SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the information-wants-to-be-[clothing]-free dept.
Github is banning copies of 'deepfakes' porn app DeepNude
GitHub is banning code from DeepNude, the app that used AI to create fake nude pictures of women. Motherboard, which first reported on DeepNude last month, confirmed that the Microsoft-owned software development platform won't allow DeepNude projects. GitHub told Motherboard that the code violated its rules against "sexually obscene content," and it's removed multiple repositories, including one that was officially run by DeepNude's creator.
DeepNude was originally a paid app that created nonconsensual nude pictures of women using technology similar to AI "deepfakes." The development team shut it down after Motherboard's report, saying that "the probability that people will misuse it is too high." However, as we noted last week, copies of the app were still accessible online — including on GitHub.
Late that week, the DeepNude team followed suit by uploading the core algorithm (but not the actual app interface) to the platform. "The reverse engineering of the app was already on GitHub. It no longer makes sense to hide the source code," wrote the team on a now-deleted page. "DeepNude uses an interesting method to solve a typical AI problem, so it could be useful for researchers and developers working in other fields such as fashion, cinema, and visual effects."
Also at The Register, Vice, and Fossbytes.
Previously: "Deep Nude" App Removed By Developers After Brouhaha
Related: AI-Generated Fake Celebrity Porn Craze "Blowing Up" on Reddit
Discord Takes Down "Deepfakes" Channel, Citing Policy Against "Revenge Porn"
My Struggle With Deepfakes
Deep Fakes Advance to Only Needing a Single Two Dimensional Photograph
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @02:43AM (10 children)
GitHub doesn't define itself as a platform of free speech, does it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday July 11 2019, @03:18AM (8 children)
Not that I've heard and I doubt Microsoft would buy a company where their hands are tied in terms of who they can kick out. I'm not sure if you are wondering if this is censorship or if this censorship is something to be concerned about.
The banning of the DeepNude forks is undoubtedly censorship. Github not being a free speech platform just means that the censorship isn't two faced on their part.
On the topic of being worthy of concern I'm not personally going to change any of my behavior or do something like boycott Github. I do think it's really odd though that this software was labeled as "obscene" and deemed worthy of being removed when the Github ToS itself says that not all sexually oriented content is itself obscene. The repo, afaik, also did not have any sexual content in it. The obscene label is pretty weird.
I also think it's weird that when a software exploit is found the right thing to do is bundle it up into metasploit so anyone who wants to can run ./hack-that --host=some.poor.slob but in the case of deepfakes it's time to pretend it doesn't exist.
I've got much bigger issues with Github like their technical support being utter garbage on the Enterprise product.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @03:34AM (6 children)
I'm just raising my brow to the term 'censor', it doesn't seem so to me.
Because the guys that want to "speak DeepNude" are still free to promote their speech by any other means outside GitHub - including self-hosting.
I disagree. If you want a term closer in meaning, "deplatforming" springs to mind. But not even that seems appropriate (github doesn't offer "pay per ad-view" - yet).
Same.
After the "Responsible disclosure" self-imposed silence, I would find it weird not to bundle it in metasploit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday July 11 2019, @03:58AM (5 children)
It sounds like your definition of censorship includes a government component but that is not necessary. M-W defines censorship as the institution, system, or practice of censoring which is itself to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable and supress sense 2 being to keep from public knowledge: such as to keep secret; to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of;
Wikipedia says Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations.
How is Github banning DeepNude because they don't want to be associated with it because it is inconvenient for them not censorship?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @06:05AM
Not at all.
Since GitHub/MS cannot keep DeepNude from public knowledge (in the sense 2 of suppress), it follows that GitHub/MS - want it or not - cannot censor.
The very same way as me - as a private person in the eyes of law - saying "I don't want to do business with you for reasons the current law allow me to refuse such a relation" is equally not censorship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 11 2019, @06:27AM (3 children)
It's not censorship because they're not *banning* anything. They are making an individual choice not to host specific software.
Let's say you own a store and some supplier comes in and requests that you stock their product line. The markup on the product is excellent and you can be sure it will be a popular product. Boo-yah! Let's do this thing!
Except the product is something, that while legal, will most certainly cause outrage and negative publicity for you and your store.
Do you still stock the product, even though it will cause your customers and neighbors to shun you and your store? What will be your reasoning either way? If you do stock such a product, you'll make some money, but you may lose your business altogether because of the outrage, complaints and boycotts. If you don't, the supplier can still go to another store and get them to stock their product.
But if you don't, by your logic, you're censoring aren't you? So what you're saying is that it's preferable to lose your livelihood rather than act as one of several, or many, distribution points for such a product. Is that correct?
Github's actions don't affect anyone else's ability to host or distribute the product (in this case, the Deep Nude software), so they aren't censoring it. They're just refusing to support that particular product.
As such, this isn't censorship. It's a private entity making a decision as to whether or not to support a particular product (in this case, code).
If, however, Github was the *only* source for this software, you might have an argument for censorship. Even then, it's wouldn't be illegal, or necessarily unethical, for Github to do so.
This is what Github seeks to avoid [xkcd.com] with their actions. And I can't say I blame them.
Note that I'm all for freedom of expression. Even expression that I personally find objectionable. At the same time, you won't see me using my time, money and resources to host expression I find objectionable. Because I don't run a site/store/space for anyone's expression but my own.
And even then that's pretty much limited to a single cat photo (RIP, Enrico, I miss you!), which is my choice. As it is Github's.
If you don't like Github's choices in this (or others) matter, you have many options as to how you can deal with it. I suggest you consider those options.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday July 11 2019, @06:53AM (2 children)
If that product was a Bible, The Book of Satan, Pornography, or other forms of human expression, yes you are censoring them. It's in the definition just a little bit above in this thread.
Github censored DeepNude forks. It's not complicated. Censorship happens. Censorship happens all the time. The only place where censorship is illegal in the United States is when the Government does it or you are committing a hate crime using it and then the hate crime is illegal not the censorship. People can censor. People do censor.
Dear god you need a jump to conclusions mat. I already said I understand why Github did this, I consider it a corruption of open source, I'm not going to change my behavior regarding github, and that github's shitty enterprise support is a much bigger problem than any censorship they've done. If I was going to stop using Github it would be because their enterprise support is that bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @04:52PM (1 child)
Maybe stop playing the victim every time someone disagrees with you. Your ridiculously stubborn approach is why people are starting to just call you a nazi, etc. Personally I think you're a troll playing at being a centrist in order to create gotcha traps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 13 2019, @08:01AM
You're calling him a Nazi because Trump has amplified your mental illness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @01:53AM
I'm far from an expert on this but I suspect the truly "obscene" aspect is that this software enables people to make fake nudes of people without their consent. There does seem to be an ethical or moral line that is being crossed there. Just my opinion.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday July 11 2019, @08:35AM
Trying to bring some utility out of the enormous amount of dead horse beating that has happened over what is and is not censorship. I'll start again with the dictionary definition, the opening paragraph of Wikipedia, and then I'll provide references to more reading material from other sites while quoting part of them.
Meriam-Webster:
Definition of censorship
1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
Definition of suppress
: to keep from public knowledge: such as
a : to keep secret
b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of suppress the test results
Wikipedia: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by a government,[5] private institutions, and corporations.
National Coalition Against Censorship [ncac.org]
Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, they are certainly trying to censor artistic expression and interfere with the free speech of others. But their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Encyclopedia Britanica [britannica.com]
Nevertheless, the private ownership of news media in the United States has itself resulted in a kind of censorship, according to some critics. Because nearly all major news companies in the country are owned by large corporations, and because those companies derive the bulk of their income from paid advertisements by other large corporations, they have tended, in the view of critics, to disregard viewpoints that are broadly critical of corporate influence in the political life of the country or that stray too far from a conventional political discourse that is unthreatening to economic elites.