Current Events > Twitch streamer apologizes for watching deep fake porn of other streamers

(+) Yeah! (+)

I feel like there's a huge difference between imagination and paying for deep fake porn. The end product of deep fake porn is still very real and done without the consent of the person involved. You're actively engaging with media that can cause harm to someone. Thinking about someone doesn't harm anyone.

FAQ-Checker posted...

Isnt every fantasy youve ever created in your mind about a co-worker or friend done so nonconsensually?

Yeah, again, the fact that people can't seem to see the difference between fantasizing about a co-worker or jerking off on a picture of that co-worker and stapling it to the office bulletin board is exactly why it's not surprising this conversation is even happening.

This isn't something people are doing in their minds, it's something they're circulating in a public space, that these celrbrities have to be privvy to. Just because you didn't create the content doesn't make it any less wrong if you indulge in it.

ArchNemo posted...

Yeah, again, the fact that people can't seem to see the difference between fantasizing about a co-worker or jerking off on a picture of that co-worker and stapling it to the office bulletin board is exactly why it's not surprising this conversation is even happening.

Except in this case, the guy just jerk off to a picture that was already stapled to the bulletin board by someone else

Smashingpmkns posted...

I feel like there's a huge difference between imagination and paying for deep fake porn. The end product of deep fake porn is still very real and done without the consent of the person involved. You're actively engaging with media that can cause harm to someone. Thinking about someone doesn't harm anyone.

No. Youre confusing two different things. Theres the ethics of creating and using such images, and then theres the ethics of distributing such images. I dont see anything wrong in the creation. Its only unethical when youre distributing it and passing it off as real.

I guess I'm not surprised CE is full of people who don't understand consent.

ArchNemo posted...

No, your original point was this:

You straight up stated that it was woke to expect consent. You even mocked the idea of only jerking off to models who preapproved, ie consented, to having pornographic material made of them. Everything you said after has been an attempt to obfuscate that.

That absolute baffling thing here is, not only do you believe it's your right to jerk off to non-consenual porn, but your absolute desperation to defend and have people agree that the shitty thing you're doing isn't shitty.

If you're going to do something fucked up, at the absolute, bare minimum at least have the deceny to be ashamed of it.

I'll admit the bolded part is the first time in all my convos here my blood pressure went up a lil bit. For someone to believe from the rest of my posts that I was actually trying to backpedal on my OG post is something I can only blame myself for. Let me first and foremost clear all things up on that subject real quick and say that I 100% believed, still believe, and will always believe everything I said in that post of mine you quoted. My biggest regret in all of this is that I may have possibly said something that actually made a person think I was trying to "obfuscate that".

As for the rest of the post. Yeah, absolutely not ashamed of jerking off to whatever I want, and also accepting that people will also jerk off to whatever they want. It is a stance I do feel very strongly about, as baffling as it is you. The concept of shitting on someone for jerking off to something legal in the privacy in their home to no effect to any other human in the world is a concept as equal as baffling to me if it make you feel any better.

Has anyone pointed out one of the fakes he was beating it to was the girlfriend of his business partner/best friend, who herself has gone thru great lengths to not be sexualized?

Zavala posted...

Don't be a dirty coomer with filthy porn habits. Its easy.

How dare you look down your nose at me.

FAQ-Checker posted...

I dont see anything wrong in the creation

You probably should.

Tmaster148 posted...

I guess I'm not surprised CE is full of people who don't understand consent.

...and even more who don't understand fiction.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

I'll admit the bolded part is the first time in all my convos here my blood pressure went up a lil bit. For someone to believe from the rest of my posts that I was actually trying to backpedal on my OG post is something I can only blame myself for. Let me first and foremost clear all things up on that subject real quick and say that I 100% believed, still believe, and will always believe everything I said in that post of mine you quoted. My biggest regret in all of this is that I may have possibly said something that actually made a person think I was trying to "obfuscate that".

As for the rest of the post. Yeah, absolutely not ashamed of jerking off to whatever I want, and also accepting that people will also jerk off to whatever they want. It is a stance I do feel very strongly about, as baffling as it is you. The concept of shitting on someone for jerking off to something legal in the privacy in their home to no effect to any other human in the world is a concept as equal as baffling to me if it make you feel any better.

Okay so then your answer to my original question was yes, you do think that consent is woke.

OudeGeuze posted...

Has anyone pointed out one of the fakes he was beating it to was the girlfriend of his business partner/best friend, who herself has gone thru great lengths to not be sexualized?

Who that

LinkPizza posted...

Except in this case, the guy just jerk off to a picture that was already stapled to the bulletin board by someone else

...you do realize that's not any better, right?

ArchNemo posted...

Okay so then your answer to my original question was yes, you do think that consent is woke.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...
When it comes to masturbating alone in your bedroom? Yes.

This was answered hours ago man.

OudeGeuze posted...

Has anyone pointed out one of the fakes he was beating it to was the girlfriend of his business partner/best friend, who herself has gone thru great lengths to not be sexualized?

Who is his partner and who is his or her gf

Questionmarktarius posted...

...and even more who don't understand fiction.

It's fiction about a real person.

You do realize that, right? This isn't someone making a naked drawing of Zelda. These are real people, who likely don't want to be in pornographic material, whether it's their real body or not. Because if they did, they'd be doing porn.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

This was answered hours ago man.

Okay, so hours ago it was answered that you think consent is woke. I don't know why you're acting like this is something to proud of.

Sega9599 posted...

Oh....so what if he pays for deepfakes of underage? Or his wifes sister? Or his own sister? I guess that doesn't matter because it's only fake?

Well, for starters, I literally said that deepfakes are inherently immoral.

Deepfakes of underage are certainly a very weird situation, much like that of underage/minor-coded fictional pornography. The first and most obvious issue is that deepfakes are made using real video footage with a super-imposed face, so if the actual porn features underage people that that is obviously deeply unethical and illegal. If deepfakes are immoral because they use someone's likeness without permission, then a deepfake with a child's likeness is more immoral (As far as something like "immoral" can have a measurable value).

Deepfakes of a wife's sister are not inherently more immoral, they just have a deeper personal sentimentality to a specific person, the wife. Something does not become "more immoral" just by it's proximity to the person doing the action, though, it just becomes (likely) more hurtful to that specific person. Stealing $100 from a stranger vs. someone you know are equally immoral acts, one just has sentimental ties involved.

Sega9599 posted...

Two wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs.

It's not creepy because the celebrities in their photos intentionally consent to that by producing AND DISTRIBUTING the material. Taking the face of someone who never consented, and producing material to pretend they did, is creepy.

If a photo is published by someone on their Instagram, in what contexts is that photo allowed to be used? Not just pornography, but in general. What consent have you received for the use of their likeness? I ask because the absolutely fundamental issue here underpins our entire modern media culture. Let me ask you this: Is this video more or less ethical than a deepfake?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ha7smLPz2GY&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

This is Trumpet Fight, a famous lolcow video. This video is mostly consumed in a manner that mocks or disparages the main person, described as "Crazed New Yorker". Did this video have the consent of this "Crazed New Yorker" to be posted? Does this video cause the "Crazed New Yorker" emotional distress or embarrassment? You having watched it, or any video similar to it, do you deeply regret having watched it due to it's potentially non-consensual nature? Do you think watching videos like this should be a cause for shaming to the point of a coerced apology, much like what has happened to the Streamer of this topic? Why is this video, which details a non-consensually shared piece of media which harms the non-consenting "Crazed New Yorker", just another Epic Fail Video on the internet with 6.3 million views, while the deepfake of Pokimane is worth such protest and shaming?

It is NOT the same. That's like your friends producing material of you specifically to jack off to. How would you not feel weird if you found out? You'd say "oh I used to fantasise about Pamela Anderson, so it's the same thing. No worries bro."

That's fine. As far as I'm concerned the creation of media based on my likeness does not in anyway negatively affect me unless the media is made explicitly to deceive others. If anything, I'm happy my likeness can bring comfort to others, but I realize that's not a universal opinion. Furthermore, however, if I never even knew about the porn they made of me I would never have any reason to be harmed in the first place. If I can only be harmed by an act because the action itself is explicitly revealed to me, then that likely means the actually act itself was not inherently immoral--The issue arose because of complex social expectations that I have of myself, my friend, and my values regarding sex, all of which were informed by the arbitrary values of the culture in which I was raised.

As for curiosity, that drives a lot of things. People watch car crashes on Youtube. Will it be ok to watch deepfakes of your friends being in car crashes?

Uh... sure. I can already create my friend's likeness in GTA 5 and crash them into stuff using the Cinematic Mode to produce fairly realistic facsimiles of their gruesome death. They would probably think it's funny.

There are people and situations you shouldn't be fantasizing over.

Sure. I believe fantasizing can reinforce anti-social or unethical behavior, so there are things I can advise not to fantasize about for practical reasons. The issue ethically, however, isn't the fantasizing since fantasizing does not in itself cause harm. We can extrapolate that fantasizing may lead to, for instance, obsessive behaviors, and those obsessive behaviors may be unethical. But the fantasizing itself did not cause the harm. We can also extrapolate that fantasizing may not lead to obsessive behavior, and then no harm is caused, and thus the act was not unethical. If you can fantasize about something without it causing harm, then it's not unethical. We can fantasize about absolutely anything without actually causing harm to another.

ArchNemo posted...

It's fiction about a real person.

You do realize that, right? This isn't someone making a naked drawing of Zelda. These are real people, who likely don't want to be in pornographic material, whether it's their real body or not. Because if they did, they'd be doing porn.

I know you and I aren't on the best of terms, but I have a gunuine question and I promise I am not setting up for some big GOTCHA moment I am just actually trying to understand you people's brains. But how did you feel about photoshops? People have been photoshopping fakes to jerk off to for decades at this point. I've never once seen any sort of outcry about it, or even a discussion. So why is it now that you think this is now an actual discussion?

I hope anyone still defending this can be satisfied knowing they agree with someone who has openly stated they don't think consent matters.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

I know you and I aren't on the best of terms, but I have a gunuine question and I promise I am not setting up for some big GOTCHA moment I am just actually trying to understand you people's brains. But how did you feel about photoshops? People have been photoshopping fakes to jerk off to for decades at this point. I've never once seen any sort of outcry about it, or even a discussion. So why is it now that you think this is now an actual discussion?

Tbf internet discourse wasn't really nuanced about things like that a decade ago. Photoshopped fakes of celebs are just as bad.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

I know you and I aren't on the best of terms, but I have a gunuine question and I promise I am not setting up for some big GOTCHA moment I am just actually trying to understand you people's brains. But how did you feel about photoshops? People have been photoshopping fakes to jerk off to for decades at this point. I've never once seen any sort of outcry about it, or even a discussion. So why is it now that you think this is now an actual discussion?

It's wrong, it's never not been wrong. If it's getting more traction it's because the internet is a much bigger place than it was a decade ago and the means are getting more realistic and no longer contained to the backwaters of the internet.

I'm not really sure what "gotcha" you even think you'd be setting up here.

ArchNemo posted...

I hope anyone still defending this can be satisfied knowing they agree with someone who has openly stated they don't think consent matters.

Why do you keep saying this in an attempt to twist my words? I have made it very clear that it is strictly towards masturbating alone in the bedroom, and yet here you are wording it like I think r*** is fine. The fact that you have to literally lie to prove your point kinda proves your point is shit.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

Why do you keep saying this in an attempt to twist my words? I have made it very clear that it is strictly towards masturbating alone in the bedroom, and yet here you are wording it like I think r*** is fine. The fact that you have to literally lie to prove your point kinda proves your point is shit.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

"I ONLY jerk it to models who have preapproved for me to jerk it to them!"

You mocked the idea of only jerking off to pornographic material where the women consented to being in pornographic material.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I didn't doctor it, I didn't twist your words. It's right there.

I don't really have to say anything else.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

Why do you keep saying this in an attempt to twist my words? I have made it very clear that it is strictly towards masturbating alone in the bedroom, and yet here you are wording it like I think r*** is fine. The fact that you have to literally lie to prove your point kinda proves your point is shop.

Masturbation towards what though? No one is saying the standard understanding of porn needs to go.
Is it ok to jack off towards kids 'non sexual' pictures in your own bedroom, just because no one can stop you and it's 'legal'?

You're allowing people to take pictures of others without their consent in order to make deepfakes.
I guess next is recording their voice to get accurate ai digitised speech. Perhaps dig through their rubbish after they leave it out for the bin men to get some samples of hair for digitized smell. Just fall further into depravity, or as you see it, personal bedroom matters that are fine to indulge in.

ArchNemo posted...

You mocked the idea of only jerking off to pornographic material where the women consented to being in pornographic material.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I didn't doctor it, I didn't twist your words. It's right there.

I don't really have to say anything else.

Yeah? And? Or are you trying to say that jerking off alone to a friend you know is the same thing as r*** them? Because I don't see the point of your post otherwise, and I really hope that's not your point. If that isn't your point then all I ask is that if you want to advertise things that I said, it would be beneficial to both of us to actually say the things I said. If you want to tell your whole family that jennywentnorth8 thinks that consent doesn't matter when you are jerking it alone in the bedroom then you go right ahead man.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

Yeah? And? Or are you trying to say that jerking off alone to a friend you know is the same thing as r*** them? Because I don't see the point of your post otherwise, and I really hope that's not your point. If that isn't your point then all I ask is that if you want to advertise things that I said, it would be beneficial to both of us to actually say the things I said. If you want to tell your whole family that jennywentnorth8 thinks that consent doesn't matter when you are jerking it alone in the bedroom then you go right ahead man.

You're the one assuming non-consent means rape. It's a fact that this is non-consenual pornographic material. I never once said rape, or even implied it was rape. The only one equating what you're doing to rape is you. Which really says more about your own insecurity than it has anything to do with me.

ArchNemo posted...

You're the one assuming non-consent means rape. It's a fact that this is non-consenual pornographic material. I never once said rape, or even implied it was rape. The only one equating what you're doing to rape is you. Which really says more about your own insecurity than it has anything to do with me.

You said I don't think "consent matters". Pretty vague term there that could mean just about anything, even worst case scenario. Hence why I asked you to specify.

Here how about this, you do not have my consent to make posts about things I say out of context. You have my consent to quote verbatim, or even roughly verbatim (if you want to go with "spanking the chicken" instead of "jerking it" for instance, that's fine).

Uh oh. You are in quite the pickle now huh. Either you are a hypocrite or you have to respect my consent.

For one second just think about the negative effects these women go through just from being involved in a deep fake video without their consent.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

You said I don't think "consent matters". Pretty vague term there that could mean just about anything, even worst case scenario. Hence why I asked you to specify.

Here how about this, you do not have my consent to post make posts about things I say out of context. You have my consent to quote verbatim, or even roughly verbatim (if you want to go with "spanking the chicken" instead of "jerking it" for instance, that's fine).

Uh oh. You are in quite the pickle now huh. Either you are a hypocrite or you have to respect my consent.

It's not vague though. It's what it is, non-consensual porn. You said it was woke to only jerk off to content where the model has given her consent.

I quoted your exact post. I can even link to it. What part isn't verbatim?

Smashingpmkns posted...

For one second just think about the negative effects these women go through just from being involved in a deep fake video without their consent.

The people who don't see an issue with this simply don't view women as people.

lol deepfakes, go watch real porn

Cringey weirdos don't get the difference between having a spank bank / highlight reel, and paying someone to create and circulate lifelike pornographic content of your friends and colleagues

ArchNemo posted...

It's not vague though. It's what it is, non-consensual porn. You said it was woke to only jerk off to content where the model has given her consent.

I quoted your exact post. I can even link to it. What part isn't verbatim?

You can quote my OG post. That's fine. You can quote anything I said obviously. But I never said "consent is woke". I said "when it comes to masturbating alone in the bedroom, yes I think consent it woke". It is like if I said I like to eat shitty mcdonald food as a guilty pleasure and you went around saying "jenny likes to eat shit!". Again the only possible reason I can think of for being so against just quoting what I actually said instead of paraphrasing is if you think this is comparable to r***. But you SURELY don't believe that so you should be just fine with quoting the entire thing.

Can we go back to laughing at the guy for him and his wife crying on camera over getting caught with porn? >_>

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Hey man look I get it you've quoted multiple posts of mine with just some insult or laugh and I've ignored you and I am sorry. I can see you need some attention so here dude I am right here for you what's up. I can be hurt too or whatever. Ouch your various insult posts have hurt me greatly. You have completed your mission dude HELL OF A job well done man you earned it

Its honestly creepy. If it was just normal porn I think its not a problem but the fact its people hes collaborated with and he paid for it. Yeah there's something up.

NeonTentacles posted...

Can we go back to laughing at the guy for him and his wife crying on camera over getting caught with porn? >_>

This lol

Every time someone on CE complains about not being able get a girlfriend just repost this thread

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

You can quote my OG post. That's fine. You can quote anything I said obviously. But I never said "consent is woke". I said "when it comes to masturbating alone in the bedroom, yes I think consent it woke". It is like if I said I like to eat shitty mcdonald food as a guilty pleasure and you went around saying "jenny likes to eat shit!". Again the only possible reason I can think of for being so against just quoting what I actually said instead of paraphrasing is if you think this is comparable to r***. But you SURELY don't believe that so you should be just fine with quoting the entire thing.

"I didn't say consent is woke, I said consent is woke"

????

I posted exactly what you said multiple times. I posted your full post, I posted pertinent parts. I don't know what else to say to you. Again, I never said it was rape, or even compared it to rape. That was you. Again, don't put your insecurities on me. You're defending yourself against an accusation nobody made, which is actually really telling.

Deepfake of his crying wife

ArchNemo posted...

"I didn't say consent is woke, I said consent is woke"

????

I posted exactly what you said multiple times. I posted your full post, I posted pertinent parts. I don't know what else to say to you. Again, I never said it was rape, or even compared it to rape. That was you. Again, don't put your insecurities on me. You're defending yourself against an accusation nobody made, which is actually really telling.

You are making a subjective decision with that whole "pertinent" parts thing. I get that somehow you don't find the whole "alone in the bedroom part" to be "pertinent" for some reason, but please respect that I do find it very "pertinent" and I am just asking that if you quote me, quote me fully. It isn't a hard concept, I don't understand what you are having trouble getting or doing. You do not have consent to quote me unless it is in its entirety, sorry. There really shouldn't be much more discussion to it since I have made it clear what I do and don't consent to, right?

Background_Guy posted...

Every time someone on CE complains about not being able get a girlfriend just repost this thread

You know you're on the wrong side of an argument when someone says "Deepfakes are non-consensual porn and unethical" and you feel the need to start defending whether you're a rapist or not.

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

You are making a subjective decision with that whole "pertinent" parts thing. I get that somehow you don't find the whole "alone in the bedroom part" to be "pertinent" for some reason, but please respect that I do find it very "pertinent" and I am just asking that if you quote me, quote me fully. It isn't a hard concept, I don't understand what you are having trouble getting or doing. You do not have consent to quote me unless it is in its entirety, sorry. There really shouldn't be much more discussion to it since I have made it clear what I do and don't consent to, right?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80330120/971229434

"
Lmao are we seriously trying to wokify jerking off now?

"I ONLY jerk it to models who have preapproved for me to jerk it to them!"

Nah it is my brain and I'll jerk off to whatever I want thanks.'

Now you explain to me what this changes about your view on porn and consent. And while you're at it, explain to me how you being alone in your bedroom changes the consent status of the celebrity in the deep fake.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I mean, talk about going mask off.

"Deep fakes are non-consensual"

"I'm not a rapist! Please, PLEASE believe me!"

How is jenny not suspended yet