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

121–130 of 151 posts

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#121

Post by justizin »

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…

> That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.

It's euthanasia.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#122

Post by blackearl »

bilekas wrote: post #52
blackearl wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and other deceptive media Ok where's the line on deceptive media? A deepfake obviously has concrete criteria to identify it. What about a little spin? Cropping out a piece of a picture or a few seconds of a video? Muting a crucial bit of audio? What about that silly scenario where a reporter goes out in a kayak to show flooded streets and a cheeky passerby walks behind them in knee-high galoshes? Those all seem dec…

> What about a little spin? If the 'spin' consists of a lie, then how could you even consider it true ? 10% false and 90% truth does not result in a diluted truth or half truth: 'Half True' is an oxymoron. The content is take as a whole. If I said to you : "You need glasses with a light on them because at night its always dark" - Thats spin. If I said : "The sun is gone forever so you need glasses with a light on the…

Refer back to a cropped image or video. It's not a lie, it's a truth shaped to fit a narrative.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#123

Post by SilasX »

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…

So, stuff like the time someone copied the smoke over to make it look thicker (albeit very poorly):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controv...

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#124

Post by kipchak »

BoorishBears wrote: post #120
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ev…

I get and agree with the premise, but wouldn't someone punching a murderer to be fall under Defense of Another technically and not assault and battery? I think in that case saying someone was advocating assault and battery would be technically and practically untrue.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#125

Post by vokep »

BoorishBears wrote: post #120
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ev…

Because it gives twitter, not you or I, the sole power of deciding what is a lie and not. Its a power that can be used benevolently, but strongly begs human nature to use it in a corrupt way.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#126

Post by deminature »

Facebook received enormous pressure after the 2016 election to get their platform under control and hired over 30,000 manual moderators to try to prevent their platform from being leveraged by malicious actors to spread misinformation. [1]

It's reasonable that Twitter should begin to be less permissive on their platform too, to get ahead of controversies that might occur on their platform in the upcoming election. Twitter political threads are still lawless wastelands full of incendiary comments from suspiciously bot-like accounts, so clearly something has to be done.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/12/17/google-fac...

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#128

Post by SkyBelow »

AlexandrB wrote: post #117
SkyBelow wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

There are more than one. Some do believe in that, some don't. One thing to consider is that when it comes to abortions, the majority support banning some forms of abortion and the majority support legalizing some forms of abortion, with late term abortions being more in the ban category (and lots of fun with all the sorts of exceptions people want to add). This shows that the stereotypical pro-choice and pro-life views are both in the minority and do not describe the majority.

Yes, some people are against abortion and many programs that stop the need for abortions. But even their reasoning is often based on their own beliefs that they are acting in the best interest of the child.

Also, there is a distinction between supporting laws preventing harmful actions and supporting laws causing supportive actions. For example, most everyone here would support banning killing of 10 year old children regardless of where in the world they live by citizens from their home country, but generally few here would support SNAP, WIC, and medicare, or their country equivalents, being expanded as is to cover all those same children. Does this mean they don't care to protect those children? Such views would quickly lead to the conclusion that either you fully dedicate yourself 100% to fixing every possible wrong or else you don't care about anyone.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#130

Post by iron0013 »

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?

You are once again spreading the lie that there is some magical legal difference between a “platform” and a “publisher” that somehow limits a company’s ability to control what its users do on that company’s own servers. There is no such distinction, legally.
Post reply on HN