SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Taylor Swift deepfakes spark calls in Congress for new legislation:
Deepfakes use artificial intelligence (AI) to make a video of someone by manipulating their face or body. A study in 2023 found that there has been a 550% rise in the creation of doctored images since 2019, fuelled by the emergence of AI.
US Representative Joe Morelle called the spread of the pictures "appalling".
In a statement, X said it was "actively removing" the images and taking "appropriate actions" against the accounts involved in spreading them.
It added: "We're closely monitoring the situation to ensure that any further violations are immediately addressed, and the content is removed." While many of the images appear to have been removed at the time of publication, one photo of Swift was viewed a reported 47 million times before being taken down.
[...] There are currently no federal laws against the sharing or creation of deepfake images, though there have been moves at state level to tackle the issue.
In the UK, the sharing of deepfake pornography became illegal as part of its Online Safety Act in 2023.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday January 28 2024, @09:00PM (3 children)
Is this the point where she jumps the shark?
IMO, entertainers have no business giving their opinion on politics. From a purely commercial point of view, it halves their potential audience (there is, of course, the entertainer that specifically sets out to cater to a particular political affiliation or cause, but Swift is not that). But, more importantly, most actors/musicians/performers who spout off about politics have done very little research themselves and are often armed with just enough information to be dangerous. Their cult of personality leads them to believe (often correctly) that the public wants to hear their opinion on everything, regardless of whether it's thoughtfully researched, or just shooting from the hip (see: The View).
An astute businessperson should 'stick to their lane' and avoid getting involved in things that will impact their bottom line.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday January 29 2024, @09:22AM
An astute businessperson should 'stick to their lane' and avoid getting involved in things that will impact their bottom line.
Maybe she has decided to cash out.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday January 29 2024, @09:33PM (1 child)
"IMO, entertainers have no business giving their opinion on politics."
From the Beatles to Skinny Puppy, from Pink Floyd to Megadeth, from The Clash to Creedence Clearwater Revival, Pussy Riot to Crosy Stills Nash and Young... tons of great and important music is political in nature.
Not all of us can listen exclusively to musical pablum like "Peggy Sue" or "What does the fox say?" , but hey, you do you!
Also,
"From a purely commercial point of view, it halves their potential audience"
Really? Are you so insecure in your own ideas and beliefs that you can't even listen to a song by someone unless you either know they are on your team, or can at least assume they are because they haven't told you enough to figure out they aren't?
"An astute businessperson should 'stick to their lane' and avoid getting involved in things that will impact their bottom line."
Artists usually have priorities that transcend maximizing quarterly profits. The idea that you actually think artists should 'stay in their lane' of doing 'business' is pretty demented if you think about it.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday January 29 2024, @11:48PM
I agree that most musicians have messages to share. My original comment noted that some artists will lean in to their views as part of their art. My comments are not directed at them.
More broadly, I'm talking about entertainers, including actors, TV personalities etc. An actor's craft does not inherently require them to demonstrate their personal values (though you could obviously infer some of them from the roles they choose to play). Richard Gere's views on Tibet have nothing at all to do with his body of work. Similarly, Taylor Swift's work has nothing to do with her views on the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza or Taiwan. I don't really care what her opinion is on any of these conflicts, because it's no more informed than the average person on the street - I'd much rather hear from someone who has actually studied international affairs, the history of the key players involved, etc.
To take the above example further, it would be commercially foolish for Taylor Swift to declare her support for Ukraine/Russia/Gaza/Israel/Taiwan/China. She's not losing any fans at the moment through her silence on these matters, but she potentially loses millions of sales by "picking a side".
Of course, artists aren't always in it for the money, and many will use their platform to promote causes close to them. More power to them if the cause is more important than the money to them (and I have to admire those who do pursue noble causes above money). That doesn't mean that they've actually done their research or developed a well considered view though, which is why I don't place value in the personal views of entertainers, but rather those who have dedicated themselves to studying and understanding the issues at hand.