Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

gizmodo.com

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#31
post #4

While obviously it can veer off into the morbid and obscene, anyone remember "dramatic reenactment" labels on true crime TV in the 90s? (maybe before too) But I do think there's a space for communicating with impactful re-enactment and tasteful "redaction" (censor blurs, keeping things off scene, or jumping forward allowing implication to tell the story). As with all laws, and rules, the enforcement story will tell w…

That should be done without appropriating the voice and image of the deceased without permission.

We really ought to start thinking about better privacy rights for the dead. Seems like it would make sense to tie it to the privacy of the next of kin, or something similar, but splitting privacy rights amongst multiple people can get weird.

I mean it is a bit strange that copyright is protected decades after someone died, but privacy is pretty much gone the moment someone breathes their last.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#32

Black Mirror covered re-animation of loved ones via AI & robotics: Be Right Back Black Mirror: Season 2, Episode 1

One of the best ones of the series if you ask me, and a true insight into the role of human grief.

It's also is an eerily accurate prediction of things now (about 10 years after release) very much possible.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#33
post #4

While obviously it can veer off into the morbid and obscene, anyone remember "dramatic reenactment" labels on true crime TV in the 90s? (maybe before too) But I do think there's a space for communicating with impactful re-enactment and tasteful "redaction" (censor blurs, keeping things off scene, or jumping forward allowing implication to tell the story). As with all laws, and rules, the enforcement story will tell w…

Forensic Files, on the Headline News Network - though they seem to have given up on the 'News' part of their programming recently, shows crime reenactments with narration and comments from people related to the episode's incident in question.

Looks like someone has uploaded some episodes of Forensic Files, as well as other crime-related shows, to YouTube.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. I'm pretty sure that's what the person you are replying to was commenting on. If you're just continuing the discussion and talking about whether or not the policy is a good move on YouTube's part, fair enough. But it kind of reads like you're shifting the goal post. My opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it "matters" or not. YouTube has every righ…

The discussion, as I understood it, was about contrasting dramatic reenactments using actors with using digital recreations (i.e. "what makes these two techniques different?"). danbruc was talking about how the digital recreation in the news recently was inaccurate. I was questioning if that mattered, since I wasn't so much contrasting paid actors with that specific case but instead with what new technology now allow…

I was specifically replying to the following part.

A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family.

In that specific case the digital recreation - if you can even call it that - was quite off and far from depicting what the real victim looked like. It would certainly have been possible to do an reenactment which more closely matched what the actual victim looked like. Therefore I think any argument along the lines that an exact digital recreation might evoke feelings that a reenactment could not does - at least in this specific case - not apply.

Otherwise I have really no opinion on the entire matter. Putting children into an oven is certainly in the range of things that you could find in horror movies. Context of course matters and also the presentation and intention and target audience, but I just do not know anything besides skimming three articles about this phenomenon to properly judge this.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forensic Files, on the Headline News Network - though they seem to have given up on the 'News' part of their programming recently, shows crime reenactments with narration and comments from people related to the episode's incident in question.

Looks like someone has uploaded some episodes of Forensic Files, as well as other crime-related shows, to YouTube.

I'm pretty sure the rightsholder, Filmrise, makes them all available for free. (At least in Canada) (https://www.youtube.com/@FilmRiseTrueCrime)

It's also cool to see the rightsholder (Cineflix?) of Mayday/Air Crash Investigation put everything up on YouTube for free as well. (https://www.youtube.com/@MaydayAirDisaster)

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"True Crime" as a genre is littered with unscrupulous hosts. But not all of it is in the gutter. In fact, some of it produces a public good. I admit I am attracted to these stories and try to choose carefully. If I may - two recommendations: "My Only Story" - an adult man notices with horror that the man who secretly raped him as a school boy in South Africa is still working as a teacher. He quits his job and starts…

> "True Crime" as a genre is littered with unscrupulous hosts. But not all of it is in the gutter. In fact, some of it produces a public good. True crime has a similar problem to, say, commerical fishing. Some of the early stuff was quite good, because the first shows to do it had their pick of complex and narratively satisfying events to be based on. But once the low-hanging fruit was plucked, subsequent shows had n…

There's something to be said for advances in storytelling/graphics/quality. The AI reanimation may be too far, but there are other useful storytelling tools.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#37
post #4

While obviously it can veer off into the morbid and obscene, anyone remember "dramatic reenactment" labels on true crime TV in the 90s? (maybe before too) But I do think there's a space for communicating with impactful re-enactment and tasteful "redaction" (censor blurs, keeping things off scene, or jumping forward allowing implication to tell the story). As with all laws, and rules, the enforcement story will tell w…

I'm pretty sure none of those network TV dramatic reenactments had a 2-year-old actor talking about how their grandmother stuffed them in an oven. I think that would have caused a bit of a stir.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#38
post #26

If you want to see a true crime, try that website on a phone without an ad blocker. Screen-sized ad after every sentence or two.

And I would hate to see the total payload of the page too for those running with 5GB/month limits on their data.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#39
In Russia they have passed a law some time ago that you can never post dead children faces in any mass media (so they pixelate or draw over).

I was thinking that it is most stupid law, but now I don't. Oh boy how right these lawmakers were in light of this new development.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#40
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The demand for true crime has considerably outpaced the supply Soon it will go meta: a serial killer hosts a true crime show to create interesting episodes, and then other true crime shows have an episode on that!

I always thought that aspect was the creepiest part of the Scream movies. Imagine surviving a serial killer, and knowing there are good odds you're going to die at the hands of another copycat killer before you die of old age.

To some extent, those sorts of motifs are a dramatization and personification of death itself. A very real threat that's usually rather immaterial and conceptual, cast as something you can see and touch. And that can chase you down an alley.

Nothing got you today. But something might have! And something definitely will sooner or later. It's always lurking, it doesn't rest, it's relentless in its mission, and it can strike at any time. If it hasn't taken someone you love, just wait, it will—in fact, it'll take everyone you love, eventually, if you stick around long enough.

You see similar use of the unstoppable-killer with marked victims (achieved via copycats and other trickery in Scream, but it's the same idea) for the purpose of representing other fears, traumas, or threats that have a degree of universality and don't tend to entirely go away, as in It Follows. You see this whole thing made perhaps a bit too on-the-nose in works like Final Destination—which is why, I think, you can have endless unstoppable-knife-guy movies and they may retain some appeal, but a little bit of a "cute" very-literal twist on the formula like Final Destination goes a long way; the world only needs so much of that, much as a joke that subverts a particular standard joke-form only works once or twice before it stops being amusing.

The fun thing about the Scream series, when the movies remember it, is that the killer's emulating this fictional trope of an unstoppable and possibly-supernatural-but-not-omnipotent killer on purpose, in "real life", which is good fodder for creative narrative, twists, and well-earned winks at the camera. The movies are meta not because they've arbitrarily chosen to be (though they do choose to lean into it, of course) but because they aren't about these kinds of fictional unstoppable-personification-of-death killers directly, but about "real people" doing the unstoppable-personification-of-death thing in "real life", in imitation of film (even in the first one, before the idea of copycats hunting the survivors entered the picture, there's a particular thing done in order to imitate not just a human knife-wielding killer, but specifically this kind of wholly fictional, unkillable death-dealer).

Actually, as with Final Destination, this is another thing the world only needs so much of, for similar reasons—I'm not sure the market would support a much greater rate of release for this kind of film than we already see. It's not as immediately-played-out, though, less of a one trick pony.

Post reply on HN