I wonder if a better angle would be just the unauthorized used of likeness.

Here it's for actors https://apnews.com/article/california-hollywood-actors-ai-pr... but probably shoukd apply to everyone.

It'd have to make a false statement of fact. The problem with that is, according to the article, Schumer actually did say the words and the video has a disclaimer that it's AI, though it could be more visible since it seems to get partially hidden by video controls. From the article:

> A small disclaimer tucked in the corner acknowledges its artificial origins. ... > The video has bewildered those who watched it online, given that the quote itself is real and on the record for Punchbowl News. In the original interview, Schumer explained that Democrats had prepared their healthcare-focused shutdown strategy well in advance, adding: “Their whole theory was – threaten us, bamboozle us and we would submit in a day or two.”

The part that's false here, the idea that it's a real video, would be hurt by the disclaimer of it being AI generated in the corner. And it's not a misquote of him, so it seems hard to make a defamation case out of this, even if it feels wrong.

Probably not at this point, because he actually said it.

I mean, it still could be - if the video shows him in a compromising position, if it shows him with a sneer that wasn't how he actually said it, or something else that makes it more negative than just the words.

I mean, look, it's still a lie, because it's pretending to be a video of him saying it, and it's not. But it's probably not slander or libel... at this point.

The term is ratfucking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

I'm not a republican or a supporter, but my experience with your request is "But what about...?" Usually something robbed of context, not relevant, or blatantly made up and they don't care. For instance when the GOP Nazi group chat came out, some asked why "The Left" wasn't writing similar articles about people who disrespected Charlie Kirk's death. Malicious bad faith at worst and short sighted ignorance at best.

Only if you think this type of content is organic and made by some people for entertainment or money.

However if you consider that it is part of the information warfare with the western societies, the end result seems to be different.

Guess which class can actually quit

How can you tell who's being sarcastic anymore? So many people here would say that (or other things that sound like parody) completely earnestly.

Yeah it was sarcasm. I hope the downvoters use agents everyday for work.