111–120 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook alters and manages the information flow to drive its commercial agenda. When it started doing that it lost the defence of being a neutral distribution platform like the mail service.
But people clearly want to see what's popular in their own bubble. Facebook just gives people what they want.
Facebook didn't doctor the video, out of all the content they could be blasted on this is pretty trivial. This is part of a larger trend in MSM to pry eyeballs away from social media and back to traditional one way media.
Facebook knew the video was doctored- it was a mainstream news story for days. They chose not to content ID it, but instead to continue spreading it. That seems deliberate.
On the other hand, there was a super-viral video about this on Twitter that was really obviously doctored. It "proved" that parts had been sped up by overlaying the video on a 7-frame-behind version of the original. Unless you paused the video this desync was only noticable in faster-moving sections, creating the illusion those sections were sped up. Not one news reporter spotted this. People like Captain Disillusionment happily spread it as fact.
If we based our decisions about what's doctored and should be blocked from spreading and what isn't on the media reporting, it'd mean treating truth as lies and lies as truth.
[1] Seriously. You can replicate the incredibly simple frame rate conversion (just blending the frames on either side) in a few lines of Python and get every single one of those artifacts out: https://www.makomk.com/2018/11/16/recreating-that-white-hous... From what I can tell this is the default setting in Sony Vegas, which is what the guy used.
I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper and that it should not be allowed on such platforms, then let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate the…
Facebook didn't doctor the video, out of all the content they could be blasted on this is pretty trivial. This is part of a larger trend in MSM to pry eyeballs away from social media and back to traditional one way media.
Why is Fb not investigating the original sources and propagators of that video?
Meanwhile the president can appear on any video saying whatever doctored or not and it won't matter one bit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>that type of content Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."
What would be the problem of making it illegal to alter video or images of politicians?
Ban SNL, ban the daily show?
I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper and that it should not be allowed on such platforms, then let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate the…
Do they ban SNL impersonations too, Latenight TV mashups? No more Dana Carvey or Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey. Is that what they want?
I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper and that it should not be allowed on such platforms, then let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate the…
>that type of content Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."
It isn't unusual to misrepresent a politician's message. It certainly isn't unusual for partisans to refuse to fairly represent their opponent's central point - either through a sense of mischief, because they just don't understand it or a genuine belief that there are more important issues at stake.
This video is clearly a low blow, and deceptive, but it isn't at all obvious that it is different from lying about something that Nancy Pelosi said. 'Solving' that in any way will likely cause some spectacular partisan fireworks when a difficult case comes by. Whoever gets control of the body that gets to choose what is fact and what is fiction is going to have disproportionate power.
So, what's the normative suggestion here? All content on user-generated websites should be moderated for truth and anything edited, editorialized, fictional, or not strictly representing reality should be removed? Or is the idea that only when there is enough public pressure to take down a particularly popular and deceptive video ... then it should be removed? It seems sort of ridiculous that we should engage in acro…
I think several things can be true at the same time: * It's pretty worrying that our fascist-adjacent president is spreading doctored videos with essentially no repercussions. * Asking FB/Twitter/etc to police videos could be quite a mess in its own right. * This is a pressing problem for democracies around the world. (Note: I don't use the 'f word' lightly. Too many on the left use it freely with "people on the righ…
Google William Randolph Hearst. Or look up the antics in some of the US elections in the early 19th century.
Also, Trump DID NOT SPREAD THE DOCTORED VIDEO. The video he retweeted was undoctored, merely a collection of clips from C-Span. The reason there were no repercussions is because he did absolutely nothing wrong.