos of them doing something terrible, or out of character, or even mundane? If that is speech sufficient to be potentially covered by the first amendment, it is slander imo. Even parody has to be somewhat distinct from reality to not be slander/libel, why would this be different?
hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 months ago
You say this like the ACLU isn’t doing a ton of other things at the same time. Here are their 2024 plans, for example. See also www.aclu.org/news
Besides that, these laws are being passed now, and they’re being passed by people who have no clue what they’re talking about. It wouldn’t make sense for them to wait until the laws are passed to challenge them rather than lobbying to prevent them from being passed in the first place.
If you disseminate a deepfake with slanderous intent then your actions are likely already illegal under existing laws, yes, and that’s exactly the point. The ACLU is opposing new laws that are over-broad. There are gaps in the laws, and we should fill those gaps, but not at the expense of infringing upon free speech.
growsomethinggood@reddthat.com 3 months ago
Oh, I completely understand you’re correct here, I’m just, so, so tired of fighting to keep all the sociopolitical gains of the past 10-50 years, y’know? I know they have a lot going on, it just feels shitty considering the rest of the political climate.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
It’s important we don’t let people of influence insulate themselves from criticism using this as a scapegoat.
Timii@biglemmowski.win 3 months ago
For me its more the risk that making real and fake speech indistinguishable renders any speech meaningless.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
I stopped supporting the ACLU when they wrote an op-ed supporting Citizens United.
They have their heads firmly up their asses on a handful of fairly crucial issues.
hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 months ago
Is that one of these?