I feel mixed about the case of CGI. If the subject is an adult, and you can easily tell that it is CGI, then I don’t see the issue. I think of it in relation to fan fic of real life celebrity, which really isn’t a new thing and hasn’t been a problem.
I also figured the whole rule changes comes from a CGI starring Billie Eillish. I think the surge of her CGI porn stemmed from her collaboration with Fortnite which basically made her into the game as an avatar. Can one make the argument that the video is meant to portray “a Fortnite character that resembles Billie / Billie gave her face to” instead of the actual Billie herself?
Also I don’t know which users asked you to update the rules but we can have a middle ground if the rules are reverted since they dislike this content a tag should be created so they can block it. I don’t mind editing hundreds of topics and adding the tag so these people don’t have to see it.
The loli opt-in (not a strict ban) cannot be directly compared to this, since there are laws in many countries explicitly mentioning cartoon and animation depictions of characters with child-like features and classifying them as CSAM. While in the deepfake case, the laws are inconsistent or nonexistent to the detriment of many private people being depicted sexually against their will.
And please correct me, if I’m wrong, but it reads like this rule-change stems from an ethical concern rather than from a legal one. A person making non-sexual content would see their personhood or likeness used in a way that is humiliating or socially ostracizing to them. And if we are going to draw from legislation, there are places that would place the intentional creation of such material as either identity theft, bullying or sexual harassment. Albeit these laws would typically target everyday people, not necessarily public figures or fictional characters drawing attributes from a real person. And from what I can see, they have difficulty being enforced.
So I believe the underlying issue remains of an ethical nature and consent, while I agree with y’all that the rule-change will be impossible to be judged uniformly and lead to frustration without a clear upside. If I could advise Vlad, I would temporarily suspend the change until a more clear and enforceable strategy crystalizes. Clear deepfakes would still remain banned, while a more meaningful discussion can take place instead of two quick and separate ones with one viewpoint each.
Sidenote:
Thank you for the laugh. Someone called “Priest” distinguishing between haram and halal porn is rather amusing to me
And I would agree. For better or worse. Also: If it’s about ethics, and judging from this thread, we aren’t near consensus yet. The upsides aren’t tangible, while the uncertainty is clearly visible, so enforcement now is imo premature.
It’s a discussion that isn’t even being genuinely had on a societal scale, where there are direct consequences for the victims of such stuff. E.g. non-consensual deep-fakes or animations of people used for intimidation or humiliation. The last case I heard about was only brought, because it was minors, so the production constituted CSAM. In a different prominent case in Germany, where the victim is a more mature woman, it’s going nowhere despite the clear harm done. Whether the examples given in this thread have comparable potency for harm, so they would merit immediate crack-down, I cannot fully assess, but have my doubts.
I feel there should be more detail in the rule if it’ll include any 2d/3d animations and CG. It could be taken too broadly and could ban many videos. Could the context of the videos beyond visuals effect whether they are concidered banned or not such as if the voices are recorded clips of the actual person. If so would VA that sounds similar or close be ok; but from what I’ve read so far it seems this rule is more focused on visuals only and how closely they push the boundry of being considered a deepfake or not.
Something that I was thinking about that I haven’t seen mentioned is Vtubers. Would they also potentially fall under this ban because while the character model isn’t who they are irl they still to some degree identify as the character and I think at least one or more have said they’re ok with sexual art of them. Maybe I’m over thinking the Vtuber thing and that isn’t a problem.
Though I ultimately think that they shouldn’t be lumped in with deepfakes. I’d say that most of the videos don’t intend to be depictions of real people. A lot of us I think are just worried that the expansion of the rule could potentionally elimate many post that people put the effort into and restrict future post that would have generally been ok. More dicusion would probably better before adjusting the rule and give people a chance to present examples in favor of changing/adding to the rule or not.
From my understanding realism is not really a factor if an animation has a character that is based off a real person it’s banned under these rules. A few fortnite topics were deleted as an example those characters are obviously cartoony. Resemblance in itself is vague if you put a real persons name/online name in the title for topic and the character in the animation is meant to be them it’s banned even if seemingly it doesn’t look 100% like them pixel art is an example.
It has already caused topics to be deleted.
As it stands there is a poll on if the rule should be reverted I don’t think it will come back if reverted as users don’t want it.
Vlad said there were several incidents that instigated the discussion, my post was just the straw on the camels back. It might be a bit premature to revert that post, and I am okay with it being taken down until the decision on the rule is made.
I’m also of the mind that whatever drama/debate there is surrounding this issue probably shouldn’t be centered around a 17 second script that isn’t very good anyway.
You didn’t have to, but it’s up to you.
I plan to delete the posts if the rule was not reverted. The point is to give ppl an idea what type of content we were dealing with here.
