AI image using free tool
I'm a subscriber to The Parnas Perspective. I receive detailed articles via eMail, although most of the time I listen to his video shorts because they're quick and easy.
I'm using Aaron Parnas as a “generic” example. But we all know this could happen to ANYBODY!
I initiated a conversation with AI. The remarks in yellow are my words (human intelligence). The content not highlighted is AI responding back to me.
***
It seems to me that if Aaron Parnas is circulating misinformation, disinformation, unverified reports, LIES … creating a deepfake video of him … is like the pot calling the kettle black. I would think if Aaron Parnas is WRONG, that's enough to go after him and censor him. But if you can't PROVE he's saying something wrong AND you're envious of his influence … then you have to resort to deepfake videos to because … IT'S A DIRTY TRICK AND YOU HOPE IT GETS RID OF HIM. Yes? No?
Here’s the clearest, most grounded way to think about this — without feeding conspiracy thinking, without defending anyone, and without pretending both sides are the same.
Your intuition is pointing at something real — but the explanation is more complicated.
You’re basically asking:
“If someone thinks Aaron Parnas spreads misinformation, why not just debunk him? Why create deepfakes? Isn’t that a dirty trick used when you can’t win honestly?”
That’s a reasonable question.
And the answer is partly yes, partly no, depending on who is doing what and why.
Let’s break it down.
⭐ 1. Deepfakes are not usually created to “correct” someone — they’re created to damage them.
Deepfakes are almost never used as a “response” to misinformation.
They’re used as:
- intimidation
- discrediting
- chaos creation
- engagement farming
- political warfare
- revenge or harassment
They’re a dirty trick, full stop.
So
your instinct is right:
If
someone made a deepfake of him, it wasn’t to “correct” him —
it was to hurt him.
⭐ 2. But that doesn’t mean the people making deepfakes are the same people who criticize him.
This is where the “pot calling the kettle black” analogy breaks down.
There are multiple groups involved:
Group A — People who think he spreads misinformation
They
criticize him, fact-check him, or argue with him.
They may be
right or wrong, but they operate in the open.
Group B — Trolls, bad actors, or opportunists
These
are the ones who make deepfakes.
They don’t care about truth,
misinformation, or ethics.
They care about:
- attention
- chaos
- political disruption
- harassment
- clicks
These two groups are not the same, even if they both dislike him.
So it’s not “they can’t prove he’s wrong, so instead they deepfake him.”
It’s more like:
One group argues with him.
Another group weaponizes technology for harassment.
⭐ 3. Deepfakes don’t require motive — only opportunity.
This is important.
Deepfakes today are:
- cheap
- easy
- fast
- anonymous
You don’t need a political motive.
You don’t need to be envious.
You don’t need to be strategic.
You just need:
- a face
- a voice
- a grudge
- or boredom
So the existence of a deepfake does not prove that someone is trying to “get rid of him.”
It only proves
that someone wanted to cause trouble.
⭐ 4. If someone could debunk him, they would — and many already do.
There are entire communities online who:
- fact-check him
- criticize him
- call out inaccuracies
- challenge his claims
That’s the normal, legitimate way to respond to misinformation.
Deepfakes are not part of that ecosystem.
They’re part of the harassment ecosystem.
⭐ 5. So your final question:
“Yes? No?”
Here’s the most accurate answer:
✔️ YES — deepfakes are a dirty trick used when someone wants to damage a person without engaging honestly.
❌ NO — it doesn’t mean the people who criticize his accuracy are the same people making deepfakes.
✔️ YES — if someone can’t win with facts, they sometimes resort to manipulation.
❌ NO — deepfakes don’t prove envy, conspiracy, or coordinated censorship.
✔️ YES — deepfakes are used because they’re effective at creating confusion, doubt, and reputational harm.
***
Let me break it down. I'm saying deepfake videos are WRONG! Plain and simple. In the wild, wild west, at least they tried to make the gunfights fair!
You’re
not wrong to feel that way — deepfakes
are
wrong. Full stop.
They’re not “debate.” They’re not “criticism.” They’re not “fact checking.”
They’re fraud,
and they’re designed to destroy
trust,
not to correct anything.
And
your “wild wild west” analogy actually lands:
Even in a
lawless era, there was at least the idea
of a fair fight.
Deepfakes are the opposite — they’re
ambushes,
not duels.
Why deepfakes feel so dirty
Because they break the one rule that makes any disagreement possible:
You have to argue with what a person actually said, not what you can fake them saying.
Once that line is crossed, nothing is real anymore.
And when nothing is real, nobody can defend themselves, even if they’re right.
That’s why deepfakes are fundamentally unethical — no matter who the target is.
And here’s the key point
Deepfakes don’t happen because someone wants fairness.
They happen because someone wants power without accountability.
They’re used when someone wants to:
- avoid honest debate
- smear someone without evidence
- create confusion
- weaponize influence
- manipulate public perception
That’s
not “calling out misinformation.”
That’s information warfare.
You’re also touching on a deeper truth
If someone genuinely believes Aaron Parnas is wrong, they can:
- debunk him
- challenge his claims
- present counter evidence
- criticize his methods
Those are legitimate tools.
But if someone can’t do that — or doesn’t care to — then they reach for the dirty tricks.
And deepfakes are the dirtiest trick in the modern toolbox.
The real danger
Deepfakes
don’t just hurt the target.
They hurt everyone, because they make it harder to trust:
- real videos
- real statements
- real evidence
- real journalism
- real accountability
They poison the well.
That’s why your instinct is right:
