Lots of drama recently when Twitch streamer Atrioc accidentally alt-tabbed and briefly showed a tab containing deepfake porn of other streamers.
Cancel culture is going hard after him right now.
Twitch streamer Sweet Anita was one of many women who only found out from this drama that she has also had deepfake porn made of her.
It does raise an important question of how US regulation is once again falling behind technological advancements which frankly have already been around for some time.
The UK is currently reviewing a bill which includes criminalising non-consenual deepfake distribution, will the US follow suit?
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ67 | |
| 2 | Ṁ67 | |
| 3 | Ṁ32 | |
| 4 | Ṁ30 | |
| 5 | Ṁ19 |
IANAL but I would say, this is already illegal under the following laws:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A
NOTE: “Interstate” commerce includes electronic communication services, such as the internet. This law does not require that the person who engages in such a course of conduct (ie, the abuser) be in a different state from the person who suffers emotional distress or fear as a result of the conduct (ie, the target).
@PatrickDelaney hmm I'm pretty sure it wouldnt after reading through it, although I'm not familiar with the technicalities of law
Made a TikTok about this!
https://www.tiktok.com/@manifoldmarkets/video/7195500632156015878
Moderately relevant write-up on revenge porn laws: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10723.
On March 15, 2022, Congress authorized a federal civil claim relating to the disclosure of intimate images (…).
Nearly all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam) have a nonconsensual pornography law in some form. The majority of states make dissemination of nonconsensual pornography a criminal offense […if there’s sufficient intent or knowledge].
[Court] cases upholding state laws in the states’ highest courts provide some insight into how Section 1309 might fare in a constitutional challenge in federal court. (…) In terms of First Amendment case law, these state court cases are significant because they reflect the “rare” circumstance in which a government restriction of speech based on its content survived strict scrutiny. (…) They could also provide lawmakers with some options for regulating online content such as deepfakes.
@yaboi69 Thanks for the relevant writeup! Do note that this market is about deepfakes in general and not just porn.
If the UK has something on the books already it's only a matter of time before the same issue is brought up in the US, and I feel like if it is introduced it's going to pass since it's a bad look to be against deepfakes. I am not confident in my assessment of how the US legislative process works and what the timelines for different stages of passing a law are, but I feel reasonably confident that it can be done this year.