maybe if disclaimed, it’s akin to any cartoon avatar or v-tuber
allows a parasocial relationship with a level of seperation that might be more comfortable for the poster, as they can hide behind a persona
could be important for privacy
likely harmful if not mentioned - disinformation, perpetuating particular beauty standards, catfishing, grooming, etc
but even if disclaimed, it could still add to the general oversaturation of false content and generally degrade the quality of the internet, those inclined not to show their face might choose any number of no face, no voice, no problem
but where is the boundary between filter and fully regenerated face?
this could be anywhere from predatory older person masquerading as something they definitely are not to someone trans/NB/gender non-conforming making minor superficial alterations for gender dysphoria or euphoria, to a large amount of people running parallel lives online
but I guess this is all still happening, it’s just that the tech is increasingly sophisticated enough to replicate what we’ve until now taken more or less as evidence
even very mundane digital image has been degraded as a trustworthy artefact
even older styles of internet content are replicable
so must we now just assume everything online is completely false? an even higher level of skepticism than usual?
what are we to make of this? are image sharing (and soon, video sharing) sites no longer valuable for personal expression?
arguably, filters and supervised ai generation are a form of expression
ultimately, is the motorcycle content any less valuable for it having an altered/false avatar? is it more representative of the poster, or less, or the same amount of value with better marketing/clickability?
this one baffles me really, I’m torn
if it’s influencers generally, doesn’t curation/sponsorship/etc mean nothing if the persona curating it isn’t real? or can the persona still have your tastes and interests in mind, just with extra privacy/protection for the individual