I did not downvote you, but I did react a bit negatively to the comment about the language (we know it is chatgpt, at least in part) of the article. I was curious about the prompting, so I used a regular translator to get a feel of the original article, and I feel the original language seem OK (if my translators are half decent). I also reacted negatively to the last sentence in your comment, because to me, it felt like a truth-declaration based on an assumption (the author deliberately did not include...) - however, after translating the original and not being able to find anything about it there, either, I agree your assumption might very well be the truth, but this would still be intention-guessing, and that put me off a tiny bit. (if you read Chinese, all this would be an unfair assumption from my part, and I apologise :)
I would never downwote for such things, personally. I found your TL:DR to be good (including more information as well as replaying the mains of the article is great value, thank you!) to care about small stuff mentioned above. But you seemed to want to understand why some have downvoted, and as I got a bit of negative reaction from the parts mentioned, I thought I could explain my feelings for them, in the hopes this might actually be useful for you.
This article, seems biased, lacking of seeing the rest of the bigger picture problems with deepfakes, and it fails to produce any proof for any of its claims. The picture comparison, is laughable, at best (especially if you have tried to make a perfect deepfake--- it is actually not THAT easy).
There is absolutely nothing new, added to this discussion, by this article. It also seem gender provocative and charged, as the article choose to exclude male deepfakes as an equal probable problem, without even commenting on it? I suspect deepfakes to be just as valid for turning voters, blackmail, false imprisonment, and the likes - and that would include both genders.
This feels like bait/trash journalism, to me - On a topic that is worth a real discussion, in regard to real life problems,
I would suggest instead, if one really is interested in the topic of networking and port scanning, to set up a lab environment, either virtually, or physically.
This is not very costly, unless you need to scan specific enterprise systems that can not be emulated, and are beyond ones price range - to buy to learn.
There are also platforms like tryhackme, hackthebox etc., that offer both free and paid networks, on which one can legally scan.
I would never downwote for such things, personally. I found your TL:DR to be good (including more information as well as replaying the mains of the article is great value, thank you!) to care about small stuff mentioned above. But you seemed to want to understand why some have downvoted, and as I got a bit of negative reaction from the parts mentioned, I thought I could explain my feelings for them, in the hopes this might actually be useful for you.