CAT changes its DEI policies.
2 Likes
Count on California to push the censorship to extremes
“Political satire is a fundamental First Amendment right,” Kohls’ complaint said, and California’s laws allegedly infringe on that right, perhaps threatening a future where very little parody survives state-directed content takedowns.
According to Kohls, California’s deepfake laws are unconstitutionally vague and put states and platforms in the position of deciding what’s acceptable speech under the law. In one compelling example, Kohls alleged that AB 2839’s definition of “malice” does not require “ill-intent” but simply having knowledge that “materially deceptive content was false” or acting “with a reckless disregard for the truth.” That’s a problem for parodists, Kohls said, because they know that their content is false.
“That’s the entire point of parody!” Kohls’ complaint said.
Out of an abundance of caution to avoid any liability, Kohls’ complaint alleged, platforms would likely overly censor parody—pressured to remove any offending content within 36 hours.
1 Like
Telegram follow up - the back doors are going in after enough personal threats to the CEO. Win for oppressive governments (including our own), loss for privacy.
I’m sure the data handed over will only be on criminals. You know, thought criminals like those naughty meme posters in CA.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I bet the 40 states currently in the process of passing similar bills may have trouble (or at least find different balances) defining where to draw the line between defamation and 1st amendment rights, and not only with respect to election influence.
SNL doesn’t have to put a parody tag on their skits when it’s obvious the people involved are actors impersonating others.
But it’s not to so easy to tell with deepfakes. Without a prominent “AI-created Parody” tag visible throughout the video, it’d be challenging to tell where the truth lies, especially once someone edits them to remove the tag if it’s only present a small fraction of the time or stuck in small font in a corner.
Either way, with different guidelines being passed into law in most states, I wonder if the disparity between state laws on it is not gonna result in a push for a federal law (and/or the SCOTUS ruling on it).
2 Likes
Here are two of the parody videos - they’re pretty good. The first is Harris by the guy mentioned above, and the second from the Babylon Bee mocking Newsom’s new law and his bad policies.
3 Likes
Case in point though, I’m sure 100% accidentally from such a reputable source lol, this SkyNews piece reposted these deepfakes without any parody flag whatsoever.
Now I understand it’s fine for outlets like these that people know are only for entertainment purposes, but it also highlights that the current laws do not prevent anything in terms of freely broadcasting deepfakes in order to sway voters.
1 Like
But then it begs the question, what about when what’s being said is true, and it’s just a faked voice being used? Flagging it as being a parody/fake would in itself be misleading, since it’d indicate the content was not true when just the attribution is false.
1 Like
“Parody” does not mean that the content is not true. “Fake” is appropriate because the voice is faked. If you want to avoid the conundrum you raised, don’t use a faked voice.
Define a “faked” voice. Does the video have to say that it’s Kamala speaking? What if the video says it’s not Kamala verbally but shows her picture? Who gets to decide that it’s a fake voice? Newsom? Bonta?
Define it yourself. Use a dictionary if you have to.
Who gets to decide that your cereal doesn’t contain too much lead?
1 Like
I wish the colleges would stop DEI during admissions. They’re working around SC race decision too 
1 Like
According to MW, these are fake. Aren’t you outraged?
or …
There are others, but will let you find them. Shouldn’t these be identified as fake by the news media?
1 Like
MW?
I’m not outraged, should I be?
If they are fake, then they should be identified as fake.
Noah’s offspring, Merriam Webster.
They’re not labelled as fake, nor or they lampooned as such, by any of the mainstream media, to the best of my knowledge.
Which is why I thought you’d be outraged, as they are not labeled as fake.
1 Like
I’m not following. Are you alleging it’s fake because the accent is fake or because the video or audio was altered?
I’m not sure about the parody flag fitting or not but I think that’s the one usually used. A parody is always a fake but a fake is not always a parody since parody implies a specific intent to make fun of or ridicule the subject, where as the intent of a fake might be otherwise. My point is parody attempts to assign an intent which may actually be unclear.
Where both flags overlap is in that the content is not real. So for me flagging it as fake would not be misleading. It is not real. She never said what the video does using AI to replicate her voice to the extent a normal human may not make the difference. If the voice over is done using an entirely different person, that would be just another campaign ad basically. So using AI to fake her voice is a step beyond. But fair enough, I could go with other flags such as AI-misrepresentation, deepfake, AI-fake, or what have you that’d be closer. Personally, deepfake is starting to be something most people are familiar with so I’d vote for that flag for simplicity. But “fake” is close enough. Definitely better than parody.
Still, whatever you call this type of content, it remains that for transparency, it needs to be flagged as not real and I think we can reach a fair common sense agreement in our laws to make the boundaries clearer.
I’m not alleging anything. I am STATING that it is fake either because of the the accent, or someone altered the audio to add the accent. Either way, it is FAKE, FAKE, FAKE. 
1 Like
Assange speech since years of persecution
”I plead guilty to journalism”
2 Likes
Drug dealer speech after years of prosecution …
“I plead guilty to spreading joy” … unless that mantra has already been stolen from my ancestors. 