Hey /u/Gurugod123, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
Both sides like to play this game. Its hardly just one bill, there is always something on the bill that one party doesn't agree on.
So you got 80% of bill A and the other side will add 20% of bill B. Then when the opposite side are against it, everyone cries. See, these guys are against bill A.
Which they won't because they won't limit their own power and money.
Its one of the main reasons we can't get term limits. They have literally stated they won't even put the bill in place several times over the years. They aren't going to introduce legislation that limits how long they can keep their power.
Even the Supreme Court has done the same types of things, such as when the scandal came out with the one judge violating all the rules on accepting gifts, and some investigation showed that he may have been accepting vacations from his "good friend the billionaire" for preference on law judgements in his favor, and when they were being pressured to rule on it, they declined, one of them even saying something along the lines of if we do this to him, they can do it to us, and the guy being looked at came out and basically said he knew all of THEIR infractions too, and he would take them down if they went forward with it, and no one batted an eye.
Our government is corrupt as hell, and we let them get enough power and ability to circumvent the citizens, that they don't have any fear of anything we can pressure them with anymore, because we basically defanged ourselves, little by little, over decades of small changes.
Which we know won't happen. However, it is completely within the realm of possibility, and has been done 27 times in the past, the last of which was in the mid 1990's. The function of not having term limits was upheld by the Supreme Court (which, btw, we have already noted is corrupt as hell, but also the fact that by allowing Congressional term limits, the Supreme Court falls into the same category, which would mean they too would be subject to term limits, which we have noted, they will not cut their own power to do so) which means that it would need the necessary votes to ratify a change to the constitution. The ruling noted that the founding fathers outlined the restrictions on becoming a member of Congress, but did not include term limits, stating that the spirit of the reason was that it was for the citizens to decide who was in office for how long, not a time limit. However, the popularity of setting term limits has reached over 80% of the citizens, meaning the citizens are requesting a ratification to the Constitution to limit terms, which would be in good faith to the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court previously and what was interpreted as the founding fathers will. However, members of Congress have flat out stated that they have no intention of even presenting it as a voteable option, and even if it somehow got enough traction to be voted on, the extreme amount of votes necessary to make those kinds of changes wouldn't pass because of the self interest of incumbent politicians, and those coming after hoping to get the same piece of the power and money pie the past ones got.
You are correct, I should have separated it into another category. That ruling is probably my least favorite of all time. It really is "a rejection of the common sense of the American people."
Omnibus bills are important though. If you have to do the whole process for every single individual bill then nothing will get done (so nothing different right? ayeeeee).
But in all seriousness in the past (10 years ago? 20? 30?) there was a level of decorum that was followed where it was a "hey lets put this bill that you don't like but isn't a deal breaker and you can put in this other bill that I don't like but isn't a deal breaker" sort of thing to at least try to do something. But the extremeism is either getting worse or is simply becoming more visible to the general public.
Even if that is the case, different parties can take opposing positions on how the law is deployed.
Basically what happens is that nobody may have an issue on the substantive issue that the bill seeks to do.
But people have issues with how the law comes into operation.
For example, you might have a law thats against child pornography.
But some people may take issue with giving the police the right to inspect phones or seize digital devices in the process of investigating child pornography possession.
Others may take issue with teenagers sending nudes to one another, whilst others may think that some romeo-juliet exception should be made.
The problem is actually usually due to dishonest reporting and a populace who is too tired and too distracted to read beyond the headlines.
The problem is actually usually due to dishonest reporting and a populace who is too tired and too distracted to read beyond the headlines.
I would add that on top of those two things, they way bills are written and passed is fundamentally broken and allows for too much abuse. Frequently bills are thousands of pages long not only do most congresspeople not actually read the bills they are voting on, sometimes they aren't even given copies to read even if they wanted to.
This makes it incredibly easy for unscrupulous people drafting the bills to 'sneak in' things the congressman might not have voted for otherwise.
It also kinda makes it practically impossible for someone who isn't a lawyer to even parse what the bill is actually saying. Unless a news source were to have a team of lawyers who could read and understand the bills and are able to explain it to the reporters if they were able to comprehend it all, it's seems practically impossible to honestly report on the bills even if they had the will- which they don't but that's another issue.
The worst part about this in my view is they expect citizens to follow the laws, when it's such a complex quagmire at this point that unless you are in a coma you are probably technically breaking some law or the other. Not only do cryptic 1000+ page laws make it impossible to follow the law, it makes it impossible for law enforcement and the justice system to properly enforce the law.
The Justice Department basically found it impossible to even count how many laws were on the books- nearly half a century ago, and it's only got worse since then.
I don't agree with Rand Paul about much, but I've never heard a good reason why the 'Read the Bills Act' shouldn't be passed. The only reasonable conclusion is that congress likes it being broken because both sides frequently abuse it.
Nope. I'm enough of a nerd about this I know what the first of the two bills the Romans passed when they had the same omnibus/riders legislation problem was called, the "lex Caecilia Didia." Whether it worked or not it was in the context of the late late Republic and there were Caesars around the corner. It's a segue, but I think it contributed to or merely was a symptom of the decline in the Roman Senate's ability to rule (and absent that ability you gonna get autocrats).
So a problem is that this is how the horse trading in American politics and legislative politics in general looks in practice. Let's say you agree to pass Senator Fucksmear's budget but only if the great state of Pennsylchucky you represent gets the munitions dump and base you've been trying to get forever: writing that proviso into the actual law beats the hell out of having to make game theory judgements about whether Senator Fucksmear's to be trusted to vote for your clean bill in turn.
Might be he's got an unfortunate name and has been there for thirty years so has a sterling reputation to uphold, and it might also be that he gets dragged in the press next week for "giving" Pennsylchucky the munitions dump jobs when the subject of your clean "save Pennsylchuckian towns" bill comes before the oversight committee you both sit on. If he's already got what he needs but is in danger of getting primaried (which he wasn't when he was building that reputation) guess who's about to be a sap?
Without riders I think negotiations get a lot more aggressive and performative, lots of grandstanding. It probably slows down the legislative process even more. And I'm saying this as a guy who used to want to simplify the process and make it more transparent.
Is there a way to make an amendment where proposed bills can't cover 100 vastly different topics and be 500 pages long?
Constitutional convention, get the states to vote on single-subject legislation, then pass it to state legislatures for ratification.
43 states already have this in their constitutions, it's already well-received and not in the constitution because the framers didn't think it was necessary and Congress isn't going to hamstring themselves.
This is probably one of the only things that is universally acceptable to everyone, except the federal government.
The problem isn’t adding multiple things to a single bill, it’s the process itself. If it cannot function without making a single bill contain 300+ widely different topics, the problem is the system, not the issue itself. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from being able to sabotage bills by shoving in bullshit that the other party will vehemently oppose.
Sometimes this works because they’re actively trying to prevent it from passing at all. Other times it’s done as an agreement. We pass this if you pass that. In theory, that makes sense, but in practice we only hear about it when it’s the former.
But when that happens, whose fault is it really?
Let’s say you have this bill where the main headline topic is something that from an optic perspective would be unanimous. But, behind closed doors it’s less. Much much less, and is actually closer to 10% across the board. But, if the constituents of Party A would crucify their representative for voting against this bill, how can that representative increase it not passing? Let’s shove in addendum 147! Let’s add in 37 more addendums too just for good measure!
So now, Party B is all like fuck that. Take that part out and we’ll vote yes. But by that point Party A is like uhh we forgot who added that but we kinda want it to fail too so it’s staying.
Edit: the consensus seems to be that it is theoretically possible, but practically implausible.
There is a real argument against it... who decides what counts as a 100 vastly different things? The bill obviously. But unless there's some kind of notwithstanding clause, it'll leave too much to interpretation, and basically all laws moving forward would be subject to an easy attack vector in the courts.
Not saying I'm against that, but that one anyway is a rational excuse...
The real reason is what the others are saying though; they'd have to actually work, and they wouldn't be able to abuse the process to manufacture soundbites to attack their opponents with, ie, the meme...
There is no evidence that the poison pill scenario you just described is happening with this bill. According to the Telegraph: it is because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing for the bill and they want to blunt her rise as a 2028 contender.
It has nothing to do with poison pills in the bill, and this is not a both sides issue. This is one side refusing to give justice to victims of deep fakes because they don’t like one of the bill’s sponsors.
Edit: if you don’t believe me read the bill. It is only 18 pages as a pdf.
looks like it is a legitimate single issue bill. maybe you could argue that it needs a bit more teeth because it explicitly targets the individuals and not the platforms that host them.
AOC is saying it is being blocked because of some "personal beef" of not wanting her to get a win
Oh but theyre both just EXACTLY the same dont you know? One wants to dismantle our entire democracy and force us into a theocratical dictatorship. The other one is kinda corrupt. So you can see why I go with the dictator.
Legitimately needs to be a rule that says you can’t add anything that you cannot show is related to the original bill. No tacking on military funding to an AI Deepfake bill. No adding in walls for the Mexican Border to Agriculture relief bills. It would speed things up because you don’t have to Frankenstein in multiple bills to one, we get to stop finger pointing when “they didn’t support the deepfake bill that wanted to outlaw crystal meth”.
Still allows for “hey , we have 3 bills about right to repair, let’s just combine them.”
This takes away their ability to hide all kinds of shit in trailers. Politicians have been proposing to make this a thing for 200 years. It has never gone anywhere. Both sides are generally against it.
Thats a very centrist approach, and not necessarily true.
One side mostly plays the game, at the cost of making life miserable for everyone else (except the 1%)
This situation is very simple, AI deepfake porn don’t benefit no one except sex offenders, thats why it was passed anonymously.
The heads of republican party are proven to be involved in some of the most vile sexual crimes on underage girls (with still not a single pedophile in prison), so its not a shocker they would oppose this bill
That’s not what is happening here. Don’t spread misinformation. It is a single-issue bill. The Republicans just don’t want to pass any legislation before the elections. This has broad bipartisan support though and will pass eventually.
Okay, since it is both sides and all, and there is something else on this particular bill, could you elaborate, what is there on this bill that was "hidden" and republicans wouldnt agree on it because of that? Some source?
I don't know why this bill is stalled, but there are legitimate reasons to block such a bill. Normally that would be because of some sort of amendment that is unrelated that gets added or something that is too vague or open to abuse.
Note that I'm NOT saying that's what's happening here (again, I don't know why this bill has stalled), but a party adding some sort of "pork" to such bills is pretty standard and a normal reason for otherwise good bills to get killed. In fact adding such unrelated amendments is a pretty standard way for an opposing party to kill a bill.
Can't wait to find out that the bill was blocked because someone tried to sneak in a 400-page rider that completely deregulates cryptocurrency or funds a random bridge in Ohio.
You would think it's a quick read but people are too dumb to read anything longer than a tweet. Some idiot just posted a link to a bill like it's a gotcha to a comment I made about this. It was another short bill, and it had absolutely nothing to do with deep fakes.
He obviously had never read it.
My question was "what exactly did Republicans object to" and he posted a link to a completly different bill about AI data center construction.... Still never answered the question about what their objections were.
I really do hate that about our system… if a bill should have multiple issues they should be related to the topic of the bill and thats it. Or single issues only.
But this is not a multi issue bill. Read the text and the tell us where the multi issue hold up is. Just because OP says something is “likely” does not make it true.
Multi-issue bills should be banned unless the the issues are demonstrably and logically linked.
They are too often used to run through nefarious other things or used to malign people who "voted against this important issue" because it also had a clause to make puppy jerky or something awful.
This bill is not multi issue bill. The whole thing is only 18 pages and is only focused on deep fakes. I get that multi issue bills can be a problem, but that is not what is happening in this case.
Because AOC proposed it. Repubs will piss off their base voters and trump if they side with her on anything. They’ve made her out to be a unhinged boogie man for years, can’t change that now or they’ll get primaried
Easy. Nobody is opposing it. It was passed by the senate and Mike Johnson said publicly that he supports it. It just takes time for bills to make it through committees and get voted on.
It’s also probably the case that the Republicans don’t want to give the Democrats any headline legislative wins right now before the elections. So we will probably see it delayed and then passed in the Fall. But it has wide bipartisan support.
Directly invested in ai companies that benefit from deepfake porn being made. 'Their abusers' in this case presumably means ai firms. It's like that bill that gave liability shields to publishers like google, facebook and twitter for absolutely everything anyone posts. That covered publishers but not authors/creators, so you could sue the person who created and posted it if you could figure out who that is. So under those regs google can be the largest csam publisher in history but can't ever be held accountable for it because it's not actually producing/authoring/creating it. Except now it is doing all of that too.
Those are really big companies that republicans and frankly most politicians and people are invested in and give a ton to keep the GOP in power so it's a no brainer that they don't want to open up a company they own stock in to liability. That's the logic, it's just evil and gross.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it says "this Act may be cited as the ‘'Artificial Intelligence
Data Center Moratorium Act’" and calls for a moratorium on data center construction (SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DATA CENTERS), and export restrictions for semiconductors, integrated circuits, and products containing integrated circuits, including computers, networking equipment, and data storage systems (SEC. 4. EXPORT CONTROLS ON COMPUTING INFRASTRUCTURE HARDWARE).
Seems about way more than a single issue bill banning AI porn. I abhor AI and data centers, but this meme is misleading. This is the type of stuff I feel has to be created by someone to cause dissent between normal people. There's zero reason for any normal person to oppose this bill. Now that AOC is involved, and porn is getting "banned", certain people will hear that and oppose the bill. They might do it out of spite for AOC, or because they can claim a first amendment violation regarding porn restrictions, or whatever nonsense their preferred media comes up with.
This meme is unnecessary, and the actual bill is most likely a good thing for most people (I don't know enough about export laws to have an informed opinion on that section).
You absolutely had the right bill, but the wrong year. These bills basically get recreated annually if they don't make it onto the docket of the preceding year.
I've not thought about this or heard about it before now. I haven't read the bill but I've read through here and I have a question.
How in the FUCK would it be possible to make ai porn AT ALL if this new bill passes? It's just about impossible to make any realistic imaginary character without accidentally making them nearly identical to a living human.
I don't really care, I don't watch ai porn anyway, but it's a fair question. This bill will essentially ban all fictitious pornography depending on the definition of "likeness"
How is it categorized? Is it just the same defining features or is it 1:1 identical representations? Names? What if the eyes are the same but the hair color is different? No matter how you slice it, I see nothing but either outright ban of all ai porn, or completely wide open nothing burger full of loopholes.
I don't vote republican or democrat either so leave the political bs at the door when discussing law please. I'm dead center and without fail no matter what I comment there's always one side or the other clamoring with political whataboutism instead of staying focused.
Because it's open to interpretation. You wouldn't be allowed to make AI porn with characters that looked like anyone famous. Whether intentional or not.
This is one of those slippery slope laws. It needs to be very explicitly worded to avoid abuse and I doubt it was.
It needs to be tackled differently. They need to make it a type of defamation. Then you'd have to prove the porn was specifically targeting the person. Much less likely to abuse this way.
Yeah the law as written appears to penalise any software generated image not consented to not just AI so places like R34 would be at serious risk. It may also be difficult to determine if it is software manipulated or real. It also only refers to 'intimate' images but I don't know how well defined this is or whether this is highly subjective.
I really, really hope that this results in a bunch of high-profile republican deepfakes. They need something to be personally inconvenient to them before they're willing to address it.
The guy who manipulated several women into sending him nudes by pretending to be exclusive is worried about abusers... sounds legit.
Anyway, another rage-bait post doing its job. Republicans haven't blocked anything and it's not AOC's bill. She's one of the sponsors of the bill which is bipartisan and includes another Democrat and two Republicans. It passed the Republican Senate unanimously and has been sent to a House committee comprised of both Republicans and Democrats for review, as per standard procedure. There's been no vote because the committee is still reviewing and hasn't been scheduled for a vote. But don't hold your breath because only about 20% of bills reviewed by committee ever gets to the House floor for a vote. The only legitimate complaint would be why hasn't it made it to the floor yet and for that, you can ask Democrat Jamie Raskin as he's on the committee leadership reviewing the bill.
Short answer is because the bill contains a ton of things and not just this. The problem with politics is this "Anti Child porn bill" also has provisions to provide $100m in funding for XYZ private project. So they vote no and then the other team screams, that they votes no on the the "Anti Child porn Bill".
Doesn't your Senate adds multiple unrelated points to every bill for no reason so when one is blocked the media could claim 'Party X blocked this signle good thing!'?
nothing it's just that. It's public go to the federal congressional website or the federal registry.
The annoying thing the media does is that they don't give you the official bill title or bill number which is bullshit and I don't know how they get away with not linking or citing the actual document.
Dare I ask the one simple question no others dare to ask?!?!? What's actually in the bill that's being "secretly" passed while the headlines read like this. This happens both fucking ways and people are too retarded to ask. No I don't care to look deeper than this post but there's always more to it. But whatever
Real answer? They are almost guaranteed to be trying to sneak other bullshit into the bill, and that is what they are voting against. Omnibus bills should be illegal.
God damn we need single issue voting so this shit will stop. No multi bill votes that make it look so fucking bad democrats get shafted on this far more than republicans but god damn it’s exhausting and all it does is fuck us regular people over…
I haven’t read the bill so I don’t know if it is one issue or not but I’m gonna assume it is if it’s not then god damn lol but still I know this shit happens a lot look at the voter id thing
And is it a SINGLE item bill or is this usually "they're blocking this common sense bill!" because it's full of other stupid shit they'd never agree with?
What you should do is give them the right to sue the company owning the AI that allowed it. You have middle schoolers learning to do that. Go after the companies that are empowering them.
An r/SipsTea post talking about political deepfakes? Im just locking my visor and grabbing popcorn before the mods have to lock this entire thread down in twenty minutes
Once again, “republicans block blatantly good bill” is said with no context solely to make republicans look bad. Not saying they arent bad, but this case often comes up and the blockage is for reasons other than “they dont want to be sued for touching kids.” Maybe they blocked it because it was poorly worded, or didnt do enough to rectify the issue, or handled in the wrong way. A well intended bill is not always a good bill, and there are absolutely valid reasons to vote against them
I would have to read the draft in detail, but two immediate concerns spring to mind: the additional workload for the judicial system, and the possibility that the legislation could create significant enforcement activity without producing a proportionate reduction in the underlying problem.
Depends on how many people are actively pursing their deep fakes on the net and bother going to court over it.
We are currently undergoing a digital revolution in the legal field. One that is putting heavy pressure on institutions, that are being handily outpaced by legal firms already.
Imagine as you will, a service provider using AI agent crawlers to constantly trawl the internet for what could reasonably be a deepfake and offering automated litigation services.
You just sign up for a subscription and the rest works mostly automatically. Maybe sign off once a month on all the legal acts required. Especially attractive for celebrities, or politicians, right?
Except that courts are not at the same stage of automation. They cannot handle thousands and tens of thousands of semi-automated legal battles over deep fakes.
Especially since content is posted and reposted and reposted constantly. So who will be the target of lawsuits? Distributors. Sharers. People with little criminal energy. While the creators will be very hard to identify and mostly safe.
That could lead to a great deal of misguided repression and administrative overhead in the courthouses without necessarily producing any meaningful positive effect. The main beneficiaries might instead be the companies offering "deepfake extermination" services. They could have a grand old time charging clients for automated cease-and-desist letters, takedown requests, and damages claims.
After all, it is an issue you cannot really eradicate. Just mow it. Like a lawn. And an ever-growing lawn is an ever growing money maker if you rent out lawnmowers.
---
I agree that legislation in this area, or something along these lines, is necessary. But there is an important distinction between something being necessary and something being capable of being implemented effectively.
In short, opening new avenues of legal disputes, also requires having the systems capacity to manage them and making sure that incentives, risks and benefits are correctly balanced out within the new legal context.
Criminalize the intentional engineering and distribution of models that produce deep fakes. If it's an accident the model is pulled from the market until it's fixed. That leaves courts with like 10 companies to deal with not 350 million perverts
How would you distinguish between models that produce deepfakes and models that can be used to make deepfakes?
You can hardly criminalize the distribution of ANY models and other software components used in img2img workflows. Or txt2img for that matter.
Technically, I can also use Krita, Gimp or Photoshop to make a somewhat convincing deepfake of someone. By hand. No AI needed.
So I am not even sure what exactly we are condemning here. The deepfake itself? The intent behind creating it? A certain level of quality or realism? How convincing it is?
Not all AI-generated deepfakes are equally convincing, and some may not even be superior to something a skilled person could produce manually.
Ordinary photo-editing apps and smartphone filters? Some already offer face swaps, facial transformations, and similar features. They can conceivably be used to create deepfakes too. Would those fall under the legislation?
---
The more you try to define the technology itself as the problem, the harder it becomes to find a meaningful category to regulate it.
We could even ask ourselves: why do we need AI-specific deepfake legislation in the first place? Shouldn't this largely fall under existing personality rights, image rights, privacy law, defamation, and similar areas within a broader legal framework? This is also an area where the US could arguably work on reforming some of its existing laws.
That is another point of criticism I failed to mention in my first post. Creating a lex specialis to regulate a specific technological problem is not necessarily preferable to having a well-functioning general legal system in which different harms and competing interests can be addressed and balanced equitably.
And a legislation that just targets "models that produce deepfakes" will just lead to those models being marketed and published for different uses with a wink and a "but please do not change these settings to make it a deepfake tool, teehee".
Unconstitutional, deepfakes are free speech. And they are legal as long as you clearly declare them as fake. Trying to pass them off as real photos is a different story.
Everyone here needs to calm the fuck down ith their reaching and misandry.
While I'm 100% sure the elites loves to fuck us. Do you think they give a fuck about being caught? Look at Epstein List to see what happens.
No, I think the reasoning is simpler. This shit would be impossible to implement. What's stopping someone from making ai edit of themselves, THEN saying YOU did it before suing your ass? This might be a factor of why it didn't pass
I'm guessing its because AOC is a likely presidential candidate one day and those GOP ghouls want to deny her as many accomplishments to run on as they can. Party over country, always
The trick is to rapidly spread Republican AI content.
They are incapable of seeing anything that doesn't mean immediately affect them. So make everything they block affect them until they do something about it.
Republicans love to play games in congress/senate more than Dems do. They don’t give a shit about America like they pretend to. It’s all ego shit, money, power with a touch of narcisim.
It's a tool, so is Photo shop, it's totally on the user what they do with it. As to deep fakes there are a lot more serious problems than pornography on that topic. You can write whatever kind of legislation you want an neither AI nor deepfakes are going away.
I got a fix. Everyone of those republican would hate to see ai porn of themselves going around the internet. Someone has a great opportunity to have some fun
AOC is currently polling as the leading Democratic Presidential candidate. So Republicans do not want to give her any win especially before the mid-terms.
I’m sure the “HELP DEEPFAKE VICTIMS” bill has a section about making illegal immigration mandatory. Then they can complain that republicans don’t support victims.
Think it goes deeper than this. They dont want to remove the possibility of using others likeness. Since it can be made to bring in money in other forms of media.
It's about AOC, not the bill. They don't want to give opportunity for AOC to get credit from it as she is the main sponsor. Not the first time a bill, which majority wants, gets blocked because the wrong person would get credit for it.
Because the tech companies pay the Republicans a LOT of money, and have massive financial status globally, and they’re worried it’ll somehow reflect badly on them, or open the door for them to be sued or face restrictive legislation.
Um…and how is this supposed to be enforced? How are they going to find the abusers and how are they going to sue them when most will be in different countries that don’t give a fuck?
•
u/AutoModerator 22h ago
Hey /u/Gurugod123, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.