We must fight the deepfake future
Penny Mordaunt broadsworded her way into Britain's collective imagination when she became the unexpected breakout star of King Charles III's May 2023 coronation. We had lost one stoic queen; here was another. Mordaunt bore the Sword of State, the heaviest in the royal collection, for 50 minutes. The world watching, Mordaunt kept her face composed, the image of ceremonial gravitas, strength, tradition and honour.
But imagine that face smeared across violent pornography. Speaking to BBC Newsnight recently, the former Conservative MP and cabinet minister revealed that she had been a victim of deepfake pornography while serving in parliament. Her face, along with those of other female MPs including Priti Patel and Angela Rayner, had been digitally placed onto explicit videos. 'It was deliberately humiliating and violent,' she said.
Deepfakes are the latest grotesque frontier in the battle for digital dignity, where artificial intelligence is weaponised to humiliate, disempower, and violate women's bodies. And the harm inflicted is not virtual – it can be as real as any other form of sexual violence. Headlines in 2013 may have asserted otherwise: 'No harm in simulated rape videos (as long as they are well made), say ministers' ran in the Telegraph. Though this predates the inception of deepfakes by a few years, it is grim that, even today, some still think this basic principle of female autonomy is up for debate. Digital violence is violence, as Mordaunt understands. 'The people behind this,' she said, 'don't realise the consequences in the real world when they do something like that.'
Since the first deepfake was created in 2017, AI-generated, sexually explicit videos have proliferated across the internet. A study assessed that half a million deepfakes were shared in 2023; this year's total is expected to be eight million. Of all deepfakes, 98 per cent are sexually explicit, and 99 per cent of those are of females. This technology is both misogynistic and, as it stands, unregulated. Worse, it is now so sophisticated that viewers no longer realise they are consuming fakes. We stand on the precipice, looking at potentially an entire generation of young males whose sexual understanding of consent is being warped by digital hallucinations.
Keir Starmer's government has shown some willingness to take on issues related to deepfakes. Amendments to the Online Safety Act, which require pornography websites to implement age-verification measures, came into force on 25 July. The aim is to prevent children from accessing explicit material, and thereby protect them. But we might note the unnecessary protractions before the legislation was introduced. (While it is illegal to distribute deepfakes, it is legal to create one. Rishi Sunak pledged to legislate against the production of deepfakes in April 2024 though said legislation never materialised; Keir Starmer pledged the same in January 2025, yet production remains legal.) We may also note that a lot of porn lives outside of traditional porn sites, instead circulating on the murky backwaters of Telegram groups, Reddit threads, and 4chan.
Whatever the measures, we need more of them. AI-driven deepfake porn is a disturbing new theatre of abuse advancing, like all AI developments, at an alarming pace. But technology is made by humans. The scaffolding of our digital lives is designed, curated, and upheld by other people. The sword Mordaunt held at King Charles' coronation was historic and symbolic. Today, her sword is rhetorical: a call to action against the degradation of female autonomy, identity, and safety in a world that increasingly treats women's faces and bodies as public property.
Mordaunt has exposed a frightening fault line in British society. Children are given unfettered access to pornography. Women are transformed into digitally altered chimeras without consent and without recourse. Allowing this to continue is not just a regulatory failure but a cultural one. Technological change is relentless; violence against women is perennial. The internet is hard to contain and full of malicious actors. But we must summon the will to protect basic privacies and dignities. However heavy, we should pick up and carry that sword.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
[See also: Schools need more sex education, not less]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kemi Badenoch says she no longer considers herself Nigerian
Kemi Badenoch has said she no longer identifies as Nigerian and has not renewed her Nigerian passport since the early 2000s. Speaking to Gyles Brandreth's Rosebud podcast, the Conservative leader, who was born in London and raised in Lagos and the United States, said: 'I'm Nigerian through ancestry, by birth, despite not being born there because of my parents, but by identity I'm not really." Ms Badenoch explained she felt "home is where my now family is'. The Tory politician was born in Wimbledon in 1980 before her parents took her home to Nigeria. She was one of the last people to receive birthright citizenship because she was born in the UK before these rules were abolished by Margaret Thatcher the following year.
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's online safety law is putting free speech at risk, X says
LONDON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Britain's online safety law risks suppressing free speech due to its heavy-handed enforcement, social media site X said on Friday, adding that significant changes were needed. The Online Safety Act, which is being rolled out this year, sets tough new requirements on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X, as well as sites hosting pornography, to protect children and remove illegal content. But it has attracted criticism from politicians, free-speech campaigners and content creators, who have complained that the rules had been implemented too broadly, resulting in the censorship of legal content. Users have complained about age checks that require personal data to be uploaded to access sites that show pornography, and more than 468,000 people have signed an online petition calling for the act to be repealed. The government said on Monday it had no plans to do so and it was working with regulator Ofcom to implement the act as quickly as possible. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday that those who wanted to overturn it were "on the side of predators". Elon Musk's X, which has implemented age verification, said the law's laudable intentions were at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. "When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety'," it said in a statement. "It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made." X said the timetable for meeting mandatory measures had been unnecessarily tight, and despite being in compliance, platforms still faced threats of enforcement and fines, encouraging over-censorship. It said a balanced approach was the only way to protect liberty, encourage innovation and safeguard children. "It's safe to say that significant changes must take place to achieve these objectives in the UK," it said. A UK government spokesperson said it is "demonstrably false" that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. "As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression," the spokesperson said. Ofcom said on Thursday it had launched investigations into the compliance of four companies, which collectively run 34 pornography sites.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ignore the bluster: as Netanyahu starves Gaza, the world is turning on him – and he knows it
'No one likes us, we don't care.' It may be rousing on the stadium terraces of south London, as the signature chant for Millwall football club, but as a national strategy it's a disaster. Even so, Israel has become a Millwall among the nations, apparently unbothered by and impervious to the condemnation of a watching world – condemnation which this week gained serious momentum. As one country after another pointed an accusing finger towards Israel, repelled by the starvation, devastation and bloodshed it has brought down on Gaza, Israeli officials offered the now-familiar middle finger in return. When Keir Starmer announced Britain's intention to recognise a state of Palestine, it was swiftly brushed aside by the deputy mayor of Jerusalem as 'much ado about nothing'. There was a similarly dismissive reaction to both France's earlier pledge to make the same diplomatic move and Canada's announcement on Wednesday that it would follow suit. Sometimes, the register is studied insouciance, a shrug of the shoulders; sometimes it's anger. But the message is consistent: we won't budge. As the Israeli ambassador to Canada put it: 'Israel will not bow to the distorted campaign of international pressure against it.' Yet for all the Shakespearean references, the 'diplomatic tsunami' which Benjamin Netanyahu's critics warned of for many years, and which now seems to have arrived, is not nothing. What's more, and underneath the Millwall bluster, there are signs that Netanyahu knows it. More than 140 of the 193 member states of the UN had already recognised Palestine, but that club will soon include major western powers: the shift by France, the UK and Canada means no fewer than three members of the G7 are now on board. This same week saw a special conference convened at the UN in New York, where 125 countries urged Netanyahu to commit to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, as they sought to resurrect the long-moribund two-state solution. All this diplomatic activity has prompted a series of objections from Israel and its defenders. First comes the claim that Israel's critics are appeasers. Witness Netanyahu's tweeted riposte to Starmer, which included the line: 'Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails.' Netanyahu often likes to invoke Winston Churchill and here he is again, casting himself as the Greatest Briton with Starmer as Neville Chamberlain, while his foreign minister is full of talk of Munich and 1938. As if there is any analogy between Nazi Germany grabbing a chunk of Czechoslovakia and Palestinians seeking self-determination in their historical homeland. It's a line of argument insulting in its ignorance. Next comes the charge that the likes of Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Mark Carney are 'rewarding terror', handing Hamas a prize for the murderous series of atrocities it staged on 7 October 2023. But that's an odd way to read what just happened. This week's New York declaration, which was signed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the Arab League, explicitly condemns 'the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians' on that day, the first such official denunciation by the Arab states. Moreover, the document is unambiguous that 'Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority'. The same message comes through loud and clear in the declarations made by Starmer and his counterparts: it is the PA, currently led by Fatah, that they envisage as the recognised authority of a Palestinian state. The leaders can be faulted for failing to explain how this vision of theirs will be realised, but the vision itself is straightforward – and there is no place in it for Hamas. Hard to spin that as a 'reward'. More forceful is the objection made by those campaigning for the release of the 20 Israeli hostages still believed to be held alive in Gaza. They argue that Starmer erred badly in suggesting that the UK would not go ahead with recognition of a Palestinian state if there were soon to be a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel in Gaza. That, the campaigners argue, in effect incentivised Hamas to refuse to do any deal – which would have to include the freeing of at least some hostages – so that UK recognition goes ahead as promised. Starmer's defenders believe this line of argument rests on a misunderstanding of Hamas. That group is not interested, they say, in a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, living alongside Israel. Hamas is not in the two-state business, but rather seeks to rule over a single, jihadist state across the entire land, from the river to the sea. Indeed, given that the international community supported the principle of Palestinian independence before 7 October, to abandon it afterwards would itself be to reward Hamas, allowing that group to derail the two-state solution which it has been determined to sabotage since it first sent suicide bombers on to Israeli buses more than 30 years ago. More powerful still is the charge that these announcements and declarations are displacement activity, gestures that reveal nothing so much as the various governments' impotence. There is something to that: diplomatic recognition will not feed a single child in Gaza. When Starmer's various demands on Netanyahu are blithely ignored, it will only advertise the British PM's weakness. In a way, the move this week tacitly recognises that reality. It is predicated on the notion that Israel continues to act in ways that make a two-state solution less viable. Previously, Starmer had always said he wanted to wait until UK recognition could play a part in an unfolding, meaningful peace process. Now he has acknowledged that there is no such thing, that he risked holding on to a card that was turning to dust in his hands. Better to play it now before it becomes entirely worthless. As Wes Streeting put it, the UK should recognise Palestine 'while there is still a state of Palestine to recognise'. The hope in London, Paris and elsewhere is that, when the Gaza war eventually ends, the parameters of what should follow will already have been staked out. But, of course, Netanyahu is not listening. He made the decision long ago that Israel can ignore everybody – that the EU and the UN, along with every global institution from the World Health Organization to the BBC, can all be written off as hopelessly biased, if not bigoted – with only one exception: the US. Over the past decade or more, he has gone further, writing off half of the US too, choosing to ignore all Democrats and focus only on the Republican party. So long as Israel has the GOP's backing, it'll be fine. That has always been a reckless strategy and this week confirmed the danger of it. For one thing, Israel needs the support of more than one country. The EU and UK may not match the US as arms suppliers, but, economically, Israel needs them as trading partners, on favourable terms. Besides, the US Republican party is not a wholly reliable ally: a substantial wing of the Maga movement is hostile to Israel. (This week, Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first US lawmaker to accuse the country of genocide.) And Trump himself does not entirely share Netanyahu's sweeping disregard for international opinion. He disdains it, but he also seeks its approval: he wants that Nobel prize. Steadily, the Israeli public is coming to see the price of the pariah status that Netanyahu has all but cultivated. A small portent is contained in the trouble currently greeting Israeli tourists in Greece. That may be the best way to understand the vehemence with which Israeli officials sought to dismiss Starmer et al this week, insisting in loud, furious statements that they weren't bothered at all. Increasing numbers of Israelis know they do not have the luxury of being Millwall: maybe no one likes them – but quite a lot of them care. Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
