From Veo 3 to YouTube: violence slips through

deepfake misogyny – A YouTube profile using Google’s Veo 3 generated violent, sexually charged deepfake videos—women begging for mercy, being shot, stabbed, and decapitated—yet the content stayed up for months, with thousands of followers and more than 175,000 views. It was remov

On YouTube, an anonymous channel kept posting for months: violent, sexually charged deepfakes built to look like crime scenes. The profile. called “Woman Shot A.I. ” uploaded videos titled “Japanese Schoolgirls Shot in Breast. ” “Sexy Housewife Shot in Breast. ” “Female Reporter Tragic End. ” and “Headshot AI. ” starting on 20 June 2025 and continuing until mid-September.

Each video presented women in scenes designed to humiliate and terrify—begging for mercy seconds before being stabbed, shot through the chest, or decapitated. While the creator hid behind a single handle, the audience didn’t. The profile amassed over a thousand followers and more than 175,000 views.

What makes the case land harder than another takedown story is that this wasn’t posted from some obscure corner. The violence and explicit framing were generated using Veo 3. a Google AI Studio tool promoted as capable of “delivering enhanced realism …. offering unprecedented control to bring your most ambitious visions to life.” And the content was hosted on a global video platform used daily by millions of adults and children.

The disputed profile was removed only after an independent media outlet. 404 Media. reported on the case and requested a response from YouTube. Until then. the channel’s videos—sexualized violence against women—slipped past existing verification mechanisms both at the point of generation and at the point of upload. The author of the text frames the failure as twofold: first. in Veo 3. which allegedly blocks all prompts that conflict with Google’s policies and guidelines; and then on YouTube. where violent material and sexually explicit content continued to pass under the radar.

The titles themselves read like a deliberate mash-up of intimidation and pornographic fantasy. In the 27 removed videos. a threatening male figure looms over a terrified woman with his back turned to the audience. a gun in his hands. spraying bullets. It’s a template built to be consumed quickly—and shared.

The argument the case brings into focus isn’t new misogyny. It’s the speed with which old fantasies find new tools.

Deepfakes are not just “false videos.” The text uses the term “deepfakes” for AI-produced visuals with no grounding in reality. pointing to an origin story that sits close to “Woman Shot A.I’s” usage. As early as 2017, members of the subreddit “r/deepfakes” pasted the faces of famous women onto existing pornographic material.

That history matters because the panic around AI intrusion often concentrates on politics and the spread of hatred. fabricating false histories. persecuting individuals and social groups. But the text insists on a different kind of harm: using AI to humiliate and intimidate women—producing and disseminating misogyny through deepfake pornography and the revival of femicidal fantasies—with apps and programmes available “at everyone’s fingertips.”.

The story widens from one profile to a broader lived reality. It notes that anyone can take photographs of a woman and. with “a few dollars on their card” and “a bit of malicious intent. ” create and share nude images with friends on WhatsApp. By the time a victim realizes what has happened—if she ever finds out at all—the harm can already be done.

Even when the content is “not actually” real, the text points out that it becomes part of public life through consumption and interaction. Victims of deepfake pornography, it says, often compare their experience to rape—because the effects are not confined to the screen.

In Europe and beyond, the problem shows up in different forms, but the mechanism is consistent: humiliation, intimidation, and control. The book The New Age of Sexism by British journalist and activist Laura Bates is cited for an example from Almendralejo. Spain. where in September 2023 more than 20 high-school girls became targets of an AI attack. Their nude images were created using the app ClothOff and circulated through local WhatsApp groups and online. The youngest victim was only 11 at the time, and many girls refused to leave their homes for days.

The perpetrators were identified as a group of boys—peers—who traumatized the local generation of girls out of boredom, according to the text.

The author doesn’t frame the response as only “punish the boys” or only “blame the tech.” The emphasis lands on something more uncomfortable: apps for undressing anyone—especially minors—exist in the first place. The behavior of the adolescents is placed within a broader social context in which violence against women is treated as normal.

There’s a second, quieter accusation embedded in the discussion of technology itself. The text argues that technology giants feed their machines with information steeped in the dominant values and ideologies of their societies. It connects that to specific failures: facial recognition systems failing to detect the faces of Black women. and undressing apps not working when fed photographs of men. It also points to the design of a new generation of female sex robots described through a promotional RealDoll video. saying the robots will “do it all just for you. ” with an hourglass figure. white skin and personalised nipples.

The mention of a price tag—US$11,349.99 for Tanya—lands like a dare: the text jokes that one can only hope it includes a psychologist.

The dispute over where blame should land comes back to one recurring point: advice about digital danger often comes with a familiar script—tell girls to be more cautious. watch who they accept as friends. avoid sharing photos. The text calls this victim-shifting. It asks why the proposed “solution” becomes silence, restriction, and movement limits—first at night, and now in digital spaces.

The clearest hinge in the piece is an argument attributed to Bates, framed as a reversal of victim-blaming. The text quotes Bates saying: “The great irony here is that the very existence of deepfakes directly proves the ludicrousness of victim-blaming.” It continues that when image-based sexual abuse first emerged. one common response was that women should stop taking intimate photographs of themselves. and then deepfake technology “blew totally out of the water the idea that women who never took intimate photographs of themselves were somehow protected.” Bates is quoted again explaining that police officers. principals. and op-eds now look ridiculous because any woman can have naked photos of herself spread online used to victimize and shame her.

The quote ends by pointing to how perpetrators used the time while women were “policing women” to develop increasingly sophisticated “nudifying” tools.

The piece also argues for terminology that signals the broader nature of the abuse. It contrasts “non-consensual porn” with “revenge porn. ” saying the former acknowledges that sharing another person’s intimate content without permission can involve more than “pure revenge.” It points back to Almendralejo. where in the text’s telling “the desire to gain popularity among one’s peers was paramount.”.

Profit is placed alongside harm as a second axis of accountability. The text cites an industry worth at least US$15 billion, with some estimates reaching US$100 billion.

Then it brings the issue into a high-profile, corporate feedback loop. It describes a case involving the AI chatbot Grok—“a product of Elon Musk’s company xAI”—used to strip actual adults and minors. On New Year’s Day 2026. Musk shared a bikini photo of himself produced using Grok on his social network X. prompting other users to do the same. the text says. “but not. of course. with their own photos.” Only after the media reported a flood of controversial deepfake content did Musk threaten “consequences” for anyone using Grok to create child pornography. Shortly after, the text says, he began charging for the AI content production service. The piece also cites the announcement by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman that ChatGPT will soon have an adult mode.

The author frames these steps together as encouragement of the use of artificial intelligence to fulfill pornographic fantasies “regardless of whether they are innocent or pathological.”

The legal landscape appears next, with a specific reference to the European Union’s recognition of AI risks. The text points to Croatia’s Criminal Code. stating that since 2022 Article 144.a permits one-year imprisonment for a perpetrator who has made sexually explicit content—extendable for up to three years if the recording was made available to a larger number of people.

But it doesn’t pretend the law alone is enough. It says the boys from Almendralejo were punished, but that this was more the exception than the rule. The author adds that even without calling for more criminal prosecution of children. it is “not acceptable” for perpetrators to walk away unscathed when victims are left to the mercy of unpredictable internet currents.

The stakes are sharpened with a figure the text places alongside the issue: around 50% of victims of non-consensual pornography contemplate suicide.

By the end, the piece widens its lens again to the broader texture of online life. It describes the internet as a cesspool “filled to the brim with AI slop. ” contrasting cat videos with disturbing imagery of Donald Trump with Elon Musk’s foot in his mouth. A stricter regulatory framework is called “the first step. ” but the author insists regulation won’t be enough without an ideological and intellectual shift.

Education is still part of the solution—teaching children how to navigate dangerous digital waters, but also teaching “empathy and solidarity,” so it never becomes thinkable to use school photographs of female classmates to create fake pornographic material.

The text concludes with its publication context: it was published by Vox Feminae as part of the thematic series “A Gender Lens for a More Equal Society,” co-financed by the Fund for the Promotion of Pluralism and Diversity in Electronic Media.

deepfakes Veo 3 YouTube misogyny non-consensual porn revenge porn Laura Bates Almendralejo ClothOff WhatsApp Grok xAI Sam Altman OpenAI Croatia Article 144.a Vox Feminae