THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence.

The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday.  The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.

The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Am I the only one that still gets uncomfortable every time the government tries to regulate advanced technology?

    It’s not a Libertarian thing to me as much as it’s a ‘politicians don’t understand technology thing.’

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Arguing against laws that prohibit sexual exploitation with high tech tools, because of the nature of technology, would be like arguing against laws that prohibit rape because of the nature of human sexuality.

      The “it still is going to happen” argument doesn’t matter, because the point of the law isn’t to eliminate something 100%, it is to create consequences for those who continue to do what the law prohibits.

      It’s not some slippery slope either, it is extremely easy not to make involuntary pornography of other people.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        it is extremely easy not to make involuntary pornography of other people.

        Eh. The term is ill-defined, so I can see some ultra-orthodox right-wing judge trying to argue that - say - jokes about JD Vance fucking a couch constitute violations of the revenge porn law. I can see some baroque interpretation by Scalia used to prohibit all forms of digitally transmitted pornography. I can also see some asshole trying to claim baby pictures on Facebook leave the company or even the parent liable for child pornography. Etc, etc.

        But a lot of this boils down to vindictive and despicable politicians trying to inflict harm on political opponents by any means necessary. The notion that we can’t have any kind of technology regulation because bad politicians and sadistic cops exist leaves us ceding the entire legislative process to the conservatives who we know are going to abuse the law.

        We shouldn’t be afraid to do the right thing now on the grounds that someone else might do the wrong thing tomorrow.