Bipartisan alliance against deepfake videos in the election campaign. The government is also working on this.

 “I hope that an agreement amongst leaders for a moratorium on deepfakes targeting opponents during the election campaign might work, but I fear that the new electoral law with preferential voting will lead many aspiring colleagues to do whatever it takes to secure votes. I am proud not to have voted for it, and unfortunately it could even have the perverse effect of rendering any pact between leaders worthless; therefore, a proposal to regulate this phenomenon more strictly may be useful.” The statement by Gian Marco Centinaio, the League’s Vice-President of the Senate, came during a conference at the Treccani Institute organised by the start-up Asimov Ai on Parliament and artificial intelligence. Speaking on a panel alongside the League representative was Anna Ascani, the Democratic Party’s Vice-President of the Chamber of Deputies. In recent months, a proposal she put forward to allow AGCOM to intervene promptly during the election campaign to remove deepfake videos of candidates as quickly as possible was rejected by the majority in the Chamber. A few months earlier, however, the government had introduced the ‘offence of deepfaking’ through the so-called Butti bill. ‘And yet,’ says Ascani, ‘that law suffers from the same flaws as all measures that introduce a new offence which, as such, must first be established before it can be punished. But an election campaign does not have the time for a criminal trial. Something like this can taint the election campaign and, through fake videos, alter voters’ voting intentions. Since the technology exists, without a law, someone will use it.”

As the election approaches, the issue has been addressed informally by the leaders: Giorgia Meloni and Elly Schlein have endorsed Il Foglio’s call for a moratorium on deepfakes targeting political opponents during the election campaign. The Butti bill also stipulates that deepfakes must be clearly labelled, otherwise it constitutes a criminal offence. The question, however, is whether this will be enough. Centinaio wonders about this, whilst Ascani is sceptical: “The difference between a law and a gentlemen’s agreement,” says the Deputy Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, “is that the law is binding: if it is breached, it provides the means to enforce it. We have committed to the moratorium, but I do not know if it will be enough: if this tool is left available, there will be those who use it. Not so much the political parties, but those ecosystems of pages and accounts that are not directly attributable to any political force. “We have a problem ahead of the next election campaign, but we’re heading into it empty-handed,” concludes the Deputy Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies. Centinaio agrees: “We are in favour of the free dissemination of even the worst things in the world, but showing content distorted by AI in a covert manner influences voters and citizens, risking the creation of serious problems.”

Although Ascani’s bill was rejected by the centre-right, even the majority parties are now beginning to address the issue. And it is not just Centinaio who is speaking out. Alessandro Cattaneo, a Forza Italia MP, tells Il Foglio: “We are true liberals; we stand for freedom, but this is only guaranteed if individuals have the means to verify information; otherwise, it all becomes very dangerous. Fabricated content is just that: the exchange of ideas must take place openly, not through fake profiles and fabricated videos. Today, all this can happen very easily; some steps have been taken (the Butti bill, ed.), but I believe we must press ahead with greater conviction”. Francesco Filini, MP and coordinator of FdI’s think tank, agrees: “We have insisted that AI-generated videos must be clearly labelled as such, but it is clear that, as the election campaign approaches, we would support any further initiative aimed at penalising this type of propaganda. We’re on board.” In short, there is no lack of consensus at parliamentary level. But, according to information obtained by Il Foglio, there is more to it: the government is reportedly considering intervening directly on the matter “with strong moral suasion”.