Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday July 11 2019, @01:53AM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @06:35AM (4 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11 2019, @06:35AM (#865712) Journal

    Well, for starters, they've positioned themselves as an open hosting provider

    I can't blame you for not reading the Acceptable use [github.com] section** beforehand, neither do I, but doing it would have stopped you short from thinking "GitHub == open hosting provider" or, indeed, that an "open hosting provider" refrain from imposing any limits.

    Short version: GitHub hosts a wide variety of collaborative projects from all over the world, and that collaboration only works when our users are able to work together in good faith. While using the service, you must follow the terms of this section, which include some restrictions on content you can post, conduct on the service, and other limitations.

    ---
    ** or, is it "sexion" in the context?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:16AM (3 children)

    by coolgopher (1157) on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:16AM (#865719)

    None of the restrictions in the AUP would appear to apply in this case. Code of academic interest was posted in a repo. That is not obscene. Well, it shouldn't be. Heaven knows there's a backlash against science among many in the upper echelons...

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:37AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:37AM (#865728) Journal

      None of the restrictions in the AUP would appear to apply in this case. Code of academic interest was posted in a repo. That is not obscene.

      Are you sure? Speaking for myself, I'd like a citation.

      All I could find: the origin of TFA is actually Motherboard/Vice [vice.com] (the others just cite that one).
      They say

      "We do not proactively monitor user-generated content, but we do actively investigate abuse reports. In this case, we disabled the project because we found it to be in violation of our acceptable use policy," a GitHub spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement. "We do not condone using GitHub for posting sexually obscene content and prohibit such conduct in our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines."

      Unfortunately, that and the rest of TFA say nothing on the line of "there were deleted repos that didn't have any other content except code of academic interest ".

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:51AM (1 child)

        by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:51AM (#865730) Homepage Journal

        We do not condone using GitHub for posting sexually obscene content and prohibit such conduct in our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines.

        When I read a sentence like that it leaves the impression that the github repo was being used to store images of pornography not a collection of words and symbols that can produce pornographic content. So lets see what M-W thinks of obscene:

        disgusting to the senses

        I don't think that one quite cuts it though I think 'disgusting to mind' would work.

        abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity

        Now we are starting to get pretty damn warm.

        containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage

        Ring that bell!

        repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles

        Another bingo here.

        so excessive as to be offensive

        Really depends on who you are for that one I think. In fact all of that really depends on who you are, your moral code, and the culture you were brought up in. But it's Github's show, they get to decide what is and is not obscene, and there is no appeal. That's that.

        I still think it's contrary to opensource principles.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @08:07AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11 2019, @08:07AM (#865733) Journal

          I still think it's contrary to opensource principles.

          But I don't see GitHub as ever making a promise to uphold opensource principles above anything else.
          It's a commercial entity, their foremost duty is to their shareholders.

          Whenever expectations are not met, one will need to critically examine both sides. It may be a failure to deliver to what was agreed is expected, but it well may be a case of overinflated expectations based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford