The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Deepfakes, the Weaponisation of AI Against Women and Possible Solutions
Open accessAbstract
In January 2024, social media platforms were flooded with intimate images of pop icon Taylor Swift, quickly reaching millions of users. However, the abusive content was not real; they were deepfakes – synthetic media generated by artificial intelligence (AI) to depict a person’s likeness. But the threat goes beyond celebrities. Virtually anyone (with women being disproportionately targeted) can be a victim of non-consensual intimate deepfakes (NCID). Albeit most agree that companies must be held accountable for disseminating potentially extremely harmful content like NCIDs, effective legal responsibility mechanisms remain elusive. This article proposes concrete changes to content moderation rules as well as enhanced liability for AI providers that enable such abusive content in the first place.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Empirical evidence indicates a clear differential impact, with victims of non-consensual intimate imagery overwhelmingly being women, and marginalized groups frequently targeted by political disinformation campaigns (Kira, 2024).”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Kira, 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Misogynistic Glitch? A Feminist Critique of Algorithmic Content Moderation
Golunova, V. (2025) · Law Technology and Humans · doi:10.5204/lthj.3848 · Cited by 3
A Marketplace for AI-Generated Adult Content and Deepfakes
Ghosh, S., DeVerna, M., & Menczer, F. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812321 · Cited by 2
Valente, M. (2025) · Sustainable development goals series · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-07727-1 · Cited by 1
Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project
(2026) · University of Maribor Press · doi:10.18690/um.feri.2.2026
AI Chips in, and the Paths Ahead
Valente, M. (2025) · Sustainable development goals series · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-07727-1_6
Metadata
- Authors
- Kira, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kira, Beatriz
- ORCID
- Kira, Beatriz
- Publisher
- Front Matter
- Published
- 2024-06-03
- OpenAlex
- W6887552406
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- intR2Dok (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- IntRechtDok
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
- Keywords
- deepfakes, artificial intelligence, gender-based violence, women, disinformation, countermeasures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
