Victims of porn, deepfakes & the 8th Circle

By Less

My dad fantasizes about Haila María Mompié and Vania Borges, the Bamboleo girls. 

In his brain, 57 images of mulatas “playing” are reproduced. They are your favorite celebrities . He admires them. That’s why you can fantasize about them. They have become their sex symbols . The latest rumors about the sexuality of “baldness” accelerated the frequency of these images in his brain. Now “overshadow” the wobbles. 

I do not judge. We all do it with our favorite celebrities. It is not a crime. Celebrities are not affected. It’s just a fetish that has a place in our fantasies. 

PLAYLIST

• Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama discover Secret desire for One Another ;  
• Ariana Grande Interracial Gangbang ; 
• Gal Gadot Naked Blowjob ; 
• Emma Watson the Legend spanking ; 
• Angelina Jolie Hardcore Anal Sex ; 
• Nataly Portman loves playing with her pussy ;
• Salma Hayek (From Dusk Till Dawn);
• Brad Pitt and DiCaprio have a dirty little secret at the dark chamber while Tarantino records…

This is easy bait. A clickbait . A spent resource that always works. I imagine that each title has released a storm of images in your head. Maybe you even managed to visualize a plane, a scene. Curiosity – not to call it otherwise – can. 

Take it easy! All this is online . It is not a montage. It is available and is free. Like you and me, millions of people also want to keep an eye on you. But I must confess that I have invented the label of Pitt, DiCaprio and Tarantino. It is not in the Top . Does not exist. But it’s fair: too many girls and zero boys. 

A random post from Facebook says: “A good friend does not share a list of authors to read, a good friend shares a list of free porn sites .” 

My list is short, but it’s cool. I don’t have to use VPN to access its content. As a good friend, I share it: 

• mrdeepfakes.com ;
• adultdeepfakes.com ; 
• sexcelebrity.net ; 
• orgasmatrix.com ;  
• pornhub.com; 

This list is kinda unorthodox, la crème de la crème of advanced pornography. It is the lastest investment of the industry. You have too many collaborators at your disposal. Who consumes content can also share it, be creator and consumer at the same time. 

On these sites one issue was summarized: the construction of false pornographic videos ( deeporn ) of the celebrities that we most appreciate. There they are and their views multiply, they reproduce as if they were chickens and eggs. What a fatality! Fetishes materialize. 

The phenomenon of fakevideos , today deepfakes (deep fake videos) is a serious thing. It is currently a stir. It is causing some disaster on the web. It attracts me, but what can I say, it is not my face that stars online sexual sagas . 

The world does not know about me. I am not a celebrity . I am not relevant to networks. It would not generate controversy or, most importantly, data traffic. In other words, it would be useless. Even so, it would affect me if false content (of any kind) appeared to involve me. It is privacy search. Invasion and appropriation of privacy. 

DEEPFAKE QUICK MEMOIR

Deepfake as a phenomenon emerged in the entertainment industry. As a fiction film, it recreates a reality that we all feel close, that we yearn for (or disdain), but that could be viable. His success was immediate. It was glimpsed from the hacker doxxing scandal (practice of investigating, collecting and disseminating confidential information about a person) produced in September 2014: that access to the cloud of hundreds of public figures and revelation of acclaimed photographs such as Jennifer Lawrence’s, with viscous fluid on every inch of your freckles. 

Some of those images / videos were real, others not so much. However, we decided to believe in them because we aspired to be true, or simply because we cling to the idea of seeing Jennifer Lawrence like that one day. 

That was not an exclusive debut of the Hunger Games girl . He took ball size. They paraded the web porn carpet: Anne Hathaway, Gal Gadot, Emma Watson, Cara Delevigne, Lindsay Lohan, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis, Myley Cirus and the pile-burgundy-handful of Hollywood rikasperrys. Fame and promotion overflowed but without recognition or economic benefits for its interpreters. Normal. Anyone bothers. 

The daddies were not far behind. Famous and “memetic” (from the word “meme”; I just invented it) were also victims. The most striking was Nicholas Cage. Poor. But the Internet does not forgive. You can become his martyr or his dog in a matter of seconds. 

An interesting fact is that 96% of Internet deepfake videos are pornographic and 100% copy the appearance of famous women. What a shame for the girls! We are never safe. Recently, political afframes such as Donald Trump and Barack Obama have also been victimized. Reason why now deepfakes are in everyone’s peephole. His ability to mislead the public is uncontrollable. They would affect not only the image of a ruler, but of his entire campaign. 

The majority of voters over 55 in a country like the United States do not recognize a fake, trick video. For that reason, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have focused on the development of new usage policies to stop their virality. 

However, the laws are contradictory. They take part only for those personalities of interest and their system is not advanced enough to distinguish what is false and what is not. As free social media companies, they face a bigger problem when prosecuting content as fake. Actually, they are not interested in taking the position of deciding if an image / video is satirical or if it intends to deceive its users, or both. Doing so could subject them to charges of censorship or political bias. It would only produce expenses, loss of customers. 

When a video is controversial enough on their platforms, companies turn to the user who first uploaded it. Some of its measures are to close an account indefinitely or charge fines of $ 5,000 or more, depending on the damages caused. In contrast, some fake content creators have found new mechanisms to go unnoticed and make their channels visible. The dumbfakes are the most frequent escapes.  

Unlike deepfakes , which require sophisticated Artificial Intelligence, audio manipulation and facial mapping technology, dumbfakes only vary the speed of a video or selective editing. They are easier to create and can convince an unsuspecting viewer. 

A recent dumbfake of the president of the House of Representatives of the United States, Nancy Pelosi, obtained more than 2 million visits on Facebook last May. His speech for the masses was slowed. Everyone thought Nancy was drunk. 

Another victim: Jim Acosta, a prestigious CNN journalist, had to face trolling on social media when they accelerated the interview he had with one of the interns. He was accused of aggressive. 

A social media user who calls himself @PaulLeeTicks often builds videos of President Donald Trump. In one of his latest editions he added the “concentration camps” sign to the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago. His counterpart, YouTube user @Carpe Donktum publishes videos in support of the president and these are frequently retweeted by Trump himself. @CarpeDonktum alleges that he creates parodies and discusses the notion that his videos are “altered”, because his intention is satirical and the manipulations are obvious. “These are memes and have been on the Internet since the beginning of the Internet,” he argues.

Both one and the other, on condition of anonymity for fear of threats and harassment, began to spread videos that were more simplistic and hilarious. But his shorts have been sophisticated, blurring the line between real and false in a more convincing way for an audience that does not suspect or is familiar with his style.

ART, APPROPRIATION AND DEEPFAKES (STATU QUO)

Social networks have not only radically transformed privacy habits: they have led to new spaces for analysis and experimentation that are a priority for art and artists. Since the creation, the main concerns in the management of privacy are being evidenced, starting from the administrative instrumentation itself and the gray areas in the policies of the big companies that “treasure” our data. Through the works of art, the vulnerability of privacy and the preservation of anonymity, control and management of the information on the web are being critically examined. 

Paolo Cirio and Alessandro Ludovico  

The Italian artists, Paolo Cirio and Alessandro Ludovico, collected random images from different Facebook users to carry out a social experiment. They planned to use them in a fake online dating portal they called Lovely Faces . They came to appropriate a million photographs and thus built the piece Face to Facebook (2011). Each image was a face that was assigned a new identity. 

The project denounced the vulnerability of social profile information. He questioned the privacy offered by their monopolies. 

That did not stop there. Paolo and Alessandro denounced Facebook for violation of the rights of private property of their users’ personal data. Face to Facebook was awarded the international prize of the Turin Share Prize Festival under the motto Cops & Robbers , for mixing artistic elements with an extraordinary talent for activism.

While it remained active, the work received hundreds of references in the international press, eleven legal threats, five death threats and several letters from Facebook’s lawyers. 

0100101110101101.org 

The duo of brothers Franco and Eva Mattes, founders of the net.art movement and known as 0100101110101101.org, broadcast live the content of their own desktop for 48 minutes , exposing their private information to the public. 

The piece was called For Internet Use Only (2016), and was the precedent for a project known as Life Sharing (2000-2003), based on the idea file sharing = life sharing. 

Life Sharing gave access to the content of the duo’s personal computer for 3 years. It is recognized as one of the artistic works that has approached in a more categorical way the exploration of the limits between the public and private sphere in the digital realm. 

Xvala

A week after the filtering of the images and sexual videos of several celebrities, the artist Xvala – specialized in trash content of celebrities – announced the exhibition No Delete (2014) in the Cory Allen Contemporary Art (CACA) gallery in Florida. The exhibition displayed a selection of those files, printed on large canvases. 

In addition, Xvala shifted the issue of privacy to himself. He also focused the exhibition on his privacy: specifically his manly member. 

Too bad that, like his artistic career, Xvala’s challenge passed without sorrow or glory through the history of art. His work patented a distancing from any critical attempt or real ethical debate about freedom of expression and privacy. 

Bill Posters 

“Imagine this for a second: a man, with total control of the data stolen from billions of people, all his secrets, his lives, his future… I owe everything to Specter. Specter showed me that whoever controls the data controls the future. ” 

These same words in the mouth of the infamous Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, in his most controversial viral video. Devoured by his own son, Mark also became deepfake cannon fodder. 

The short was published on Instagram and created by the English artist Bill Posters with the advertising company Canny. It consisted of an act of protest towards Facebook following criticism for not eliminating the video of the president of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. The effective proof of its ineffective policy to disappear erroneous information on its platform. 

Facebook had no choice. Instagram, a platform owned by him, was to treat Zuckerberg’s fake as Nancy Pelosi’s video. Filter it as fake, but not remove it. 

Al deepfake Mark other characters like Donald Trump Marina Abramovic, Kim Kardashian, Freddy Mercury and Marcel Duchamp joined. All equal of exquisite. They appeared as part of the Specter installation on the Sheffield Site Gallery at the “Alternate Realities” festival, last June. 

As a project, Specter questioned the use of our data in social networks, privacy, online advertising and manipulation. Bill Posters called attention to the mismanagement and use of data, the risks not only to individual rights but also to the functioning of the democratic system. Their deepfakes made use of the construction of false online advertising through celebrities . 

These artists address the complexity of the profound changes and transformations that social networks are exerting in our conception of intimacy and privacy. Its objective is to point out how the boundaries between the public and the private explode, the manipulation and control of the information, the unpublished constructions of the self and the authenticity in the self-representation, beyond the idealized version of ourselves that we offer in the networks . 

Some resist censorship. Others seek to join the show. I understand in each gesture the purpose of evidencing the risks we assume when exposing one’s identity. Encourage the search for a balance between the desire for recognition and the responsibility to manage our visibility. 

CUBAN DEEPFAKE  : @LIL_PUNETA

Lil Puñeta is a mammal. It is not a robot. He is not a descendant of SIRI or any other Artificial Intelligence, even if he wants to impersonate one. 

Lil Puñeta is a Man or a Woman. Perhaps the feminine voice that was scarce on the payroll of Magela Garcés artists . Maybe it is both. He sure likes to transvest. That’s fun, as much or more than Lil. I suspect he founded his own party and has reserved admission rights. He is not a collective, otherwise he would be frustrated to keep his identity secret.  

Either way, a gender reading would not decipher who it is. Lil is an Irish origin female name (meaning lily or lily) but, what it does not matter. Everyone wants Lil to be a man, a male artist. The expectation is that, being a woman, Lil Papaya, Lil María, Lil Cachonda will be her name … But never Lil Puñeta. Sounds bastard. And here only has the creators are the bastard . 

I like the idea that Lil can be Cuban-American. Lil is also short for little . It is a very common reference that American rappers use when they are young or physically small. The “whore” does sound cubanishe . The lil thing would be because of his stature, or because he is just beginning his career, or simply because he will be a little son of a bitch!

The point is that Lil makes beef (battle style between rappers). That was how it came to the fore. Lil put together tremendous shooter. I detect that Lil is a possible mop. The character rags (clean or dirty). It fits me. Until the day I took one from me. 

I like to believe that, as a ragman, Lil is dedicated to the business of the tank. That is necessary, in such a bland environment. The tiradera is a business in which both parties always benefit. The one who throws, who gets thrown away. It is a round business . Generate audience, promotion. I do not want to see evil in the gesture of Mr (a). Whore. 

Lil Puñeta is the commissioned work that the Cuban art scene was waiting for. I waited for Lil and here it is. 

There are good artists in Cuba, yes, but I don’t have any like Bill Posters or the Matte brothers, I told myself. My text about the deepfakes phenomenon would be crap if I didn’t have a Cuban artist to represent it. I would not be satisfied or complete, as well as Magela Garcés’ exposition in The Eighth Circle . 

Because to date Lil is the only Cuban artist who has managed to flirt with the malice of deepfake . He is aware of the phenomenon and that is why I discharge him. 

Even so, it seems to me that Hacking # 1 came humpback, just like a deepfake arrives . Altered, manipulated, but credible. Judging Lil’s piece by its current level or by being one of a kind in our context, at least to date, is not enough. The falsehood is trending but it has always existed, as Magela warns. In any case it has been “upgraded” with artificial intelligence, with high-tech . 

However, the Hacking experience perfectly summarizes and channels how it works, what this type of product currently generates. 

Particularly I was off the hook, although only for five minutes. The feelings found were shame on others and morbid. The conversations belonged to some of my idols, my followers, the near and distant partners . I fantasized about the probability that all this was real, even when I was aware of the assembly. Maybe because my name didn’t appear. 

I can only say it was a delicious trip. I do not say it with malice. I think Lil could have messed with other characters. That’s what deepfakes are about . It seems to me that he could have messed with our political figures. Which, however, would not have been so alarming. It would be a dog that we would all award to LuisMa or Hamlet Lavastida (for me, one of the possible candidates behind Lil Puñeta). The piece is consistent within the curatorial criterion of The Eighth Circle , as it refers to falsehood, simulation, authorship, copying, originality in art.  

Lil played it. I imagine he knows what he gets into. Legal issues do not currently cover deepfakes . But Cuba is a legal paradise to develop all this. Everything happens here and nothing happens. The possible problems that Lil Puñeta will face are institutional: with artists, critics and curators who do not understand it, who are not prepared for their game. 

Lil is as violent as Bill, the Mattes brothers, Paolo and Cirio. Maybe that takes its toll on our guild. Out of here, I don’t think its content transcends. It’s the 15 minutes Warhol was talking about! If my name had appeared in his work, I would have taken a selfie and shared it on my social networks. That way I would also enjoy my moment of fame.

I think that artists like Lil “steal” and / or manipulate the content that “their victims” have already decided that they are capable of showing publicly. It is the users themselves who (self) expose themselves – consciously or unconsciously – when they publish their images or write their criteria on social platforms. It is what it is! Privacy in these practices is not linked to the exposure of certain types of information, but to control over who knows what about you. 

Seeing is believing

Misinformation is increasingly powerful in our levels of political and social polarization. We are all vulnerable to it. Normally we tend to think that perception, as evidenced by our eyes and ears, provides sufficient justification to believe that something is real. However, your senses could betray you. In comparison, a testimony would provide some reliability, but never as perception. 

Until a while ago, video evidence worked more or less like perception. He believed in the relevance of the camera, which is almost like seeing with your own eyes. If you trusted your own perception, you had the same reason to trust the video. Fiction at the audiovisual level was exclusive to Hollywood. But now the Internet disputes it. 

With the emergence of deepfake technology , the ability to produce fake videos is almost as widespread as the ability to lie. Therefore, we should think of images less as a perception and more as a testimony of a reality. Trust a video, an image, a content, if you trust the person or site that produces it. 

Or just don’t scratch. Enjoy the process. Believe just what you want. 

Originally published in Hypermedia magazi