A senior Trump advisor shared a video that seems to show an NBC reporter badmouthing Republican presidential candidates. It appears AI was used to imitate the reporter’s voice.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      First demand, then sue. Can’t get the suit to court if you can’t show that you tried asking first.

      • ArrogantAnalyst@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Also, even if you’re suing - litigation can take months/years. But the damage is done instantly. I don’t think there’s an easy solution here.

        • Fluke@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s a quote for everything, almost like we’ve been through exactly this before…

          “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

        • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Easy solution is for People to stop being such utter idiots. So, you are correct, never happening.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        You can, the main difference is that if they refuse you can prove stuff like intent to demand higher damages

      • quindraco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s not true. You don’t have to ask someone to stop committing defamation before suing them for defamation.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          11 months ago

          This isn’t any of those things. Also good luck proving it in court. Onus is on the reporter here.

          • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Oh no, the Trumplets found Lemmy.

            Using AI to literally put words in someone else’s mouth when they have a public reputation and a job that centers around that reputation is called defamation. A judge or jury would only need to determine if the reporter actually said those words live, which has already shown to not be the case, then determine damage to their reputation and how much to reinburse them for said damages.

            Since you have no public reputation, I can claim you’re retarded and it’s not defamation. Learning the difference is important.

            • undercrust@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              You aren’t at risk anyways, they’ve clearly demonstrated their lack of intelligence to begin with.

          • BeeRadTheMadLad@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            The second part may very well be true, the Trump campaign team could likely get off scott free using the Tucker Carlson defense. The first part is nonsense though. A fake video that makes someone look like an asshole is absolutely defamatory.

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        11 months ago

        Damages to their reputation as a professional? Which would lead to loss in viewers, which would lead to loss in advertising revenue, which can be a LOT of money.

          • homicidalrobot@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Newspapers, publishers, and television stations have the highest success rate in defamation cases in the US. 16 out of 41 defamation cases in the last two decades have ended in a conviction. While this is under half, if you focus specifically on the categories I mentioned before it suddenly becomes 11 out of 20, which is a (albeit thin) majority of cases. The odds are pretty good, especially since the defendant in this case has a track record of being shitty to the people who will decide a case.