Slashdot Mirror
Pornhub Is Banning AI-Generated 'Deepfakes' Porn Videos (vice.com)
On Tuesday, Pornhub told Motherboard that it considers deepfakes to be nonconsensual porn and that it will ban these videos. "Deepfakes" is a community originally named after a Redditor who enjoys face-swapping celebrity faces onto porn performers' bodies using a machine learning algorithm. Motherboard reports: "We do not tolerate any nonconsensual content on the site and we remove all said content as soon as we are made aware of it," a spokesperson told me in an email. "Nonconsensual content directly violates our TOS [terms of service] and consists of content such as revenge porn, deepfakes or anything published without a person's consent or permission." Pornhub previously told Mashable that it has removed deepfakes that are flagged by users. Pornhub's position on deepfakes is similar to statements made by Discord and Gfycat, and in line with its existing terms of service, which prohibit content that "impersonates another person or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person."
Judging by how often a search yields videos that have none of the tags or anything to do with the search, other than having sexual content, I don't see how they can pretend to give a crap about this.
It will be allowed, and tagged as something completely different, just like all the other videos uploaded.
Just for the lulz :)
In order to do this, you would need a porn video of President Trump. Do you happen to have any? Perhaps urolagnia themed?
I am profoundly relieved, because that nasty Scarlett Johansson person will be unable to post videos featuring my face grafted onto the bodies of her lovers. The chance that my dignity might be outraged in this way been worrying me ever since "deepfakes" became a thing.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You are using an algorithm to appropriate the likeness of another person without their consent. The wording they've chosen, intentionally or not, makes it sound more like rape when it's really just a matter of defamation and IP infringement.
The need to shoehorn every sexual matter into "consent" to determine the moral qualities is like how everyone goes "muh dumbocracy" over everything they don't like that a legitimately elected government does. These terms get so overloaded with rhetorical baggage that they become meaningless.
So, what about all of those "porn parody" videos? Those have been sold for years by commercial studios ("Who's Nailin' Palin" comes to mind). Will they be banning all of those videos, too? Are they passing moral judgment on SNL sketches, too (like Alec Baldwin's Trump sketches), even though they are not explicit? Can we expect demands for SNL to be banned in the future?
(personally, I wouldn't mind if SNL were banned - they haven't been funny in many, many years. And even back then, their funny moments were very few and far between.)
I love how every shitty company and their dog always point to their ToS like it's the word of god.. As if anybody gives a tiny rat's ass about them.
A pair of handcuffs are harmless...until you find them on your wrists.
Same goes for ToS. No one gives a tiny rat's ass about them...until you find yourself standing next to a lawyer in a courtroom spending thousands defending your ignorance regarding their word of god.
To be fair, the ToS are more about covering their own asses than anything user related.
Also in civilized countries (aka NOT the USA) most ToS nonsense isn't even enforceable to begin with.
...to go elsewhere, is what you're saying. They'll be back once they're more commonly accepted.
Putin has the urolagnia tapes. But I don't think you'll see them any time soon, the threat of release is worth more than the actual content.
Considering that the resultant porn is not illegal all they're doing is encouraging someone to start up www.ai-gen-porn.com and make money off of it. My prediction for this sort of thing is that it will eventually be more popular than regular porn - who wants to see some random person get fucked when they can fap it to celebrity of their choice?
Who in their right mind would look for one?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You just give the opportunity for others to make their fortune with such a site that promotes these thing.. .There is a big demand for such a thing and it is going to be an easy task in the near future to create and use such a tool.
They have had and still have 'Celebrity' videos for years.
Stolen videos are OK but fake ones aren't?
https://www.pornhub.com/video?...
And Putin already did this....well, he put Hillary's head on Trumps body...but then he got a real tape of Hillary and now he can't tell the difference.
Guess which country most of Slashdot's readers are in. ToS can be used offensively, to trick and harm the innocent and unwary.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I think, perhaps cynically, that this has little to nothing to do with any 'Terms of Service', anyones' rights, or anything like that, I think this has to do with PornHub not wanting to get the living daylights sued out of them by celebrities (and perhaps media companies they work for) whose faces have been pasted onto someone making a porn video.
Err.. not that I meant to imply that I would call people-who-put-other-peoples'-faces-without-consent-into-porn-videos "innocent."
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I love how every shitty company and their dog always point to their ToS like it's the word of god.. As if anybody gives a tiny rat's ass about them.
A pair of handcuffs are harmless...until you find them on your wrists.
You should use a different analogy. In porn handcuffs are usually a good thing....
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
In U.S. presidential election politics, a "safe state" is a state that consistently elects presidential electors of one party. Contrast with a "swing state", a state whose electors' party affiliation changes from one presidential election to the next. These terms do not appear in the Constitution, nor does the term "College".
You mean that wasn't Scarlett Johansson in that video I watched.
...Yyyyeahhh, I'm afraid I'm going to have to concur here. I have absolutely no love for the Usurper currently squatting in the White House, but that kind of shit don't fly. Let Mueller finish his work; that way it'll all be nice and legal when that slob is hauled away.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions