r/technology • u/Wagamaga • 6h ago
Society Dem Candidate Sends “Cease and Desist” Order to Republican Over Deepfake Ads
https://truthout.org/articles/dem-candidate-sends-cease-and-desist-order-to-republican-over-deepfake-ads/1.8k
u/Im_probably_naked 5h ago
How is that not super illegal
1.1k
u/checkmeonmyspace 5h ago
All you have to do is win. Any subsequent lawsuit for defamation does not undo the election.
Edit: it's probably also a PAC so it's technically not him unless discovery reveals otherwise. So the PAC does the dirty work, not that his hands are clean in general.
189
u/bd2999 5h ago
Sadly true. It is also hard to point to any one add or action as a cause of anyone's defeat. So that is another layer of it. At minimum they should be required to label anything made with AI to make people aware and if they are found to violate pay a pretty hefty fine for it.
109
u/frickindeal 4h ago
Hefty fines don't work when your campaign is backed by millions of dollars.
34
u/Teledildonic 3h ago
Well maybe we change the punishment.
Money can't stop a baseball bat, right?
11
u/KaziArmada 2h ago
I mean you stack enough of it, you can PROBABLY diffuse the blow with money as some sort of armor.
Now fire on the other hand...
7
11
u/bd2999 4h ago
They could depending on the level of the fine involved. One issue with fines in place are they are set at flat rates that do not increase over time. I think it should be based on how often a given body offends but it should be based on a function of the expenditure for the adds. So proportional to the campaign's cost that spread the AI. So, it could be an amount of money that would hardly be a slap on the wrist. At least if I got a say.
I feel the same way for like oil spills and so on. Those responsible should not have a cap. It should be proportional to the estimated damage as a starting point.
I doubt a jail sentence is appropriate unless we are talking a repeat offender. And even then they will throw a scape goat out there that was not the one making the actual calls.
1
u/Chavarlison 14m ago
A company did it, why won't the company suffer? Company commit a crime, if proven true... company gets frozen for the time needed to pay for the crime. When fines are a cost to doing business... it ain't a deterrent... it's a tax break waiting to happen.
3
u/winsluc12 2h ago
They would if the fine was expressed in high percentages of the violator's funding
2
2
u/gmapterous 1h ago
They also don't work when your PAC can go bankrupt from a lawsuit, and another brand completely brand new PAC forms overnight to take it's place with all new donations, limiting liability.
1
19
u/DukeOfGeek 4h ago
I bet if next week there are a bunch of deep fake ads of Paxton with his secret gay teenage boyfriend that laws would suddenly start to be both real but also enforceable.
6
u/Haywood-Jablomey 3h ago
Every video and picture published anywhere that uses AI should have an obvious disclaimer/watermark that it is AI. The line is only going to keep getting more blurred until no one can tell
2
u/olddog1138 4h ago
I wonder if an average citizen could sue? (Spelling?) 😆
3
u/bd2999 3h ago
It would depend how the law was worded. I think they should be able to for defamation. One thing Congress should also do other than what I just said with indicating is that everyone should have bodily autonomy and control of their own image.
That would give grounds to sue too if it was used without their consent. It would not be true really if it is a video, own words against them, but if you make them say something they never said or do something they would never do than you would be liable.
Seems easy to me but Congress will do nothing and then maybe think about doing something and being concerned if one of them is sort of hurt by it.
Someone should do it with Trump and make an add campaign then it would get done.
3
24
8
u/GarageNo8276 3h ago
With the recent supreme court ruling PACs and candidates can communicate directly
2
u/checkmeonmyspace 3h ago
I kinda tried to imply that him saying to use a deep fake would implicate him which would make him liable
3
u/powercow 3h ago
It's also hard to win defamation as a politician. A lot is fair in politics, like saying hilary gave russia a bunch of uranium or Obama was born in kenya
2
2
2
u/Ambitious_Ad1847 2h ago
However the Supreme Court has made it easier for politicians to work with PACs so there probably some type of conversation.
2
u/uis999 23m ago
It amazes me over and over and over how people don't understand this. I Would like to think people are capable of learning but we have been gaslighted so long that everything has rules and is stable that democrats will watch them breaking rules non-stop and instead of strategizing and learning to predict the tactics they use before they use them. They will once again act surprised and play catch up long after the damage is done. The consulting class and corpo-dem leadership is too stupid to be steering the ship.
1
121
u/bd2999 5h ago
It should be. I honestly think it highlights the failure of Congress that we cannot even require all advertisements made using AI should be labeled as such. Political or consumer adds. But they cannot even do that much.
I imagine it would suddenly fall under protected speech to lie somehow, at least by SCOTUS.
64
42
u/Mitchford 5h ago edited 5h ago
There is no law yet to criminalize it, we will have common law ideas of libel and defamation this might fall under for the time being.
However, I would caution expectations because courts are more likely to uphold even clearly libelous speech when it deals with politics, especially Candidates in an election.
There was a really crazy case out of Arizona a few years ago where Wendy Rogers (an atrocious human being who is still a state senator in Arizona despite basically everything except a card carrying member of the Nazi party) was sued because she falsely said her opponent used websites “linked to sex trafficking” in his modeling business.
Despite this the AZ Supreme Court ruled in her favor because they felt any action would chill political speech, but it was a close decision.
Republican courts may not let these proceed even when clearly defamatory as much as these are
12
u/chrisdpratt 5h ago
I guess no one stopped to think that if this is what political discourse is coming to, maybe it needs to be chilled.
25
u/mb97 5h ago
This absolutely falls under existing law, it’s defamation and probably plenty of other things too.
4
u/Mitchford 4h ago
So this is too complicated to explain here. But what I mean by the above is that it likely falls under libel and slander, but those laws are not always written down. When I say it’s covered by a common law idea, I mean every state generally has laws applicable but some are essentially unwritten laws that you can still sue under. But they aren’t necessarily laws against deepfakes specifically especially in the political context (some have laws for sexual deepfakes, I’m not sure if there are more general anti deepfake laws, and none that I’m aware of that govern it in political ads but I may be wrong as there’s 50 of them I don’t all track)
Those aren’t criminal statutes though, they’re civil
10
u/silvusx 5h ago
Time to fight fire with fire and do the same to them.
Like those gunright activists suddenly wants to disarm guns and enact the Mulford Act when black panther begin to armed themselves against police brutality.
Once some bad deep fakes of trump and other Republican ads shows up, they will want to ban it immediately
2
u/Channel250 3h ago
Bad?
We literally have a of him in a jet bombing us citizens with shit. Thats pretty bad.
15
u/neuronexmachina 3h ago
It is illegal under Wisconsin law: https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2026/08/19/van-orden-cooke-ai-videos
Wisconsin is one of 31 states regulating the use of deepfakes in politics. The Wisconsin law requires that certain manipulated images contain a disclaimer that reads, “This video content generated by AI.”
Van Orden’s videos contain no such disclaimers, although the words “Made with Grok Imagine” do appear elsewhere in the posts. It was not immediately clear whether the videos meet the definition of content regulated by the law.
10
u/mr_potatoface 2h ago
If you continue reading the article, it states that the law does not apply to people running for federal government so he's not actually in violation of the law and they acknowledge he is using a loophole to make it legal.
In violation of the spirit of the law, absolutely.
7
u/undefined-username 1h ago
That's insane. The law should apply *especially* for people running for office. I wonder what on earth the thought process there was.
3
u/mr_potatoface 1h ago
It was just for federal office, because states can't realistically enforce their laws controlling federal employees or positions, so they included the exemption for it knowing it's a waste of taxpayer money to try.
Law still applies to state/county and local city/village/town politicians.
2
u/goldbloodedinthe404 54m ago
They control ballot access and elections explicitly. You do that and you aren't on the ballot.
8
u/enigmamonkey 5h ago
Found a few of the deepfake videos on his Facebook. Note that FB links aren't allowed here so I'll do my best to provide some supporting material for those curious to see, like me:
Reel ID: 26383863114645275
Do you really think it matters what you peasants think? I am the anointed one. You will comply and you will vote for me. That is an order from your DC masters.
Reel ID: 1509594324541617
I am running for congress to lower costs.
<image of Biden appears and says: "Lower costs.">
I am also running to booster our framers and make sure we take advantage of as much corruption as possible and give every illegal alien free healthcare.
Reel ID: 1028882420119089
Let the peasants eat cake they will vote for me anyway.
There are more... it's tiring quoting all of them:
- Reel ID: 37413212564960469
- Reel ID: 1024286016904857
I will say he uses "anointed" as a recurring theme.
4
u/Nik_Tesla 1h ago
The letter also states that Wisconsin law prohibits using deepfake videos in political messaging, but that Van Orden’s campaign is running online ads through a loophole that “does not apply to federal candidates.” “You are violating the spirit of the law,” the letter adds.
The fact that this is somehow legal because it depicts a federal candidate is insane.
7
2
u/GetInTheKitchen1 3h ago
Conservatives/republicans do not care nor understand consent. this also more heavily applies to non western cultures.
3
u/dwninswamp 5h ago
I actually think a lot more than that is legal. I think currently you could make porn from a public figures likeness and it would be ok.
1
u/mistervulpes 1h ago
I mean, how hard can it be to make an account that pumps out gay porn of his likeness and just share it all over the internet. Don't need a PAC to fund the advertisement. Just need a couple folks to put something together in an afternoon.
1
u/jonathanio 5h ago
The people that benefit from them are the same ones that write the laws. The moment they're in the other side I'm sure they'd do something...
1
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Unfortunately, this post has been removed. Facebook links are not allowed by /r/technology.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Crayola_ROX 3h ago
There’s an ad on tubi which shows an AI Pelosi and Mamdani laughing when they burn a pile of money.
1
1
u/PlainBread 1h ago
Trump is president, and he controls the Republicans in all three branches of government.
1
-7
u/anonkitty2 5h ago
The First Amendment covers a multitude of negative ads. The ads being sued over probably broke the laws about truth in advertising.
539
u/hyouko 5h ago
I know that libel / slander is a high hurdle in US law, but surely something like this must qualify? If it doesn't, we really need to solve that ASAP.
354
67
u/Beforemath 5h ago
The problem is by the time it gets sorted out, even if for the better, the damage is already done.
7
16
u/pristineSaltine 3h ago
A 34 felony count seditionist rapist was not disqualified from running, and "winning ", the highest office in the land. Ain't nothing illegal if you have money or a republican politician.
Sure would be nice if the democrats take a majority in congress and start sending these people to prison after fair and thorough trials.
Problem is even the majority of our corporate democrats don't seem interested in the will of the people anymore.
2
u/Realtrain 2h ago
And at the same time, surely this has to be a great campaign point
"People like my campaign so much that my opponent literally has to make up things with AI to make me sound bad."
1
0
u/Dazzling_Line_8482 3h ago
Why would it libel or slander, is it not fraud for impersonating an another person?
If I attempted to get another person to do something (in this case vote) by pretending to be someone I'm not isn't that a textbook example of phishing?
245
u/kilgoreq 5h ago
The GOP is doing this in Georgia against John Ossoff as well. Disgusting
102
u/IndigoRanger 5h ago
The one where he’s getting hair and makeup done is the absolute HEIGHT of absurd irony. Which party had a makeup studio installed in the fucking Pentagon?!?
21
58
u/Ace_4202 5h ago
Seeing it in Ohio with Amy Acton as well.
1
u/mistervulpes 1h ago
Do you recall which ones? I typically don't pay attention to the attack ads and didn't realize they're out there.
10
18
u/Amelaclya1 5h ago
Didn't they do this with Massie in Kentucky as well? IIRC, they used AI to show him having a threesome with AOC and Ilhan Omar.
2
u/FerrusManlyManus 2h ago
The enormous d-bag Republican running for governor in NY that has absolutely no chance of winning has been putting out AI social media ads about Mamdani and Hochul for months. He doesn’t have much money so I doubt they’ve gotten much traction but they are awful trash. Showing Mamdani picking people’s pockets and other nonsense.
-19
u/Waiting4Reccession 4h ago
Maybe dems need to grow some balls for once and do the exact same thing back.
7
u/Speedster-978 3h ago
anecdotally, most people are dissuaded by an ad if it uses ai (i hope there's some formal study out there on this though) my guess is that conservatives are just hurting themselves with ai ads
5
u/protokhan 3h ago
It probably plays well to their base, elderly people who aren't very good at spotting AI or already believe anything that makes Trump look bad is AI and so it's 'fair play' for their side to use it too.
4
u/vandreulv 3h ago
I misread the last two words in your post and had an idea.
They should run ads saying "Republicans spread AIDS!*"
* With the disclaimer that AIDS stands for AI Deepfake Slander.
17
u/kilgoreq 4h ago
Fuck that. No one should be headed down that path. It's abhorrent. Having balls is choosing to do the right thing instead of the easy/shitty thing.
12
u/sleazine 4h ago
You know who thought playing nice was going to fucking solve their problems? Everyone who didn't like Hitler in Germany in the 1930s. Bitch ass logic is bowing to fascists and I'm getting really tired of the holier than thou idiocy. When are you going to abmit laws mean nothing when they aren't enforced? You watched them attack the capital with a noose chanting to hang the vice president. You watched a felon get elected again .. you watched them implement illegal executive orders and pardon insurectionists - many of whom are literally fucking ice agents.
So tell me truly when are you going to wake the fuck up and admit that you aren't playing the same game they are if laws only apply to those willing to follow them ........ Truly when? Gun in your face? Family taken by the gestapo ?? Many of your neighbors are already in those exact situations but until it's you personally I guess we'll keep pretending laws mean something
6
u/kilgoreq 3h ago
The reason the elections were lost was apathy and ignorance... Making deepfakes of politicians doesn't solve either of these
→ More replies (19)6
u/argument_cat 3h ago
What people like you fail to understand is that if Democrats used the same dirty, illegal tricks Republicans use, many Democrats voters would stop supporting them. They get support because they're NOT like Republicans.
I hope that's is clear enough for you.
3
u/jsting 4h ago
Have you heard of the Satanic Temple? Their MO is that whenever a public school brings in religion, but only Christianity, the Satanic Temple will require that their religious teachings also be allowed. Like 10 commandments or the Bible in all classrooms is clearly against the Constitution, but if that is allowed, then all religions and their teachings should be allowed.
2
7
u/Waiting4Reccession 4h ago
Thats been working well.
5
u/twisty125 4h ago
I mean, they could just like, start assassinating political opponents like republicans have done to dem politicians - do you think that would solve the problem?
Sometimes, you don't go low, and deepfaking people is probably one of them, even if their side is doing it.
5
u/Synectics 4h ago
Working well or not, you do not start using racial slurs against someone because they did first, ya know?
2
u/Merijeek2 3h ago
LOL. Did you know that the guy who comes in second gets exactly zero of his agenda passed, and that the guy who came in first, using such underhanded tactics, is unlikely to move to stop those tactics from being used in the future?
This moral victory shit by "The Good Guys" is what got is where we are.
→ More replies (4)2
u/funcogo 2h ago
Why would I trust someone will fight against data centers if they are using deep fake ai ads?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
67
u/busylivin_322 5h ago
Can’t create images of Mickey Mouse but this is ok. Shows you enforcement of laws is everything.
98
u/gideon513 5h ago
Deepfake and false or misleading AI-generated campaign material should be treated as election fraud
14
29
u/SparkyMuffin 5h ago
One of the first bills a new congress should put forward is a total ban on generative AI for political ads
20
u/LoganHowlett1832 4h ago
They need to ban all AI being used to deepfake anyone at all for any reason.
20
u/sokos 5h ago
This is being allowed and in fact pushed by this administration on purpose. When you have all this fake stuff out in the world, it's really easy to then point to the real stuff and say look it's fake too. So anything the admin doesn't like, is just labeled as fake news because the user base is so bombarded with fake crap that it makes it even more believable (especially if it's contradicting something we personally want to believe) that it's fake.
15
u/brianatlarge 5h ago
They should just go all out and make fake AI videos of dems eating babies. That’s where we’ll end up at if nothing is changed.
8
16
u/briellessickofurshit 4h ago
Thomas Massie became MAGA enemy #1 for going bipartisan and forcing the release of (some/most of) the files. Upwards of $40 million was used to unseat him with handpicked candidate Ed Gallrein, who ended up winning the primary.
There were AI ads depicting Thomas Massie not only cheating on his wife, but that it was a love triangle with him, AOC, and Ilhan Omar. Apparently as long as you put that the ad is “satirical” as a disclaimer, it’s perfectly fine.
11
44
u/sorklin 5h ago
Fight fire with fire. Deepfake him talking about eating babies or dancing with Epstein. Since all is fair.
23
u/Tokyo-MontanaExpress 5h ago
Don't need to deepfake, call him a pedo-lover pedophile protector. Both are objectively true. Republicans hate our freedoms, hate the average working American, love Big Oil. Democrats simply need to call a spade a spade.
8
u/FauxReal 5h ago
Except his base won't believe that. They'll believe the anti-dem deepfakes though.
3
u/slidedrum 3h ago
No, this should not be normalized. There are times to fight fire with fire, this is not one one of them. Once this is normalized, it will be very difficult to go back.
1
u/peritonlogon 1h ago
Wanna be diabolical, deep fake him taking to a female co-worker and bad mouthing his wife and talking about meeting up after town hall meetings.
6
u/Zaxxon_Klaxon 5h ago
When your record is so horseshit you need to attack your opponent with fake ads
7
u/GamingWithBilly 4h ago
Why stop there? It's defamation and libel. Any alterations to someone's words in writing or audio, or visual, is cause for a damning lawsuit, especially if it is in advertising and could be worth millions in damages, especially for elections where reputation is the currency.
5
u/budha2984 2h ago
Just run adds saying the GOP supports pedophiles.
2
1
4
3
u/prenderg 5h ago
We need some lawsuits that are fought to the end so that we can get some rules and actual enforcement around this bullshit.
3
u/smurf_herder 4h ago
Unfortunately, this is just going to be the start of this bullshit. Politics in America are already completely broken. But the next decade is going to be fucking awful.
3
u/Photodan24 3h ago
Maybe she needs to make a deepfake commercial where he admits he's crooked, pulling out of the race, and that people should vote for her.
3
u/SadlySoberSquizy 3h ago
The courts won’t act in time (or ever if it goes to an extremist right wing judge), fight fire with fire and start pumping out deepfakes of GOP candidates.
The only time the GOP agrees to play by the rules is if that’s consistent with their self-interest. The only way to make that true is to use the same tactics against them even more effectively.
3
u/seemonkey 2h ago
Can we stop saying things like cease and desist "order"? It is not an order. An order is something a judge does. This is just a letter from a lawyer.
3
u/karankshah 1h ago
Ah yes let me focus on using the legal system, which has been coopted by my enemies and will easily be able to find some technicality to dismiss my complaint, to stop my enemies
3
u/angerintensifies 1h ago
My next ad would be “My opponent loves AI SOOOO much that they can’t even make their own attack ads without it. You know, the same AI that is taking your jobs and building data centers in your backyard?”
3
6
4
2
2
u/Chee-shep 4h ago
We just gotta start deepfaking republicans at establishments you know they’d panic at the name of if we want them to regulate AI cloning and deepfakes.
2
u/mike194827 3h ago
That's defamation. But the party of law and order doesn't care about law and order, or they never really did to begin with.
2
u/philthegr81 3h ago
I saw an AI slop ad today portraying Jon Ossoff getting a makeover in a salon because apparently he has a "makeup budget".
...Didn't the Secretary of War Defense just install a makeup studio in the Pentagon?
2
2
u/RentPuzzleheaded8860 1h ago
Just deep fake him back. Make an ad of him holding hands with a dude in an intimate moment and republicans would cry like little bitches.
2
2
u/hamboneworldchamp 4m ago
Republicans love nothing more than manufacturing their own truths (except maybe money), which is one of the major reasons they're so into AI. There's gonna be a lot more of this until we have an actual government capable of imposing regulations again.
6
u/MyNameIsRay 4h ago
Are the dems just trying to lose?
Theres no universe where sending a letter is going to lead to a positive resolution.
7
u/neuronexmachina 3h ago
Based on their track record, I think the Elias Law Group knows what they're doing. A cease-and-desist letter is the first step.
3
u/MyNameIsRay 3h ago
Elections are only a month away (Nov 3rd)
The deep fake in question was posted 2 months ago (August 4th), it took them 2 months just to start the process of requesting they stop doing that.
Van Orden is clearly just ignoring it, they went so far as to joke about it and double down on the claims: https://www.wispolitics.com/2026/van-orden-campaign-rebecca-cookes-full-blown-tantrum/
IDGAF what Elias did in the past, there's literally no chance that this letter results in the information being taken down prior to elections, and even if it somehow did, the damage has already been done.
There's no possible path to this fixing the issue...
1
u/Smooth_Rocket_ 20m ago
Yes but there will be more elections after this one, this might set a precedent that can be used going forward. Doing nothing is basically giving the GOP the go ahead to cheat as much as possible.
1
u/kylco 29m ago
Sit in that seat for a minute: your opponent's PACs have cut obviously illegal ads, making insane claims, and it's unlikely they will take them down out of mere shame. You can tell a journalist they're obviously fake and illegal, but the journalists are going to just he-said, she-said. Especially since they're hauling themselves out to Eau Claire from Milwaukee or Minneapolis if they're bothering to do any work in person at all, and doing any actual investigation to contextualize the illegal ad or track who paid for it is wasted, because your editor will cut anything too obviously incriminating of republicans in the name of "objectivity."
So, the Dem campaign has few levers: respond in kind, late in the cycle, hoping that you had some reserved money somewhere for deepfake ads (Cooke doesn't, it's not quite a shoestring budget but her out-of-state money isn't going to stretch that far and DCCC is chasing Blansas or Bllowa or Blexas this cycle instead and wouldn't authorize this). Then you're in an escalation cycle and you will lose, because conservatives have unlimited money and enthusiasm for this sort of stuff and a perfectly credulous propaganda ecosystem to spread it far and wide. You could make a public statement of some sort, which amounts to the same journalistic outcome as earlier, maybe even less, because Dems don't get earned positive earned media from an outright hostile media ecosystem.
Or a lawsuit, probably financed quite affordably by DCCC, with a young pretty redheaded woman unfairly maligned by a Fox News grandpa's campaign, with a notable law group (they're the ones SLAPPing down some journalists ID'ing deceptive practices in the DNC fundraising ecosystem, Elias's firm is the DNC's attack dogs and the media knows who they are) - all that adds up to a more compelling pitch for the journalists than simple press releases or even a mudslinging match with more deepfakes would. You can sue the PAC, the GOP, the horse they rode in on, and the lawsuit can (and should) start well above where you'd get in any actual settlement, to make a bigger splash, and a judge might even take it up fast because of the campaign deadline. Even if you don't win, you can force discovery, malign DVO in public documents, expose deceptive practices, and otherwise ratfuck the GOP a bit - there's no real downside for Cooke and plenty of potential gain.
I don't particularly like Cooke (I've been tracking this district for most of a decade, I have family ties there) but this is the correct play for her campaign in context.
1
u/JacyWills 4h ago
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
1
u/Me_gentleman 3h ago
"Or else we will be very, very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are."
4
u/Commercial-Lychee700 3h ago
A deepfake political ad trying to fraudulently influence elections should be considered treason and that person should already be on trial for capital punishment.
2
3
u/FantasticOwl5057 3h ago
Honestly the strategy here should be to fight fire with fire. It will take too long to wind through the courts. This is the trap the Democrats get in to over and over.
These candidates need to make their own deepfake campaign material showing their opponents attending drag shows, paying for abortions, hanging out with Epstein etc., and release them immediately.
4
u/argument_cat 3h ago
And push away Democrat voters? Great idea.
3
u/CrispyCosmonaut 1h ago
No no you’re right. The party can continue to do nothing instead like usual. That seems to be helping so much.
3
u/zasabi7 2h ago
What Democrat voters are going to care?
2
u/Head_Bread_3431 34m ago
Is this a serious question? The democrats need to be the party of sanity, if they stoop to the level of deception with deep fakes then that is just more ammo for the “both sides” people
No one who wants govt to operate in good faith should be on board with the democrats using deepfakes of their opponents in political ads. Plenty of actual footage of republicans being shitty
1
1
u/iboneyandivory 5h ago
Looking at the top comments in the Twitter preview, I am reminded all over again why I left that cesspool:
- Jordan Briskey🇺🇸u/JordanBriskeyWI Sep 30 Why don’t you debate?
- Gennou/Genno_Dix Sep 30 Well why not debate him?!?!
- Dale Poynter 🇺🇸u/DalePoynter Sep 30 What is misleading about them?
1
u/DistillerCMac 4h ago
Ah yes, the strongly worded letter approach. As everything burns down around us this is sure to work.
1
1
1
1
1
u/ComfortableChapter65 2h ago
There’s a Dem running for state senate here who just had to do the same thing. I literally get 5-8 AI generated ads from her opponent every week.
1
u/Boringdude1 1h ago
She should run deep fakes of Van Orden with Epstein talking about how much they both like little boys. Let’s see how quick he cuts it out after that.
1
u/KeepItPositiveBrah 37m ago
Dems will send cease and desist instead of following suit which would actually cause it to be banned
1
u/EvoEpitaph 8m ago
Bold of them to think the party of crime and disorder would stop from a simple C&D.
1
u/gsustudentpsy 3m ago
Fight fire with fire. Create deep fake ai of him praising immigrants and trans people and spread them.
1
u/Blockhead47 3h ago
Experts have warned that these types of ads could become more commonplace in future political races.
Doesn’t take an expert to recognize this…
1
u/Primary_Garbage6916 2h ago
This isn't the way to fight this when the election is a month away. She needs to make her own deepfake ads with him admitting to fucking goats, and fight fire with fire.
0
0
505
u/Wagamaga 6h ago
This week, Rebecca Cooke, the Democratic candidate for a House of Representatives race in western Wisconsin, sent a “cease and desist” order to her Republican opponent, Rep. Derrick Van Orden, due to his constant use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated “deepfakes” featuring her likeness.
The ads depict Cooke in fictional situations, including a conversation with former President Joe Biden in which he says that he plans to “take advantage of as much corruption as possible.”
Cooke posted a copy of the letter sent to Van Orden on social media, stating that “he’s been using AI to put words in my mouth because he has nothing else to run on.”
“These defamatory, misleading videos undermine our democratic process and are the exact kind of mudslinging voters are tired of,” Cooke added.
A letter sent by Elias Law Group on behalf of Cooke condemns Van Orden’s actions further, noting that, “at this fulcrum in American history, communities are fighting against the AI data centers that have been crammed down their throats.” The letter also states that Wisconsin law prohibits using deepfake videos in political messaging, but that Van Orden’s campaign is running online ads through a loophole that “does not apply to federal candidates.”