I didn’t say all anything, I was explaining that people have different ideas and to assume you know everyone’s thoughts is ignorant. Witney cummings was the celeb I saw taking about it, she has a real doll that looks just like her and her and burt and tom were taking about making a sex tape to market her special. Then started taking about deep fake and putting their face on porn star bodies and if it would be more funny if they were fit or fat.
1 Like
Most loli content are made in Japan which is legal there and if a specific one isn’t, there’s a loop-hole. They don’t really export it much either. Personally 3d lolis creep me out, specifically those that tries to imitate real life. 2d lolis, ironically… many of their body proportions are closer to real life average or petite or short and thick women.
Before anyone use meme deepfakes as an excuse…
Sex deepfakes requires consent, memes deepfakes are kind of like pranks, so it does not require consent. Some won’t mind to be in either but let’s not assume they all do.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter, it’s fake, if I draw a stick figure of you doing something stupid, do I care if you wanted to be depicted? When people write fan fiction people don’t lose their mind. Its literally fake, says it everywhere. Again I don’t understand this debate at all, we aren’t creating deepfakes. What does the mortality of deep fake matter to this site? The video exists script it or don’t, watch it… or don’t. But to tell people what their allowed to crank it to is a new level of self important.
2 Likes
Yes sure, compare complex videos with texts, you can change the font… so it’s basically the same, right?
It’s not only a question of morality, there’s also legality. To make sure this community doesn’t get in trouble. If you can find a loophole to get around it, be my guest. We should at least follow the laws the top 3 porn streaming websites has to follow.
1 Like
can you read, i already posted the law in the thread. doesnt apply to the deep fake site let alone a site that doesnt create deepfakes, but instead makes scripts for sex toys… this fourm wouldnt even be culpable even if deep fakes were agains the law… . because again we dont create deep fakes. but that doesnt even apply because the law says if its marked fake its not against the law.
1 Like
We discussed this as a moderator team, and our decision is to not allowed deep fakes. This decision was made because these videos are non-consensual. Other people have also pointed out that this is illegal in a number of states, and I’d assume more will move to ban it in the future.
I’ve updated the Site wide rules, but this might revise the wording a bit over the next few days.
6 Likes
well its like you literally cant read, show me the law? child porn is def against the law but yall cool with that.
1 Like
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3805/text
Also no one here is pro CP
1 Like
again learn to read…
“(2) the term ‘deep fake’ means an audiovisual record created or altered in a manner that the record would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of an individual;
loli is child porn
1 Like
I believe you are the one who cannot read:
“(b) Offense.—It shall be unlawful to, using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce—
“(1) create, with the intent to distribute, a deep fake with the intent that the distribution of the deep fake would facilitate criminal or tortious conduct under Federal, State, local, or Tribal law; or
“(2) distribute an audiovisual record with—
“(A) actual knowledge that the audiovisual record is a deep fake; and
“(B) the intent that the distribution of the audiovisual record would facilitate criminal or tortious conduct under Federal, State, local, or Tribal law.
Its more important that the genre is non-consensual in its very nature, and that it seems that a significant majority of users are strongly opposed to it.
We’re not lawyers, something being ‘technically legal’ is beyond any of our capacity to say, and ultimately it would be up to a judge to interpret in the case of any legal action. But in any case, “technical legality” isn’t the only requirement for something being allowed on the site.
There’s a separate thread discussing loli/shotacon, feel free to post in that topic if you want to discuss it.
the quote i sent you is from the page you linked. it says in terms you might understand, if its labeled fake its not against the law. just because team against is more vocal dosn’t mean more people are on that team? so i can just go start commenting on all the loli posts telling everyone they’re gross and well ban it? its not “technically” legal. its just legal. “technically legal” means nothing. spineless pushovers, social justice warriors. what about rape scenes can we still post them?
I have simplified this for you to understand.
Offense - It be unlawful create with intent distribute deepfake with intent distribution would facilitate criminal tortious conduct or distribute audiovisual record with knowledge record is deepfake and intent distribution of record would facilitate criminal tortious conduct under Federal, State, local, or Tribal law
Part of what I do professionally is consult lawyers and be familiar with the law itself. (cybersecurity usually)
Deepfakes are not technically illegal. They ARE illegal.
Harassment, revenge porn, potentially illegal use of likeness without a release, libel if you can convince a judge a record is speech, All of these things a deepfake entails, are various levels of illegal.
It could be a civil suit, it could be criminal charge, it’s still illegal.
While we’re on the law, Loli, is not CP. The difference is made very clear in law. One, is animated, not including real children, digitally inserted or otherwise. The other, is fake in 100% of it’s assets. Though I personally am not a fan, I respect others rights to make that decision for themselves.
im sorry i think your having a brain fart. i litterally linked you text defining deep fake. here ill do it again. this is from your link.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3805/text
this is called a definition, its a legal term to describe what a word means. …
“(2) the term ‘deep fake’ means an audiovisual record created or altered in a manner that the record would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of an individual;
the important part of this is “would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record” so when these videos are all labeled and watermarked saying FAKE all over the place… do you understand more now? you must be bad at your job if you cant understand simple legal text.
1 Like
@hyn - last warning, ditch the ad hominem attacks and aggressive attitude. Disagreement is fine, but keep it civil and pleasant.
I’ll be suspending you the next time I see any personal attacks or aggression in your posts.
Regarding rape - if the video is of actual nonconsensual sex, then yes it would be prohibited. If it was “rape themed”, then that would be consensual, and would therefore be allowed.
More on topic:
@hyn is correct about the watermarks. The 2019 DEEPFAKES bill explicitly requires watermarks to make such videos legal.
And as I said, the not-so-clearcut legality of deepfakes is not the primary reason that they have been added to a list of not-allowed content. Obviously the law is changing in a variety of places and isn’t fully settled yet. The technology is also changing rapidly, so what applies today may not be relevant tomorrow.
The law trails behind tech so radically that I don’t really take laws about technology particularly seriously. Governments move too slowly to adequately legislate when it comes to rapidly-evolving fields like deepfakes. So I don’t think that the “it’s legal, therefore it’s OK” argument is sufficient.
6 Likes
After debating DM’s I think I understand where the back and forth is on this. He was solely concerned with the forum, whilst we were concerned about the people in the videos.
1 Like
Should they be banned? Probably.
Personally I never found deepfakes all that appealing. I mean, I feel like you have to have a very specific liking to a celebrity to seek out fakes of them and I’ve just never had that. I think I might be more curious if fakes were of someone specific like my high school crush but I think that’d be even worse in terms of moral compass.
In terms of the whole embarrassment and hurt feelings about people seeing nudes of you, I’ve never really understood it but I do respect it and that’s why I think they should probably be banned.
Personally if my ex leaked nudes of me I wouldn’t really care. We all know I have a body beneath my clothes. And of course I have sex. And honestly there’s nothing I can do to stop you from imagining me while you rub one out or picturing me naked in a business meeting. I also would never feel bad if my boss told me they found my nudes because that’s just them admitting they looked for them. Imo being possessive over your own image and what you want people to see of you is a battle you’re always going to lose. But again, I respect the sentiment and the calls for banning it.
First, the content is neither illegal nor immoral unless it is presented as genuine. If it’s clearly marked as fake, as it always is any time I see it, then there are no moral or legal issues. Public figures have already consented to having their faces out there. They have no right to complain about how their images are being used unless it is to present a false premise (e.g. that the person in question has appeared in pornography).
Second, this is not a video sharing site. It’s a scripting site. The videos aren’t hosted here.
There’s nothing wrong with clearly-marked deepfake content.
1 Like
Let’s frame this argument in a different light without the sex context :
Bob really hates his co-worker Mark. He has a fantasy of seeing Mark get kidnapped and murdered. He finds a violent movie scene where this happens and deepfakes Mark’s face into the scene. In the scene, Mark is bound and gagged, then bludgeoned, dismembered, and beheaded. Bob then proceeds to put this deepfake up on the internet and make it widely available to the public. Mark’s friends, family, and work all see it. Everybody knows it’s fake, but now Mark has to walk around wondering who made the video, why did they make it, who else besides the creator actually enjoyed it?
I still haven’t seen a single pro-deepfake argument in this thread that doesn’t boil down to “But I’m horny and I deserve to see whoever I want in a sexual scenario.”
@DocO I really doubt a small community of guys who own a machine that jerks them off have an agenda…
4 Likes
Let’s put this in terms you can comprehend, your boss runs into you at the mall and says why are you wearing sneakers? And you ask him why tf does it matter to you in not at work. Like the gentleman above has stated this is a funscript site, it has nothing to do with videos. Like a vegan trying to make you vegan. Clearly there’s an agenda, it’s been stated rape theme and loli are fine, how insane. Not to mention this discussing has been open for less than a week, and they’ve already banned it. And do we need any other reason than it’s because it’s what I wanna watch?
1 Like