He doesn’t want people to see or hear him for real, and he doesn’t feel responsible for directly facilitating crimes with his platform, as exposed in a CBS report (interview starting minute 20:45):
…I don’t see how I’m to blame…nobody is perfect. It is hard to police it…
He clearly states at the start he was attracted simply by an easy grab of power and he aimed to get as much as possible, while hiding himself and feeling no responsibility at all to anyone being victimized.
The hypocrisy of the platform operator, the criminal mindset, is palpable. He will only appear in a way he can’t be faked, while feeling no responsibility for profiting off others who suffer from being faked.
At the start of the CBS video, we see the usual framing as having an own set of facts. That seems very much like saying everyone can read a book, print a flyer, or build/repair their own car.
While I appreciate fear that comes from people reading anything, building anything, it seems a bit too much to say things fall apart. Talk like that reminds me of President Jackson inspecting mail and arresting sailors in 1830s to censor abolitionist speech.
I honestly don’t know who is a celebrity so a lot of the videos remain just some person, begging a question why “celebrity” means “factual” at all to anyone. It’s like asking whether a black woman speaking through a white man’s face is an actual power shift, and if so what real (far more important) underlying problem is in data trust.
CBS doesn’t get to the true issue that existing “trust” concepts (e.g. white man’s face is speaking) tend to be completely broken, which is the real story here. Deepfakes expose a lot of falsehoods in trust, which forces us to face societal-level mistakes (systemic prejudices and discrimination).
How should we tell the blind to trust their eyes, for example? Or how do we tell the deaf to trust what they hear? Audio manipulation is even easier than video, as a recent court document reveals for a massive crime.