21–30 of 197 posts
So are they advocating for tougher libel laws? The photo and video used as examples are pretty obviously fake, but even if it was indistinguishable, what then? Fake photoshopped images are so common now that ppl should assume any highly controversial/compromising photo that isn't corroborated by AP or Reuters is probably fake. Doesn't stop people from believing in fake photos or fake stories, but that's how it's alwa…
But not fake narratives, fake writing or fake news. Convenient that new media celebrities and individuals have greatest audience creation power through video, whereas traditional media still holds sway in print / news. So clearly, understand the origins of the narrative that "fake video" is more dangerous: creator videos are stealing mindshare from traditional media. So of course trad media wants to believe it's dang…
It's a much more straightforward issue of media literacy. The Facebook feeds of most people are littered with "news" from anonymous sources with unknown funders and unknown agendas. This created a major vulnerability in the media landscape that has been ruthlessly exploited.
I know Vox, I know their editor, I know most of their leading journalists. I know their political opinions and their potential biases. I don't necessarily trust them, but I am forewarned of their agenda and forearmed against any conscious or unconscious efforts they might make to influence my opinion. I understand the world view that Fox, CNN, The Guardian, WSJ, HuffPo and Drudge are trying to sell me. If I learn about something from one of these sources, I know how to find a contrasting perspective.
I have no idea who is behind "American Journalist", "Political Feed" or any number of other anonymous "news" publishers operating on Facebook. I'm a reasonably savvy media consumer and know not to give them credence, but the lack of an explanatory framework for their biases makes me much more vulnerable to subconscious manipulation. My psychological immune system hasn't been inoculated against these pathogens, so to speak.
This is a serious issue with stark ramifications and we shouldn't be so glib as to dismiss it as just media companies fighting a turf war.
Do we need digital signing on every image/video in the news?
I like it. Maybe a system similar to certificates used in https. So trusted partners signing photos and videos, maybe news agencies. The partners will be careful because there existence depends on this trust system. We will still have un-trusted photos and videos, but they can be recognized as such. Maybe browsers can add a small default 'logo' to an image or video, like the green lock now next to urls.
Humanity will stand through this.
So are they advocating for tougher libel laws? The photo and video used as examples are pretty obviously fake, but even if it was indistinguishable, what then? Fake photoshopped images are so common now that ppl should assume any highly controversial/compromising photo that isn't corroborated by AP or Reuters is probably fake. Doesn't stop people from believing in fake photos or fake stories, but that's how it's alwa…
Not only the press. Whoever is making the decision what's real is the ultimate censor and can decide which reality the voting public sees.
Of course convincing, largely circulated fakes have a similar effect. But in a largely unregulated scenario it will at least be possible to notice that conflicting versions exist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signing by who?
For news we can assume that it's signed by the journalists and news agencies who created the content. Or who researched the origin and are willing to put their credibility on the line. Edit: To clarify, this doesn't prove if something is real or fake. It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust.
But not fake narratives, fake writing or fake news. Convenient that new media celebrities and individuals have greatest audience creation power through video, whereas traditional media still holds sway in print / news. So clearly, understand the origins of the narrative that "fake video" is more dangerous: creator videos are stealing mindshare from traditional media. So of course trad media wants to believe it's dang…
Buzzfeed and Vox are pushing this message, but they are by no means "traditional media". They're online-only publishers who are heavily oriented towards short-form video and social media sharing. It's a much more straightforward issue of media literacy. The Facebook feeds of most people are littered with "news" from anonymous sources with unknown funders and unknown agendas. This created a major vulnerability in the…
Oil could the equivalent work here where you see reviews from trusted sources on the “health” and prospects for the journalism outlet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For news we can assume that it's signed by the journalists and news agencies who created the content. Or who researched the origin and are willing to put their credibility on the line. Edit: To clarify, this doesn't prove if something is real or fake. It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust.
So no video editing then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like it. Maybe a system similar to certificates used in https. So trusted partners signing photos and videos, maybe news agencies. The partners will be careful because there existence depends on this trust system. We will still have un-trusted photos and videos, but they can be recognized as such. Maybe browsers can add a small default 'logo' to an image or video, like the green lock now next to urls.
How does their existence depend on the trust system? All they have to do is sign videos. They can sign fake videos just as well as real ones.