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

111–120 of 151 posts

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#111

Post by SkyBelow »

eanzenberg wrote: post #107
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…

Hillary admitted to collapsing due to pneumonia in her interview on the Howard Stern Show recently. So unless you consider the health of potential presidents "deceptive, manipulated, tropes, unwanted attention" etc., then it's news that ought to be taken seriously.

When combining news about health in a focus on not electing someone unhealthy, especially when the news is focused on a few public incidents that don't indicate general health and lack any sort of general health check, I think it can qualify as deceptive propaganda. Where does standard but uneven news reporting cross over into deceptive propaganda? I think that is quite an interesting question and, at least when measured by the standard we would set when we are on the receiving end of such, quite a common occurrence.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#112

Post by orblivion »

kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #85
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 th…

This post is an opinion. It's a fine opinion, and a compelling point, but it's an opinion. And an opinion shouldn't be the basis of a policy that claims to be from an impartial referee.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#115

Post by Pete_D »

zerocrates wrote: post #79
syshum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Also, Twitter is a privately owned platform, not a government or a public square. This is a terrible argument and people need to stop, at least you did not all use the trite "can't yell fire" non-sense but "they are a private company" is right up there with that. >>Also, merely classifying data is not preventing its spread, It is highly unlikely that this stops at just classification and tagging. I am sure there is…

Hmm... "can't yell fire" is pretty much nonsense, but "private company" very much isn't. The rules for what the government can do and what private entities can are totally different, on purpose.

The problem is that this allows a neat loophole in which governments can sidestep any inconvenient civil rights obligations by privatisation of otherwise public space. For a real-life example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_Square#Occupy_Lond....

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#116

Post by slipheen »

busymom0 wrote: post #14
slipheen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctored-nancy-pelosi-video-hig...

That’s not a deep fake. If that’s deep fake, then simply slowing down a video gets qualified as a deep fake.

The story says that Twitter will be labeling any "deceptively edited forms of media", not just the product of machine learning algorithms.

> Twitter under its new policy will similarly apply a “false”

> warning label to any photos or videos that have been

> “significantly and deceptively altered or fabricated,”

> although it will not differentiate between the technologies

> used to manipulate a piece of media.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#117

Post by AlexandrB »

SkyBelow wrote: post #108
kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

>That is infanticide. Humane infanticide. But we can all play that game by picking very selective definitions despite knowing that is not what the other person means. >They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother. How do you know the intentions of the people making such statements? Is this any better than those who make similar assumptions about those who fight for pro-choice positio…

> How do you know the intentions of the people making such statements? Is this any better than those who make similar assumptions about those who fight for pro-choice positions?

Because there's a historically consistent set of beliefs that goes along with being pro-life that includes de-funding medicare, public health, and SNAP thus letting new and expectant mothers fend for themselves.

Edit: There's a reason the US has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world[1].

[1] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-...

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#118

Post by markdown »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #98
kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

> 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. OK, but the problem here is that Ralph Northam, in the video, does endorse infanticide. There is nothing untrue about that analysis. Sure, there may be nothing wrong with that from my or your point of…

> There is nothing untrue about that analysis.

I disagree. "Man endorses infanticide under x conditions" is the truth, and "Man endorses infanticide" isn't. Half of the truth isn't the truth.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#119

Post by [deleted] »

Bartweiss wrote: post #96
ravenstine wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll label these things "mostly false", a la Snopes.

My first thought was that scope creep from facts to implication is what broke down trust in Snopes. Per their blog, it appears they have several tiers of action but what standard label. I imagine that the first time people see "false" next to a clip that's real (and flattering to their opinions, perhaps), they're going to discount the warning pretty sharply.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#120

Post by BoorishBears »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #98
kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

> 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. OK, but the problem here is that Ralph Northam, in the video, does endorse infanticide. There is nothing untrue about that analysis. Sure, there may be nothing wrong with that from my or your point of…

This is ridiculous, no statement exists outside of context.

> "If you saw someone about to murder a child, would you punch them to stop it?"

> "Yes I'd punch that person"

> This just in: AndrewUnmuted advocating violent assault and battery.

We would never stand for a journalist making that kind of report, why?

Because it's a contextomy of the worst kind that totally twists what was said, and is tantamount to a lie even if "technically" it's true.

Why should Twitter encourage the spread of that lie?

Post reply on HN