this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
181 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

86279 readers
3356 users here now

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

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. 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
181
Meta removes controversial AI feature on Instagram after backlash (techcrunch.com)
submitted 1 day ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Producing deepfakes is "basic journalism" to you?

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Of course not, why do you say that?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago

Did they really think people would be okay with being automatically opted in for a feature that would allow other people to generate AI content of them (without notifying said person, at that)?

My mom did that shit and I'm still pissed off. I didn't give her permission to feed my family to the AI machine to produce uncanny valley pictures of us

What's permissible in every relationship is different and I understand why that could be a real violation of trust. Of course, in general and barring some narrow exceptions, none of us have the authority to tell others what they may do with images of us.

Why does this read like slop generated to defend corporate violation of personal rights?

no ur slop

you say "corporate violation of personal rights" i say "basic journalism" agree to disagree

I dunno, you tell me 🙄 we're literally talking about a built-in deepfake feature and you're defending it by calling it basic journalism instead of corporate violation of personal rights.

How is that the same as calling deepfakes "basic journalism"? How is it different?