Earlier quoted context omitted.
mc32 wasn't talking about 2016 vs 2020. It was 2019 vs 2020.
Right, but was there an Iowa presidential caucus in 2019?
No, that first article was written in 2019.
Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
141–150 of 151 posts
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#142Of 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’s all entirely beside the point of whether a gigantic for-profit corporation that runs the de facto public square should be policing true and false.
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
In your scenario Twitter should not be allowed to hide behind section 230 of the CDA. Thus, they could be sued for liable just as CNN was in the Covington case.
Twitter wants it both ways, they want to editorialize but they don’t want to be bound by the regulations in place for news publishers.
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There is though; it’s why the Covington kids went after publishers and not platforms in their law suits.
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
That only motivates companies insofar as you are not going to hold them accountable for illegal content on their servers in any case. But we've made clear to Twitter that they will be held accountable for such content. (That's why the guys and gals in the navy blue windbreakers are, effectively, a constant fixture at Twitter. There's literally nothing Twitter can do about it.) So if you're going to make them operate…
I’m not tracking with you. Who’s compelling Twitter to impose restrictions on what they, Twitter, reckon is hate speech? And why isn’t this entity compelling 4chan to do the same?
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Which also begs another question about the lines around 'fake'. If you put a quote next to a picture of someone who didn't say it, is that deceptive? "Well sure, the entire point of 4chan's stunt was to deceive people". Alright, fine. What if the attribution is just plain mistaken in a misleading way? What if you put an inspirational quote next to someone it applies to, instead of the speaker? If the speaker couldn't…
Many famous quotes are misattributed, taken out of context or simply a person repeating a common trope of the time that has existed for generations before them.
Basically what most consider the famous words ever said by X person would fall under these rules.
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only motivates companies insofar as you are not going to hold them accountable for illegal content on their servers in any case. But we've made clear to Twitter that they will be held accountable for such content. (That's why the guys and gals in the navy blue windbreakers are, effectively, a constant fixture at Twitter. There's literally nothing Twitter can do about it.) So if you're going to make them operate…
I’m not tracking with you. Who’s compelling Twitter to impose restrictions on what they, Twitter, reckon is hate speech? And why isn’t this entity compelling 4chan to do the same?
At the hearings in DC the Senators made it clear that any election interference detected on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, (no one else was dragged into the hearings), would result in significant penalties. This is why there was all of a sudden an enormous push by these companies to start things like "labeling fake news", or "not promoting political content". They are going to be held accountable for it.
Point being, they're going to be held accountable in any case. That's resulted in just an almost shotgun approach to political stuff to the point where they sometimes even shut down legit political candidate accounts. In addition, they're being radically transparent with the government agencies in the form of data feeds so they can never be said to have let election interference content through. (Because they gave that content to the government agents and the agents didn't evaluate it as election interference either.)
So they are no longer masters in their own homes in any case.
No idea why they don't compel 4chan to do the same? Politics maybe? That's just a guess. I'm thinking maybe the politicians have already run all the numbers and they know that the people who frequent 4chan are typically not the 65 year olds who swing elections. So who cares what the nugget heads do? Again though, that's just a guess.
But who knows really?
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#148Would not surprise me when, eventually, browsers are going to mark content as fake. If there's DBs of ad networks, there might also be DBs of deepfakes.
If browsers were in the business of general censorship wouldn't they already apply a DB based blocking system to child porn?
When deepfakes actually become easy to produce, and pervasive, then humans will stop trusting videos in the same way most folks do not blindly trust still images (an image of Trump's head perched on top of a Mr Olympia body would not fool anyone). At that point I doubt browsers will need to take any explicit censory action.
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#149What happens when content from mainstream media gets flagged as a deepfake?
What kind of verification is used to ensure that there are not false positives, or misuse for nefarious purposes?
You know twitter is a company, it has a CEO, a board of directors, and is beholden to the wishes of the shareholders. What happens if shareholders want certain types of content flagged in a way itself is deceptive or is conducive to false conclusions about the status or quality of content? What happens when governments apply pressure? What kinds of safeguards in place to prevent this kind of thing?
How do you secure such a system from becoming a tool of manipulation?
Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not tracking with you. Who’s compelling Twitter to impose restrictions on what they, Twitter, reckon is hate speech? And why isn’t this entity compelling 4chan to do the same?
At the hearings in DC the Senators made it clear that any election interference detected on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, (no one else was dragged into the hearings), would result in significant penalties. This is why there was all of a sudden an enormous push by these companies to start things like "labeling fake news", or "not promoting political content". They are going to be held accountable for it. Point being,…
I see. Yeah, to be clear, I'm NOT for the government getting involved at all.
My take on the DC hearings is it was just a smoke screen because they're scared to death of a trend materializing that non-career politicians can get elected and actually do the bidding of those that elected them. That and their afraid of losing control of the narrative.
As for Twitter, I'm not sold on the damned if we do damned if we don't picture you're painting. I think Twitter has a definite agenda and they'd be policing speech and de-platforming those they don't agree with regardless of the politicians.