Body: <p>As per the law of unintended consequences, could it be that deepfakes will eventually have the opposite effect to what people currently seem to fear most. For example, once it is clear that <strong>anyone</strong> can be deepfaked to unlimited degrees of precision, wouldn't we have a situation where in regards to</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>pornography, revenge-porn: no one (including the person being viewed) will actually care anymore. E.g. if a movie star's account gets hacked and nude pictures are released to the public, it becomes a non-story because everone simply assumes it's one of thousands of other deepfakes that already exist.</li>
  <li>fake-news, government propaganda: the general public will demand multiple sources, witnesses before believing the next crazy story. That, I assume, is a good thing as well. </li>
  </ol>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-12T11:56:06.317Z
Comments.Text: regarding your second point: multiple sources are too much work for most people, so they will probably just stop believing anything they disagree with, which most likely will be the real, non-faked, news :(
Comments.UserDisplayName: Oliver Mason
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-12T12:05:21.967Z
Comments.Text: @OliverMason I agree the second point is probably more wishful thinking... reality can be a bummer so why not just do internet searches beginning with "Why my (incorrect, unchangeable) opinion on X is the best" to find some random positive reinforcement on anything.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Oozecandy
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-12T13:19:07.160Z
Comments.Text: Welcome to AI.SE @Oozecandy. It looks like there may be an interesting question here, but as written now, it's not clear to me what this is asking, or what kind of answers you might be hoping to receive. Since we are a Q&A site, not a discussion site, it would be very helpful if you revised your question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Doucette
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-12T13:36:56.967Z
Comments.Text: @JohnDoucette Thanks very much for welcoming me. I see- as this is not a discussion site and I framed the "question", more or less, as something to be discussed, there is no real way to acceptably answer it without including further information on my intentions. I need a moment to think and will try to reformulate... if not possible, should I just delete the post? If someone has a better suggestion, let me know.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Oozecandy
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-12T15:54:53.790Z
Comments.Text: @Oozecandy Yes, you can delete the question. There should be a button under your question that you can use for such a purpose. However, I suggest you reformulate the question in such a way that it can be answered objectively. Moreover, please, try asking just one question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: nbro
Tags: <neural-networks><social><deepfakes>
Title: Deepfakes as "force for good"?
UserDisplayName: Oozecandy
ThreadText: # Deepfakes as "force for good"?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-12)
  
  As per the law of unintended consequences, could it be that deepfakes will eventually have the opposite effect to what people currently seem to fear most. For example, once it is clear that **anyone** can be deepfaked to unlimited degrees of precision, wouldn't we have a situation where in regards to
  
  1. pornography, revenge-porn: no one (including the person being viewed) will actually care anymore. E.g. if a movie star's account gets hacked and nude pictures are released to the public, it becomes a non-story because everone simply assumes it's one of thousands of other deepfakes that already exist.
  2. fake-news, government propaganda: the general public will demand multiple sources, witnesses before believing the next crazy story. That, I assume, is a good thing as well.
  
  **Tags:** neural-networks, social, deepfakes
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: regarding your second point: multiple sources are too much work for most people, so they will probably just stop believing anything they disagree with, which most likely will be the real, non-faked, news :(  
  > **username_0**: @OliverMason I agree the second point is probably more wishful thinking... reality can be a bummer so why not just do internet searches beginning with "Why my (incorrect, unchangeable) opinion on X is the best" to find some random positive reinforcement on anything.  
  > **username_2**: Welcome to AI.SE @Oozecandy. It looks like there may be an interesting question here, but as written now, it's not clear to me what this is asking, or what kind of answers you might be hoping to receive. Since we are a Q&A site, not a discussion site, it would be very helpful if you revised your question.  
  > **username_0**: @JohnDoucette Thanks very much for welcoming me. I see- as this is not a discussion site and I framed the "question", more or less, as something to be discussed, there is no real way to acceptably answer it without including further information on my intentions. I need a moment to think and will try to reformulate... if not possible, should I just delete the post? If someone has a better suggestion, let me know.  
  > **username_3**: @Oozecandy Yes, you can delete the question. There should be a button under your question that you can use for such a purpose. However, I suggest you reformulate the question in such a way that it can be answered objectively. Moreover, please, try asking just one question.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  