I’m new to eroscripts and it seems like the discussion around deep fakes here has already happened a long time ago and its already been put to bed. So if you have no interest in discussing it further thats fully understandable, but I feel the need to make this point regardless
I feel its entirely hypocritical for this site to “draw the line” at deep fakes. Why draw the line here? Because its “non-consensual” because the person being deep faked didn’t want it to be made in the first place? Well, let me say this, I AGREE FULLY with regards to the moral dilemna of deep fakes and the impact it has on the celebrities involved. However, despite that, if that is the reason you are opposed to deep fakes on this site which you are a frequent user of, you a hypocrite
Pirated content is freely available through this site. You know it. I know it. We all know it and still consume it regardless. Did you first ask the content creators of premium videos permission before you downloaded their work and posted it here for others to freely consume? No you did not. Even if you found a video on a free tube site some where, its likely there because who ever uploaded it has pirated it. Sure the content creators consented to making said content, but they did not consent to you freely distributing it. 'Oh but its already out there and freely available anyway" … BUT SO ARE DEEP FAKES. There are sites where deepfakes are freely available and always will be regardless of what the policy of this site is. We are already stealing content that people charge money for, but apparently an obviously fake video of a celebrity is not allowed because thats just a little too immoral for you. Okay then start paying for all your porn like the saint you claim to be.
Maybe we’re all so desensitised to pirating porn that we dont give a fuck that it happens daily on this site. Maybe you think its illegal? Maybe it is in some countries, but in others, at best, its very much a grey area. You know what is 100% illegal almost everywhere? PIRACY. Yet we do it here all the time
I’m not saying we should allow deep fakes here. But what I am saying is that you’re not convincing anyone that you’re a good person by advocating against it and then going on to consume pirated content on here. The moral grand standing on this issue is ridiculous and totally hypocritical
I like a good debate so i’ll jump in.
The world isn’t split into a binary “virtuous and evil” there are degrees to actions.
I have downloaded pirated material. Mussolini used to feed prisoners castor oil so they would shit themselves to death. These things are not equal.
Saying you do a bad thing so you cant criticize a worse thing is called Whataboutism and is a favourite debate technique usual trotted out by people who know the position they are defending is morally weak. It is often trotted out by politicians when they get caught.
If you watch out for it you will see it more more in the news.
Btw here is an example of troll logic:
Murder is illegal and so is ignoring a red light in traffic.
On this road you saw someone ignoring red light and you did not react.
Therefore I conclude: You accept murder. And you are a hypocrite if you say murder should be illegal.
You are welcome.
Yeah I also kind of feel like everyone thought deepfakes were cool when they looked horrible, but not that they’re somewhat convincing, it’s like the most morally reprehensible thing to enjoy or seek them out lmao
i don’t disagree with you. But can you honestly say that all the content that is allowed on this site is actually any better or any more moral than deep fakes? This is something i wanted to mention in the original post but forgot to. I will give you 2 examples of content on here that is allowed that is just as bad or if not worse:
PMVs. No not all of them obviously. But what about the ones that feature the artist celebrity in their actual music video that has porn edited between it? Did the celebrities consent to having their image and work spliced up and associated with hardcore pornagraphic content? Do you think they would like to see these PMVs featuring themselves that not only features their copyrighted work, but also also is detrimental to their own image? Also what about TikTok PMVs of featuring clips of girls who dont even make explicit content, yet have their image edited in with porn? They did not consent to that
Loli hentai. Not a question of consent here, but also very morally questionable, yet allowed
I dont what to be all in on the whataboutisms as you mentioned so I will ask respectfully, are these examples any better than deep fakes? And if so, how much better exactly? And do you really think they should be allowed yet deep fakes not?
I can see where you’re coming from and with any community lines get drawn as to what is and isn’t acceptable.
You will find a lot of people on this site who are wholeheartedly against Loli content and after lots of community discussion the concensus was no loli content that could be considered realistic and to promote the methods of removing loli content from your feed.
In regards to PMV’s that are split with non adult celebrities you will again find people here who whole heartedly agree with you. I cant speak to numbers but the popularity of this content seems to have gone down and again a hard line of no one underage in the video’s was drawn.
The community seems to be fairly tolerant in that there are some things that were decides as red lines and the rest was more about how to avoid the content based on your own morals.
I think it is the best to post scripts linked to the original video for better archiving and searching.
Remember that scripts made for the original video is compatible with the countless deepfake edits of it. If you have a deepfake made out of scene x and you want a script for it, search up scene x, or maybe the name of the original porn star. You’ll get a good script that can be used with some simple cropping and aligning.
If you don’t have these information at hand because the deepfake site you got the video from provided none of those, only the name of the face owner and how they were fucked in bed, then I guess there is some issue in the distribution of these edits…
I would guess that the site owner doesn’t want to deal with that at all so there is that. How deep are you in the deepfake community? We are now at a level where you can buy convincing deepfake and almost 100% quality deepfake porn with your favourite stars. Shit went a tad too deep last year which is why most content creators have to hide their sites with hide vip. Even fan-topia scrubbed some of their creators for some weeks to cool everything down. Imo as long as those are public people fakes I am fine with that except that we are now at a level that many videos are a bit too convincing which is why I can see things being an issue in the future.
As another poster said, for many of those videos we already have scripts on here (lots of VR scenes that are used for the current fakes have scripts on here). Those free deepfake websites always have shitty quality though. Quality stuff is not that easy to get for many people.
In my opinion, there’s a difference between trying to pass off a deep fake as real, and posting a deep fake as what it is; a fake piece of content.
If someone creates deep fake content, as deep fake content, stfu. More people have beat their meat to that person in their heads than you could ever imagine. With AI advancing the way it is, we’re gonna be up to our eyeballs in it sooner than later. Better get used to it boo-boo.
If you’re trying to pass off deep fake content as real, that is nothing but malicious. And is nothing but wrong.
I’m surprised you’re not arguing that scripting is itself similar to deepfaking. I don’t know to what extent pornstars are aware of scripted content, I’m sure it varies considerably, but is a pornstar’s consent to be viewed conducting a sex act in a scene the same as their consent to have their actions translated into physical sensation for thousands to be distributed after the fact for profit? To me, that’s right there with a celebrity’s consent to appear in a film not being the same as their consent to appear in porn. I agree though that it’s not realistic for us to believe we can put the deepfake genie back in the bottle and that it’s going to be a fact of life for celebrities, just as photoshop has been for ages.
This argument sounds ridiculous to me. I personally don’t see any parallel between super imposing a persons likeness upon another body and creating a program to mimic someone’s actions. Using someone’s image can cause emotional and reputational damage, copying actions is harmless - sexual or not.
I’m not really doing this argument a whole lot of justice rn I just got of a 12 hours shift and this thread caught my eye but I think there’s a huge difference between putting Jennifer Lawrence’s face on Jenna Hazes body and making a program that mimics Jenna hazes two handed twister. You can’t copyright a handjob…
Would you take to same issue if we were programming robots to moonwalk?
One is akin to identity fraud and the other is performing a dance recital.
I don’t agree with your reasoning, but I do agree that the stance on deep fakes is fallacious.
Only deep fakes presented as real are actually a problem. Something that’s advertised as a deep fake should be allowed. The only harm comes from falsely claiming someone did something they did not do. If that claim is not present, there is no harm.
The logical fallacy is strong with this one.
The only hypocrisy I see are people that fap to CGI renders of video game characters using real faces of human models (ex: Quiet from MGSV), and complain about deepfakes. If you think about it, they are masturbating to a deepfake of Stephanie Joosten.
I honestly didn’t know deep fakes weren’t allowed. Honestly not a fan of that decision. You don’t need a deep fake to wank it to a celebrity. I still have fuzzy memories of jerking it to the OG pink ranger and Britney spears as a kid. All a deep fake does is takes a fantasy to another level. Sure the celebrities may not want it to happen, but they are aware it happens and perform anyways. Hell, the most paused movie scene ever is a woman uncrossing her legs for a PEEK of pussy. But it seems more like a legal reason than morals. As a fan of porn parodies and knowing about the legal cases that made many of those never debut (3 stooges, wizard of oz to name a few), I can at least understand it.
But morals. Not buying it. Loli porn is a good example of why im not buying it. Not only is it more morally wrong than deep fakes. It also walks the line of legality in many countries, even if it is only hentai.
And then there’s all the scenes with rape. That’s portraying sex without consent. Sure it may be mostly anime, making it not real, but then again neither are deep fakes.
In this specific case, i would also say that it was to be expected. She knew how she would be represented in that game. But yeah, not all games go like that, so its not be expected for every game. But let those games usualy also not have the problem here.
This problem only happens when they sexualize the characters in a game too much. Even if having full clothes then, its just waiting for someone to mod it. And this modding is on that similar to deep faking.
If the model has a face copied from a human, it makes no diffirence here if it was deepfaked directly, or though that modding behaviour. Except the game version most likely looks digital. And i think this is where usualy the line stands. If looking digital its often fine, if not, its considered a problem.
This ‘digital’ diffirence, even if directly made as a deepfake without a mod, makes it clear it isnt a real video. Where if it wasnt made to look like digital, it suddenly might look real. And that can be undesired.
Really bad argument + No scripts/Useful topics posted. Not worth the time
Not a surprising take from the who bitches on here with their shit arguments about how the only members of this communinty that are valid are the ones that post scripts or contribute monetarily.
Nowadays it’s just to easy to create deepfakes from anything. I worked with AI image generation a lot and if you understand what you do and how you do it, the results can become indistinguishable from real pictures. The problem is you can’t say deepfakes of celebrities and public figures are okay and then hate on less popular people or even a normal civilian.
Not to forget that you don’t just have one criminal charge with distributing deepfakes, but can be sued for multiple charges. It’s a little bit like if you were stealing a balloon from someone in the street, without hurting them or having to do anything else but taking the balloon and running away. A lot of people wouldn’t be okay with it, but also don’t see it as something super problematic. But if you would steal the same balloon by breaking into a house, hurting the owner and destroying property on the way, it would look completely different, even though it’s still the same balloon.
Also going back to deepfakes, if we were looking at a deepfake from Hitler riding a tricycle in a maid costume exposing his genitalia, probably no one would see it as something criminal, but take any female celebrity or maybe even someone from your private life and this would be something completely different.
I don’t think you can weigh one crime with another and even then there are so many factors that change how people perceive it.
I’m not necessarily saying that’s my stance, just that to me it seems like a more sound line of reasoning for what OP is trying to go for. However, to elaborate further, to a certain degree the issue with deepfakes persists even when not presented in a way that suggests they’re real or for monetary gain. For many it’s effectively an invasion of privacy. It’s like going through someone’s trash. Yes, they’ve released that stuff from their ownership and set it in a public space, but it’s still not their intention to share their old underwear with anyone and certainly not for the purposes of sexual gratification. Trademark and compensation are not even part of that conversation, it’s purely ethical.
Ultimately my personal feelings concerning both deepfakes (for personal/private, non-monetized use) and scripts are that it comes with the territory and that ultimately we’re free to make/consume those and likewise society is free to stigmatize it. But when you look at arguments around data collection (which will only become a bigger issue down the road) there’s definitely a real question about what’s legal, ethical, and allowable when it comes to the exploitation of the side effects (image/browsing habits/behavior) of our existence whether we actively assert ownership over that or not.