this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026

158 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

85420 readers

3395 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

158

Justice Department seizes websites that published deepfake nudes of famous women (www.techspot.com)

submitted 1 day ago by FTonsilStones@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The targeted women included heads of state, first ladies, royalty, legislators, government officials, journalists, TV presenters, athletes, entertainers, and other public figures.

Investigators said users could browse material by tags including "rape," "forced," "degradation," and "slave." Those categories are a big reason why prosecutors framed the case as abuse and exploitation rather than a copyright or impersonation dispute.

top 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

We didn't need all that Margaret Thatcher stuff anyway

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I thought we didn't yuck people's yums here? I'm glad I saved the series with her and Gorbachev, at least.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I’m just curious what law this violates. You can argue it’s weird or creepy or morally bad, and I’m not going to dispute it, but I’m just wondering how it’s against the law?

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

TAKE IT DOWN Act - Wikipedia https://share.google/vFiJM5binrCoDsn7E

[–] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 hours ago

Just post the real link next time. Every time you use one of those quick share links you are being tracked by Google/Facebook/etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act

[–] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

This seems like it violates the first amendment. This means that it's illegal now to create a satirical image of Trump getting raped by Vance. Or vice versa.

Edit:

Come to think of it, that South Park episode with a naked AI trump is illegal.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 22 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

How about we ban AI from making child porn please

[–] EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip 7 points 9 hours ago

Also, ban AI from also falsely accusing people of having CSAM. Such as what Google and Meta do when it comes to innocent family photos.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 26 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

How about we ban AI?

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

Or that

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Good. Great. Awesome.

But only the rich get protection, the everyday girls and women have to see their artificial nudes on X while trying to avoid their coworkers and classmates laughing about it.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

That's just not true, though. This case involves famous people, yes. But the first conviction under the TAKE IT DOWN act, which was passed in May 2025, was only passed down just two months ago in April. It involved no famous people at all. It was an Ohio man who was using AI to make pornographic images of local people in his neighborhood, adults and children, and posting them online on a CSAM promoting site.

Link to related article: https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local/columbus-man-first-convicted-take-it-down-act-pleads-guilty-cybercrimes/530-fff42eac-4089-49ce-847b-0597c8a8fe39

Enforcement under this act is just getting the ball rolling. I expect there will be much more news of it soon.

[–] AJ95@lemmy.world -2 points 5 hours ago

I hate people that use acronyms for obscure subjects and expect people to know what they are... Now you made me google CSAM you nasty troglodyte.

[+] krashmo@lemmy.world -28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You guys can all make deep fake nudes of me if you want. I'm not saying everyone should feel like me but I promise you I would not care even one little bit.

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So long as you don't use your consent as an assumption to assume others do/should consent, then sure, great, cool, whatever. Can't help but notice your lack of pictures on your account so seems more like theoretical thing as opposed to something someone could choose to do against you.

But schools are literally being blackmailed with deep faked photos of their students. I'm infinitely more concerned for those boys and girls wellbeing that a handful of famous folk with Lawyers and PR teams.

[+] krashmo@lemmy.world -15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm happy to provide a picture if you think making some deep fakes would make you feel better. Also, as I said, people are allowed to be upset by whatever they choose. If deep fakes of you exist and that upsets you then feel free to rage about it all you like. I don't see the point in feeling anything more than annoyed at having to explain that the pictures are fake but, again, that's just me.

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Except there are probably pictures that could be created and made available to your friends and family that you might not feel so comfortable with, and ones that are realistic that others may not be convinced are fake. Maybe pics of you fapping in your restroom at work or pics of you involved in beastiality. Distributed amongst your coworkers, family, social group or church members and then you're fighting for your job or struggling with the fact that some friends or family don't seem100% convinced it's fake and you suffer consequences.

Maybe you don't care, just like you might not care if people take pics of you through you're bedroom window, but that doesn't mean people should be free to do it without your consent first.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I didn't say they should be free to do it. I said the only part of that situation you can control is your own reaction. If people don't believe you when you say they're fake then those people are assholes just like the people who made the fakes. That doesn't mean you should spend your time being upset by it all. That's the goal of the people who did it.

This isn't situationally different than people spreading rumors about you. Those you care about should believe you when you say it isn't true. If they don't then you have a problem that's not related to the situation you find yourself in.

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 12 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Gonna recommend you look for reports of people who feel differently from you on this, read their stories and emotional accounts of going through this, with some empathy.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world -2 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I understand the logic of it just fine. Disagreeing with the response is not a sign of a lack of empathy. I've said repeatedly that people can feel how they want. I find it ironic that those of you purporting to be open minded are the ones trying to control how others feel about this topic.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The fact you think this is only about people's feelings and not the material reality of bullying speaks volumes. Then you go onto gaslight people over your lack of awareness of the situation. Please share this encounter with your therapist or find a therapist before I start decoding your projections for the internet to see.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

There it is again. "Don't act like you're right and others are wrong" doesn't work as a prescriptive when you're doing exactly that in your replies.

Why is it so important to you that I think about things the same way you do? You're tossing out every derogatory pop-psychology term you can think of in an effort to make me conform to your way of thinking and yet I'm supposed to believe that you're the empathetic one. I don't think so buddy. Get over yourself.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Im not going to bully you to prove the fact that bullying works. You do that well enough on your own.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Now I'm bullying you? You've the lost the plot hard man

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Disagreeing with the response is not a sign of a lack of empathy.

Then stop this trolling. No one cares if you personally wouldn't be hurt by something that is actively hurting untold number of women and children. Your personal opinion was never the topic of discussion.

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Toss a pic up here then so we can make some deep fakes.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Here you go. Be sure to share any good ones

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I don't see the point in feeling anything more than annoyed at having to explain that the pictures are fake

I want you to imagine that I edited this image so it appeared to show you sexually abusing children. And later this week you get called in to HR to say you're being let go. Would they belive you when you said it was fake?

Would your wife? Would your parents? Do your parents even understand what deep fake is? Would they wonder if this was an elaborate excuse?

Would your kids understand? Would your kids friends? Would their friends parents believe you? What if the way you found out they believed it was real was when your kids friends are no longer allowed to sleep over Would those parents even take your call so you can explain it was fake?

Would your kids teachers?

Would your own friends believe you? Would your friends let you be around their kids? How much would they be willing to risk that you're "probably" telling the truth and that it's "probably" fake? I could even tailor the image to you abusing your friends children. Thosse friends wouldn't check in with you first, they'd have a terrible conversation with their own kids.

Would your wife keep believing you when your family is socially ostracized? Do you think you would only ever have 1 conversation about it? Would you still want me to send you a "good one"? What if I kept making burner accounts and never stopped sending good ones to your friends, family and coworkers?

You can say I personally am an asshole, and I would be, but that doesn't change the harm a deranged person could do with zero expertise, zero access to you IRL and take all of 30 seconds of effort to create the image. Starting a whisper rumor about you would take substantially more effort and access.

People SWAT strangers just because they lost a game.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 94 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nice, maybe we should also seize any AI sites being used to generate sexual images of minors.

Oh no wait, it’s okay if you’re a trillionaire, carry on.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 6 hours ago

especially a trillionaire that hangs out of with ms "kungfu lady", who arranges "sessions" with minors.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 2 points 19 hours ago

Aaw damn. And here I was hoping that they had seized Twitter.

[–] brem@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Please tell me this applies to Grok

[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 6 points 22 hours ago

Well let's all have grok generate the same images, share them on x and find out.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

"Deepfake" meaning low-effort Photoshop, generally.

[–] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 hours ago

They are full on videos. Thats not just photoshop

[–] dil@piefed.zip 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ive noticed they only take down stuff for politicians not underage actors or celebs or influencers or ppl in general, but anything nsfw about politicians is swiftly taken down even on reddit

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 day ago

It doesn't get much more performative than that.

[–] mgrecca2026@lemmy.zip -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

please shut down OF too, alot of young girls are trying to get rich selling their nudes there

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Consensually.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Or, yk, improve wages across the spread so fewer people feel compelled to go in that direction?

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Waste of resources