• SnausagesinaBlanket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Under what law?

    Take it down act

    On April 28, 2025, Congress passed S. 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill that criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including “digital forgeries” (i.e., deep fakes), in certain circumstances.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Is providing it over a private channel to a singular user publication?

      I suspect that you will have to directly regulate image generation

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It absolutely is private insofar as it is a channel between the software running on their end -> user who is operating the software. The lack of end to end encryption does not make it not private it makes it insecure which doesn’t speak whatsoever to the issue raised which is that creation of an image by a user isn’t likely to be considered publication until they share it.

          It’s highly probable that keeping people from generating deep fake nudes requires additional law.

      • SnausagesinaBlanket@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        you will have to directly regulate image generation

        Its already being done to help prevent fake CSAM.

        That should have been standard from the start.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet?

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Definitely not convicted. That’d be some crazy speed.

        However, your insistence that it hasn’t happened yet so can’t happen is insane. There has to be a first case in which it hadn’t happened before.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          your insistence that it hasn’t happened yet so can’t happen is insane

          It would be insane if that was what I had insisted, but that didn’t happen. You just made it up.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Based on what? Who have you seen be convicted of making deepfake porn? Under what law?

            Then you’re provided a law where it’d be illegal:

            Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet?

            This seems to heavily imply you don’t believe it’s illegal until someone’s been convicted.