Slashdot Mirror
Pornhub Hasn't Been Actively Enforcing Its Deepfake Ban (engadget.com)
Pornhub said in February that it was banning AI-generated deepfake videos, but BuzzFeed News found that it's not doing a very good job at enforcing that policy. The media company found more than 70 deepfake videos -- depicting graphic fake sex scenes with Emma Watson, Scarlett Johanson, and other celebrities -- were easily searchable from the site's homepage using the search term "deepfake." From the report: Shortly after the ban in February, Mashable reported that there were dozens of deepfake videos still on the site. Pornhub removed those videos after the report, but a few months later, BuzzFeed News easily found more than 70 deepfake videos using the search term "deepfake" on the site's homepage. Nearly all the videos -- which included graphic and fake depictions of celebrities like Katy Perry, Scarlett Johansson, Daisy Ridley, and Jennifer Lawrence -- had the word "deepfake" prominently mentioned in the title of the video and many of the names of the videos' uploaders contained the word "deepfake." Similarly, a search for "fake deep" returned over 30 of the nonconsensual celebrity videos. Most of the videos surfaced by BuzzFeed News had view counts in the hundreds of thousands -- one video featuring the face of actor Emma Watson garnered over 1 million views. Some accounts posting deepfake videos appeared to have been active for as long as two months and have racked up over 3 million video views. "Content that is flagged on Pornhub that directly violates our Terms of Service is removed as soon as we are made aware of it; this includes non-consensual content," Pornhub said in a statement. "To further ensure the safety of all our fans, we officially took a hard stance against revenge porn, which we believe is a form of sexual assault, and introduced a submission form for the easy removal of non-consensual content." The company also provided a link where users can report any "material that is distributed without the consent of the individuals involved."
(rushes to PornHub)
http://i68.tinypic.com/2rhwvuc...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
That would be the only one I'd want to see, Harry Potter 1 era. She was such a cutie!
Something involving hot grits, maybe?
I searched Pornhub for deepfake. "We're sorry, but the requested search cannot be found. Broaden your search." Slashdotted? I only want to see a technical demo. Any links?
Over at buzzfeed it must be a slow news day, then a fast news day, then a slow news day, then a messy news day...
All puns completely intentional.
https://www.pornhub.com/video/search?search=deepfakeporn
I'm really of two minds on this subject.
On one hand, I can certainly understand how any public figure - or heck, even if you're a complete unknown - you wouldn't want to see these types of fake videos of yourself being made and published for all to see.
On the other - lets not forget The Fappening. If these so-called deep fake videos become indistinguishable from the real thing, then you have plausible deniability when your actual videos *do* leak. If anything, the more there is, the more likely they'll get lost in the noise.
still a virgin? What should I do with my 12 terabytes of creimer tranny porn?
I haven't looked; maybe someone can tell me: is a submission form exactly the right thing or exactly the wrong thing for non-consensual activity?
I mean, would Emma Watson (for example) have to submit before she could object?
Site owners appear to have a tin ear.
Millions of people worldwide may have accidentally masturbated to fake porn. Luckily Mashable is here to prevent this horrific tragedy from occuring.
then it sounds like they're doing a damn good job considering they had over 4 million videos uploaded just last year.
Why would I want the face of some actor in some porn - I mean - who looks at faces in pornography, anyway?
I would rather prefer a lot if people spent that lot of CPU time on replacing ugly looking bodies with ones that are beautifully shaped and come without weird piercings and tattoos...
I don't understand the sudden outrage over this issue. Photoshopping heads onto other bodies has existed for a very long time. It would seem to me a trivial extension.
Best. Slashvertisement. Ever.
...police themselves, who can you trust?
This is probably upsetting several dozen people in the world.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Awful behaviour, despicable, I'm not going to bookmark that site at all, not now. How do we bookmark sites again?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
People have faces on those videos? I never would have guessed.
In a foreseeable future people will have the CPU crunch and software to render deepfake in real-time. ... on a phone!
If you ban a keyword then they'll just use a different keyword. And if you ban that then they'll find another.
Could PornHub have one of their employees keep an eye out for the latest trends in keyword usage? Sure. But if they want to do something about the fakes then they need their people working on another approach.
well, it resembled the OP title enough
So I actually want to try out deep fakes - I can think of a billion hilarious uses for this. Unfortunately, every search result for it is centered on pron. There was even a reddit where people were posting instructions and helpful information - but I think between 99% and 101% of it was pron, and reddit shut it down. Anyone have any legit links to information on how to get started on it that DON'T involve pron?
I'm always reminded of this whenever I see articles like this:
http://assets.amuniversal.com/c30702709fd4012f2fe600163e41dd5b
http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-01-23
Who gives a shit?
Some links would be helpful. Just for research purposes, you see. I think it would be useful to verify these claims, um, first hand.
So essentially making a cartoon of a public figure is akin to rape now?
There's a lot of stuff on there that doesn't abide by every country's "age of consent" because in one country, the age of consent is actually lower than in another. It should have been blocked by the country with the higher age of consent, but due to "lax laws", that doesn't seem to apply.
Pornhub is adult content, made by adults for adults. Adults don't need to nannyize deepfakes, nor do we need to censor it from crybaby SJWs, who obviously wrote and submitted this article.
...with a five minute battery life.
Which is juuuuust long enough.
People want to see it, Pornhub wants to show what people want to see, what's their motivation to ban it without being forced?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
the article invalidates itself, in the first two paragraphs:
"the site, which averages over 100 billion video views a year."
"While banned material frequently slips through the cracks on large sites that allow users to upload content"
"BuzzFeed News easily found more than 70 deepfake videos using the search term "deepfake" on the site's homepage"
so how many videos are on porn hub? 2,017,953 go to pornhub, and then go to the porn videos page and show the newest videos (this should bring up the maximum number of videos)
so in the end Buzz feed is complaining about 70 videos amongst 2 million! even if we include their secondary search to bump it up to 100 videos that still puts deepfakes at 0.005% of the total videos. So they admit that banned material frequently slips through the cracks but then manufacturers outrage at 0.005% failure rate...
Can someone please explain to me why the editors of /. consider BuzzFeed any sort of reputable news source? This isnt news, it is propaganda and manufactured outrage plain and simple and the editors should be able to see that right away from the way the statistics are used. This is supposed to be news for nerds, can you please start using your brains when you process these submissions? Maybe when you get these submissions you could do some simple statistics reviews, like for example if they dont use a percentage of the total and instead rely on using large counts to convey their idea you may want to seriously consider finding a secondary source?
for example pornhub claims that they recieve 80 million hits DAILY yet this article is freaking out about videos with a couple hundred thousand views without showing how long these videos were up. Come on now, this is BS news made specifically to manufacture outrage through the twisting of statistics.
The math nerds are starting to get pissed!
bruh! lol you need to take a chill pill. First of all if you are trying to speak for techies maybe you should do your research. If i want to find a prostitute i don't go to pornhub, there are plenty of other online services that i could use (most of them highlighted through the SESTA bill reporting)
also, it has been proven time and time again that the banning of prostitution is what promotes people trafficking and sexual violence because the prostitutes cannot go to the police to report any of that. Plus it just makes the exchange just more efficient overall, some people don't need to pay for sex but they will to reduce the time trying to find it.
Some people (usually the smarter ones out there) are sex positive because they realize that biologically we are driven to mate with as many people as possible. Its a survival mechanism that is built into almost every living being on this planet. The idea of monogamy is so rare in this world that it is considered a outlier.
So maybe you should just take a look at your own masochistic tendencies before you go harping on people who just want to let their freak flag fly. Yes i am saying that abstaining from enjoying sexual relationships is a masochistic way of punishing yourself in a sexual manner. In conclusion your puritan morals make you just as dirty a person as the rest of us.
Also it is kind of arrogant to assume that your moral compass is the one that ALL smart people would use. Personally i would suggest that you go do some traveling around the world and try some new experiences.
I see a real risk in this technology: imagine the effect of doing a good fake of a political candidate sexually abusing a child. There might be lots of denials, but it would be difficult to completely reject. With our current level of concern (rational or not) about abuse of children, it would gather a lot of attention, and even risk prison for the victim.
The alternative of making fake child porn (eg no real children involved) is illegal, but I don't think represents as much of a risk
There are some still on the site. They won't come up searching for "deepfake", just search for "celeb fakes".
Internet fapping off to fake images of Emma Watson is not engaging in sex positive biologically driven mating. I'm kinda picturing you here:
--
@Anonymous Fapper: "bruh! lol you need to take a chill pill. First of all if you are trying to speak for techies maybe you should do your research. If i want to find a prostitute i don't go to pornhub, there are plenty of other online services that i could use (most of them highlighted through the SESTA bill reporting)
also, it has been proven time and time again that the banning of prostitution is what promotes people trafficking and sexual violence because the prostitutes cannot go to the police to report any of that. Plus it just makes the exchange just more efficient overall, some people don't need to pay for sex but they will to reduce the time trying to find it.
Some people (usually the smarter ones out there) are sex positive because they realize that biologically we are driven to mate with as many people as possible. Its a survival mechanism that is built into almost every living being on this planet. The idea of monogamy is so rare in this world that it is considered a outlier.
So maybe you should just take a look at your own masochistic tendencies before you go harping on people who just want to let their freak flag fly. Yes i am saying that abstaining from enjoying sexual relationships is a masochistic way of punishing yourself in a sexual manner. In conclusion your puritan morals make you just as dirty a person as the rest of us.
Also it is kind of arrogant to assume that your moral compass is the one that ALL smart people would use. Personally i would suggest that you go do some traveling around the world and try some new experiences."
fap fap fap .. fap fap .. fap .. uuurgh ref !
Don't pervert the idea of the original post. It is not about teaching you how to live, but about the obvious porn ads placement at the technological news site.
I am Ok to see stupid wow updates about latest iPhone having virtually no new features since version 1, but publishing porn updates it is already too much to read.
There is no single invention in sex for at least several thousands years already. If you want to watch endless stream of boobs and asses, good luck, it is your choice, but please keep at least this news feed without them.
CNN, CBC, MSN all of them are full of sex related placements which intend to drive audience to porn sites and prostitution related ads. I know few news chanels which don't sell sex ads. I think only NY Times is clean.