News Update 2/16: The Boy Who Cried Deepfake?

Moderated Content

Stanford’s Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:

• Is the deepfake apocalypse finally here? Alex and Evelyn discuss the recent robocalls impersonating President Biden ahead of the New Hampshire primary and sexually explicit fake images of Taylor Swift that spread on X, resulting in the platform blocking searches for one of the most famous people in the world.

Let’s Get Meta

• Meta will start labeling AI-generated images on Facebook, Instagram and Threads. The company is working with other technology and media companies to develop standards for identifying and labeling AI generated content, but will that be effective?
• In other democracy saving announcements by Meta, Threads will not “proactively recommend political content from accounts you don't follow.” Good thing they disclose what political content means… oh wait.
• Also in full transparency, Meta removed the Facebook and Instagram accounts of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with little explanation of the decision which comes months after the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel.

X/Twitter Corner

• Meanwhile, X is selling checkmarks to terrorists and failing to remove Chinese influence operations.

In Full Transparency

• TikTok is restricting searches in its Creative Center tool, used to track hashtag trends and popularity. The change comes after the tool was used to scrutinize content related to the Israel-Hamas war. The data was never that great, but this is a loss for everyone.
• Don’t worry, the Digital Service Act comes into full force this weekend with transparency requirements, and it’s definitely fully sorted out without legal challenges and with EU country regulators ready to enforce.

Legal Corner

• A federal judge blocked an Ohio law requiring parental consent law from going into effect shortly after technology trade association NetChoice filed a challenge.
• The Kids Online Safety Act was updated and now has a filibuster-proof majority of 62 co-sponsors. The bill could pass the Senate this year, but still faces long odds in the House where there is dysfunction and no companion legislation. Fewer legislation gets passed in an election year, and opponents say the updates amount only to a new coat of paint with the same structural issues in potential violation of the First Amendment.

Join the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on your favorite social media platform that doesn’t start with “X.”

Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.

Like what you heard? Don’t forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!