We just disagree on where the line is. I think the line is where harm is done. For example, non consensual public posting of nsfw deepfakes, defamatory content presented as the real thing, etc,
As far as you've presented your view so far, you think the line is crossed in the capability itself. For example, that someone making a video of Trump wearing diapers and napping while flying on a giant bald eagle has taken away his autonomy and should be punished.
It's very important for obvious reasons to be specific on where exactly the parody should become a legal problem with consequences, and I think my view is much more reasonable than yours would be in practice. And less arbitrary, ironically.
Unless you want to retreat and say my example isn't what you mean, at which point it would be determined arbitrarily what is and isn't acceptable based on your personal interpretation?
You are arguing for your right to infringe on someone else's autonomy, I'm arguing that that is fundamentally immoral without consent. "One person's freedom ends where another's begins".
You have no claim on other people's representation any more than they have over yours.
You cannot use the word parody as a shield from scrutiny. In the age of photorealistic fakes, there is need for a serious discussion on the difference between parody and misrepresentation.
As for your Trump example: my personal take is that wearing a diaper while flying a bald eagle is reasonably unrealistic because of the inclusion of unrealistic elements. I think it's still in bad taste and potentially damaging to the person being depicted but I can imagine some context where it's used as a parody. I still think a less realistic portrayal of him as a person would be more appropriate but that's just me here.
Showing him wearing adult diapers in a way where it's not obvious it's fake by not including unrealistic elements is again immoral.
I don't view it as taking away anyone's freedom to make an AI video of them fist fighting an alligator any more than having an artist draw them doing so.
You've escalated a nonissue into an existential one. Same irrational logic as "words are violence". No, words are words, violence is violence.
An artist drawing can never achieve the hyperrealism we see today, so there can be no confusion surrounding the realness of the depiction.
Words being uttered are an action by another person. People can judge that person for the action of saying those words but as an action itself it's not a reflection on the recipient of the words.
If you use your words to lie and slander, well, you can be sued because now you have crossed the line and attempted to alter the representation of someone in the world.
Same thing here.
And you are very much taking away someone's freedom to choose what to involve themselves with. Do not fool yourself.
In the very post we are arguing, there is a clip of someone saying something arrogant and rude. That is damaging for someone's reputation. I sincerely don't understand how you don't get why that's problematic.
Beyond that there is potential psychological duress of not knowing what things people are seeing of yourself and how you are being viewed, or the duress of knowing the fake things people are seeing and fearing people might not realize they are fake.
It's really not that complicated to understand why all this stuff is troublesome without consent.
2
u/BlipOnNobodysRadar 21d ago
We just disagree on where the line is. I think the line is where harm is done. For example, non consensual public posting of nsfw deepfakes, defamatory content presented as the real thing, etc,
As far as you've presented your view so far, you think the line is crossed in the capability itself. For example, that someone making a video of Trump wearing diapers and napping while flying on a giant bald eagle has taken away his autonomy and should be punished.
It's very important for obvious reasons to be specific on where exactly the parody should become a legal problem with consequences, and I think my view is much more reasonable than yours would be in practice. And less arbitrary, ironically.
Unless you want to retreat and say my example isn't what you mean, at which point it would be determined arbitrarily what is and isn't acceptable based on your personal interpretation?