I don't think anyone has any delusions that Twitter is private, not even DM's.

Worth noting he has to pay these women lifetime contracts to father his children, many of these women were ex employees at his companies.

Cool motive. Still gross.

Actually, not cool motive. The man is a eugenics supporter and is trying to fill the world with his genes.

The difference between impregnating and being the father figure. He's such a piece of shit.

Sorry I guess I found your comment quite jarring as in "glad I don't have legs for foot fungus" sort of jarring. Either way, hope you super powers to get through it!

Maybe. For photographs, it's definitely not unconstitutional to make it illegal, because people have a right to privacy (4th amendment sort of, and 10th because they're state laws).

For Trump, and for non-photographic media, it's a little different. For one, he's a very public figure. Another, you could argue it's artistic, satirical, or critical of him.

Now if you were doing it maliciously, with intent to harass him personally, then yeah that would probably be considered not protected and carry civil or criminal liability.

For one, he’s a very public figure.

As is Swift.

maliciously, with intent to harass him personally

Is that the standard?
Wouldn't an act of harassment (as legally defined) rather than only intent of it be a required element?

The argument seems weak for a fake image of a public figure.

I wonder if grok could make some distasteful Elon deepfakes.

At what point do these artists (read labels) start suing for defamation (read loss of profits).

How is AI not buried under piles of lawsuits?

Definitely not convicted. That'd be some crazy speed.

However, your insistence that it hasn't happened yet so can't happen is insane. There has to be a first case in which it hadn't happened before.

Funniest part, his genes aren't even that great

Because its not a legal entity. And when it becomes one... well lets just hope it never becomes one.

Criminal fake nudity, wow that's incredibly dumb.
As dumb as anyone who would denigrate someone for having posted their nude body in the first place
But it does make sense that a puritotalitarian would take offense at sight of the human body even fake depictions
But at least that makes the solution clear, generate infinite fake crimes by making thousands of instance of fake nudes of every possible public figure and then absolutely flood every communication medium, every hard drive, ever channel with them
And then watch the state destroy itself piece by piece as it mauls every journalist, librarian, politician,
make it send everyone to prison like some kind of autoimmune statist disease, "state lupus"

This really is the dumbest timeline

your insistence that it hasn't happened yet so can't happen is insane

It would be insane if that was what I had insisted, but that didn't happen. You just made it up.

It absolutely is private insofar as it is a channel between the software running on their end -> user who is operating the software. The lack of end to end encryption does not make it not private it makes it insecure which doesn't speak whatsoever to the issue raised which is that creation of an image by a user isn't likely to be considered publication until they share it.

It's highly probable that keeping people from generating deep fake nudes requires additional law.

Based on what? Who have you seen be convicted of making deepfake porn? Under what law?

Then you're provided a law where it'd be illegal:

Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet?

This seems to heavily imply you don't believe it's illegal until someone's been convicted.