Deep Fakes, AI, and Symbolic Attack on LGBTQIA+ in the Digital Age

  • 25/07/2025
  • Category: Commentaries
No Comments

Author: Hilman Nurjaman
Editor: Achmed Faiz Yudha Siregar

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, is reshaping many aspects of life, impacting everything from creative industries to business, to politics. One of its more alarming by products is the rise of deep fakes: synthetic visual, audio, or audiovisual content that looks and sounds authentic but is entirely AI-generated. In the wrong hands, this technology becomes a powerful tool for targeting individuals and communities, particularly those, like LGBTQIA+ people, who have long faced discrimination and marginalization.

In Indonesia, the threat of AI misuse is far from hypothetical. The case of the social media account @pixelhelper, which disseminated deep fake videos falsely portraying LGBTQIA+ groups as perpetrators of religious blasphemy, offers a stark example of how AI can fuel social tensions, reinforce stigma, and even provoke real-world harm against vulnerable minorities.[1]

Digital Representation: A Double-Edged Sword

In today’s hyperconnected world, digital representation shapes public perception in profound ways. For minority groups, especially LGBTQIA+ communities, this carries both opportunities and dangers. The same platforms that can be used to advocate for rights and visibility can also be hijacked by bad actors seeking to spread hate. Deep fake technology allows virtually anyone with basic skills to create fake images or videos that frame targeted groups in ways that are degrading, inflammatory, or outright false.[2] For LGBTQIA+ communities, this exacerbates long-standing stereotypes and bolsters anti-LGBTQIA+ narratives that are often weaponized for political purposes.

In Indonesia, where religious sensitivities run deep, the use of AI-manipulated visuals to falsely link LGBTQIA+ identities with religious offenses is especially volatile. The @pixelhelper incident shows how such symbolic attacks operate: by tying LGBTQIA+ identities to moral wrongdoing, they incite public outrage and open the door to both online and offline violence.[3] The backlash extended well beyond condemnation of the fake account; it quickly escalated into widespread verbal abuse and threats of violence toward the broader LGBTQIA+ community.

AI, Disinformation, and the Escalation of Identity Politics

This trend reveals a larger truth: generative AI and deep fakes are now driving new forms of identity-based disinformation. The goal is not merely to spread lies, but to deepen existing societal divisions.[4] In countries like Indonesia, where conservative views and identity politics remain entrenched, AI-generated disinformation has proven to be an especially effective tool for inflaming hate.

In this way, AI is intensifying identity politics. Convincing fake content can mobilize public anger, harden political divides, and even spark physical violence.[5] For LGBTQIA+ individuals, this is not just about reputational damage; it is a real and growing threat to personal safety.

The Legal Void: Where Is the Protection?

Unfortunately, Indonesia lacks a legal framework that adequately addresses these new forms of AI-enabled harm. The Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law does cover defamation and hoaxes, but not the kinds of sophisticated visual or audio manipulations that deep fakes now make possible. As a result, LGBTQIA+ communities have little legal recourse when they are targeted by such attacks.[6] Even worse, enforcement often reflects broader societal biases. Authorities are typically quick to investigate allegations of religious blasphemy, but slow, if not outright reluctant, to address discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. This leaves LGBTQIA+ people particularly vulnerable in online spaces.

Platforms: More Than Just Algorithms, A Question of Responsibility

Digital platforms—Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and others—play a crucial role in controlling the spread of deep fake content. But current automated detection systems are far from effective.[7] Many deep fakes circulate for days or even weeks before they are taken down, long after the damage has been done. Beyond technological gaps, there is a deeper issue of accountability. Too often, platforms prioritize engagement and profits over the safety of vulnerable users.[8] Their ethical responsibilities must be made explicit: greater algorithmic transparency, collaboration with civil society, and firm zero-tolerance policies for hate-driven manipulative content are urgently needed.

Advocacy and Collective Action

We cannot rely solely on legal reform or improved detection technologies to combat AI-driven hate. A broader cultural shift is needed, one that recognizes that AI-enabled attacks on identity are an assault on the very principles of human rights and social justice. Concrete steps must include:

  • Digital literacy for all. Equipping the public with the skills to recognize authentic content versus manipulation,[9] must become a national priority, embedded in both education and public awareness efforts.
  • Stronger AI ethics. The development and deployment of generative AI must be guided by ethical frameworks that explicitly uphold the rights of all,[10] including marginalized communities. This is a responsibility for government, academia, and industry alike.
  • New protections for digital identity. Regulatory frameworks must ensure that individuals, especially those from vulnerable groups, have legal protections when their digital representations are manipulated.[11] Mechanisms for redress, fair enforcement, and stronger digital rights are key.

Conclusion

The deep fake attacks targeting LGBTQIA+ communities expose how unprepared our digital ecosystem is, legally, ethically, and culturally, for the risks of AI-driven harm. If left unchecked, such symbolic violence risks becoming normalized, part of the everyday noise of online discourse.

These incidents also serve as a warning: AI-driven manipulation is not limited to one community. Other vulnerable groups, such as women, religious and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and activists, can just as easily become targets. In an increasingly algorithmic society, the weaponization of synthetic content threatens to reinforce existing inequalities and amplify discrimination at scale.

Indonesia now faces a critical choice: either allow this dangerous trend to continue, or commit to building a digital governance framework rooted in human rights and social justice. Stronger laws, ethical AI development, and widespread digital literacy must all work in tandem.

The tech platforms themselves can no longer claim neutrality. In an era of generative AI, managing platform risk and upholding ethical responsibilities are essential to safeguarding the integrity of our digital public sphere. What is at stake is not just the safety of LGBTQIA+ communities, but the future of an inclusive, rights-based internet for us all.

  1. Lidyana, V. (2025). Akun Pixel Helper Dikecam usai Unggah Video Perayaan LGBT di Kabah. IDN Times. Available at: https://www.idntimes.com/news/world/pixel-helper-dikecam-usai-unggah-video-perayaan-LGBT+-di-kabah-00-3m8tp-4t8js2 ↑
  2. Vaccari, C. & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and Disinformation: Exploring the Impact of Synthetic Political Video on Deception, Uncertainty, and Trust in News. Social Media + Society, 6(1). ↑
  3. Nasiruddin, M. (2025). Kontroversi Akun Pixel Helper: Replika Ka’bah Pelangi. Kompasiana. Available at: https://www.kompasiana.com/mohnasiruddin2480/6830e1fa34777c65c664eaf3/kontroversi-akun-pixel-helper-replika-ka-bah-pelangi ↑
  4. Marwick, A. & Lewis, R. (2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. Data & Society Research Institute. ↑
  5. Brundage, M. et al. (2018). The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation. arXiv. ↑
  6. Human Rights Watch. (2024).World Report 2024: Indonesia. HRW Report. ↑
  7. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press. ↑
  8. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press. ↑
  9. Wardle, C. & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe. ↑
  10. Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), pp. 389-399. ↑
  11. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO. ↑