Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 151 posts

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#81

Post by zerocrates »

0x445442 wrote: post #33
bilbo0s wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. free speech vs not so free speech. i guess we're choosing "not so free"? Well, to be fair, it's all free speech. The guy who uploaded the deep fake exercised his right to free expression to do so, and the private company that labeled it a deep fake also exercised their right to free expression. Technically speaking, this is an example of the radically open and unregulated nature of free speech in the private sec…

The private company argument holds no water when they selectively apply their standards to promote their ideologies. At that point they're not an unbiased content platform but a biased publisher and need to be regulated as such. So the government needs to force these companies to decide are they 8kun or CNN?

Say Twitter comes out and says tomorrow, "You got us, we're biased, totally in the tank for the left." What legal or regulatory effect do you think this has? Or that it should have?

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#82

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

ailideex wrote: post #8

I have yet to see a deep fake that was passed of as real. Is there any major incidents of this happening that I'm not aware of?

The cynical side of me says all of this clamoring to stop “deep fakes” from politicians is just a bunch of people getting ready to mount a defense in case a particular video of them visiting Epstein’s island becomes public.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#83

Post by shrikant »

ducttape12 wrote: post #20

You don't need advanced AI to create hyper realistic deep fake news. You just need to take a picture of X candidate, stick a made up quote beneath them, and put it on Facebook. There's enough people on social media who will share that without verifying it.

A few years back (I think around early 2013?), 4chan ran a targeted campaign to superimpose quotes by Hitler onto random celebrity images pandering to specific communities and get them highly upvoted on related subreddits.

They achieved a reasonable degree of success, so I suppose lulz were gained.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#84

Post by pjc50 »

OJFord wrote: post #64
pjc50 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More that they don't care if they get caught. You could run diametrically opposing articles a week apart and not expect the readership to care enough to stop buying the paper. Several papers run opposite stories locally: DMG Media (owners of the Mail) notoriously did this with the HPV vaccine. Irish Mail were in favour, UK Daily Mail were against, on the same day . The Sun vs Scottish Sun is another repeat offender.

A common one (enough that it's a joke) is that red wine (or dark chocolate) either prevents or causes cancer (or heart disease). I can't recall which paper (in the UK), but there was one that run both stories (whichever consumable it was both caused and prevented whichever disease it was) on the same day, same publication! Because it's not even about spin, it's just 'content' getting written and published and read. I…

Ah, you need https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ ! It is of course the Mail. These days they too rely on clicks a lot; the "reach" of the online version is more than the print version. https://www.newsworks.org.uk/daily-mail

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#85

Post by kilo_bravo_3 »

kyrieeschaton wrote: post #68

Of course they didn't restrict themselves to "deepfakes"; they made sure to encompass anything "deceptive", "manipulated" media, "tropes", and "unwanted attention" - which, given every video clip has a start and end point, seems tailor made to allow them to flag eg clips of Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide or Hillary Clinton collapsing in public as leading to an incorrect political conclusion rather than being act…

>Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide

This is exactly why the policy is needed.

If a baby is born with its spinal column outside of its body, a quivering mass of braindead flesh, unsustainable, destined for a slow and lingering death-- it should be terminated.

That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.

People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother.

They just want to stir up shit and get people yelling.

And because they assume that all people are as amoral (or immoral) as they are, people shouting about "infanticide" think that women are rushing to the doctor late in their third trimester to abort healthy babies for no good reason.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#86

Post by iscrewyou »

celdon25 wrote: post #71
kyrieeschaton wrote: post #68

Of course they didn't restrict themselves to "deepfakes"; they made sure to encompass anything "deceptive", "manipulated" media, "tropes", and "unwanted attention" - which, given every video clip has a start and end point, seems tailor made to allow them to flag eg clips of Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide or Hillary Clinton collapsing in public as leading to an incorrect political conclusion rather than being act…

Will they go as far as to censor statements by politicians such as this? https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/media-bias-nbc-news-fact-...

Hopefully. Same as certain individuals yelling innocence while obstructing and tampering jury as well as evidence.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#88

Post by freehunter »

mc32 wrote: post #45
pjc50 wrote: post #35

There are obvious cases of deceptive media, where things are simply made up, but the most invidious ones are just "differential spin" and very hard to pin down. The recent Harry/Megan fiasco has provided a great set of examples on how the same action can be reported as a positive or negative depending on the paper's preferred spin: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markl...

I saw a side by side of an opinion editor of the WaPo. Last year she was saying how important the Iowa caucuses were. This year she said how unimportant they are. The same person, diametric takes on the same subject. The only difference is I guess her preferred candidate didn’t do as well...

Not taking any side here, but something is only as important as the results it provides. If this year's caucus didn't really provide any good results, it's possible that 2016's was very important but 2020's was not.

A less political example: there was a time when E3 was the most important week for the video game industry. It's far less important now.

I don't know much about the Iowa caucus, but it's entirely possible for something to be very important historically and also be irrelevant today.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#89

Post by _-david-_ »

bilekas wrote: post #48
tsukurimashou wrote: post #47

So, where do we exactly draw the line with these things? Considering everything you see on media has been altered in some ways. To me it looks like the same problem as "fake news", how do you define "fake news" considering every piece of news has at least some bias from the person that wrote it. I think it would be a better idea to educate people about these things, just like when "Photoshop" and other similar softwa…

> I think it would be a better idea to educate people about these things This argument is nonsense an innefective. Try and explain to your elders about what a deep fake is, and how to identify one. The movie : "The Irishman" used a lot of the technology successfully to take years off the cast. Applying labels to known false media is not the same as an opinion based 'fact' or alternative facts. So don't come with this…

One problem is determining truth. The person enforcing the rules like this is not objective and does not know everything.

Lets say Politician A implies something without explicitly stating it. If Politician B said that A said what he only implied is B then lying? What happens if A then says B is lying about him saying it.

Is A lying when he said he didn't say it? Is B lying when he said A said something?

I am extremely dubious stuff like this could actually be done objectively. Sometimes A would be accused of lying and sometimes B would be. The rules would not be applied fairly and equally.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#90

Post by ravenstine »

nabnob wrote: post #77

Twitter and other social media companies already heavily censor users that fall outside of the overton window (left or right). And now they have another justificiation to keep doing this, with all the buzz around deepfakes. It amazes me that people who consider themselves leftists are ok with massive corporations deciding what information they're able to see.

> It amazes me that people who consider themselves leftists are ok with massive corporations deciding what information they're able to see.

I used to be amazed, but not anymore. I've come to accept that people will always practice tribalism and will defy any principles to achieve their end.

Post reply on HN