Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#61

Post by adamrezich »

otakucode wrote: post #58
JeremyMorgan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem lies in the motive. News organizations are (not surprisingly) entirely motivated by profit. Breaking even is not enough. Doing well is not enough. Improving profit drastically quarter over quarter is the goal. To do that, you cannot simply "provide news" anymore. You need conflict. You need confirmation bias. You need to create a wild, screaming echo chamber that induces panic and fear. You need conflict,…

Turning 40 this year, so I remember the same media you do. As the Internet grew and options proliferated, I always wanted a particular kind of news that I haven't seen crop up yet. Just a feed. No commentary, no talking heads discussing what something might mean. Just a network which shows video of news events happening. If something is happening in the legislature, I want to watch the legislators doing it. I can get…

Instead of your hypothetical ideal online news feed, we get the opposite: headlines which now attempt to directly program the reader's attitude about the thesis of the article, because nobody reads the article anyways these days (in this information economy), just the headlines. Thus, the body of the article is increasingly useless as a persuasion tool, especially compared to the headline, so the result--the headline which tells you the thesis of the article and how to feel about it in the same breath--is only the logical conclusion to what social media is doing to our brains, and to society.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=and+that%27s+a+good+thing

https://www.bing.com/search?q=and+that%27s+a+bad+thing

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#62

Post by ceejayoz »

colordrops wrote: post #59
ceejayoz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They messaged that Hillary was in the lead before primaries even began based on predicted super delegate numbers. Which was true. > They claimed with over 90% certainty that Hillary would win the election on election day, even when it was obvious to casual observers such as myself that that number was totally wrong. Even election day doesn't necessarily prove that "wrong". 90% chance of Hillary winning means a 10%…

> Which was true. Except that it was not. Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. You seem to be defending the news coverage. Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one?

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote.

So? We consider "x is likely to happen" to be legitimate things to cover everywhere else. We knew which way the superdelegates were likely to break, just as we often know which way the Supreme Court is likely to rule.

> Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one?

Lacking information on the max negative-per-day re: Trump and Hillary, and lacking information on the max overall posts in a day, I have no useful information to evaluate that one. I'd suspect both Trump and Hillary have had more than 16 negative WaPo headlines in a day.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#63

Post by fellellor »

robotrout wrote: post #43
nylonstrung wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we will need to increasingly rely on cryptographic certifications of authenticity. Instead of disproving what is fake it will be about proving what is real

What does that mean? That my camera will embed a cryptographic certification into the video? I suspect people would be able to disassemble a camera and cause it to certify video that originated in a fake news studio.

Yes, the requirement isn't that a piece of media came from some digitally signed hardware, but the process of recording involved (idk) sampling from a real world source.

I don't know how you would do that in the absence of the real world source, since the recording event would no longer exist.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#64

Post by colordrops »

ceejayoz wrote: post #62
colordrops wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which was true. Except that it was not. Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. You seem to be defending the news coverage. Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one?

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. So? We consider "x is likely to happen" to be legitimate things to cover everywhere else. We knew which way the superdelegates were likely to break, just as we often know which way the Supreme Court is likely to rule. > Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one? Lacking information on the max negative-per-day re:…

Media coverage is pretty much the only input that most people have when making a decision on who to vote for. It's a well known phenomenon that people vote for winners. Portraying someone as a winner will heavily bias the population to vote for them. It would be complete denial of reality or intellectually dishonest to claim that media doesn't heavily influence the vote. Why else would billions be spent on media campaigns?

And I can tell you that I recognized the anti-Bernie coverage before I ever saw that FAIR post. I specifically looked for negative Hillary coverage on the WP around that time and was hard pressed to find more than one slightly negative article every other day. I eventually googled on WP being slanted against Bernie and found that FAIR article.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#65

Post by syshum »

colordrops wrote: post #64
ceejayoz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. So? We consider "x is likely to happen" to be legitimate things to cover everywhere else. We knew which way the superdelegates were likely to break, just as we often know which way the Supreme Court is likely to rule. > Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one? Lacking information on the max negative-per-day re:…

Media coverage is pretty much the only input that most people have when making a decision on who to vote for. It's a well known phenomenon that people vote for winners. Portraying someone as a winner will heavily bias the population to vote for them. It would be complete denial of reality or intellectually dishonest to claim that media doesn't heavily influence the vote. Why else would billions be spent on media camp…

>>Portraying someone as a winner will heavily bias the population to vote for them. It would be complete denial of reality or intellectually dishonest to claim that media doesn't heavily influence the vote

While that is sometimes true, and I think the media was hoping that would be true it back fried in 2016, because very few people voted for Trump, they voted against Clinton.

The media claiming every day that Clinton was the for gone winner made people that desperately wanted anyone but Clinton to win to come out to vote in droves. And no it was not because she was a women, it was because she was a terrible candidate the has Elitism poring out of every word she uttered.

//For the Record I never vote R or D, I always vote a 3rd party, 2016 was Libertarian Party.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#66

Post by colordrops »

syshum wrote: post #65
colordrops wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media coverage is pretty much the only input that most people have when making a decision on who to vote for. It's a well known phenomenon that people vote for winners. Portraying someone as a winner will heavily bias the population to vote for them. It would be complete denial of reality or intellectually dishonest to claim that media doesn't heavily influence the vote. Why else would billions be spent on media camp…

>>Portraying someone as a winner will heavily bias the population to vote for them. It would be complete denial of reality or intellectually dishonest to claim that media doesn't heavily influence the vote While that is sometimes true, and I think the media was hoping that would be true it back fried in 2016, because very few people voted for Trump, they voted against Clinton. The media claiming every day that Clinto…

Sure, sometimes these media campaigns backfire. I do think Hillary got more support than she would have without the billion dollar push, but it was still a poorly executed campaign and doesn't negate the fact that media campaigns can change people's perceptions.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#67

Post by ggg9990 »

kelnos wrote: post #50
ggg9990 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking that Bezos wanted WaPo to advocate for Amazon and trash Musk is to treat him as a rich person, not the wealthy person that he actually is.

Could you explain what you mean by the difference in a person who is "rich" vs. "wealthy"? I don't think that's coming through in your comment.

It’s a question of mindset, but often correlated with scale. A rich person is a successful car dealership owner who has a net worth of $50 million, drives a Lamborghini on the weekends, lives in an 10,000 square foot mansion, has a sweet private movie theater, and owns a 60 foot powerboat. His economic activity is focused on consumption. He wants to leave his kids enough money to be rich for life. I can’t give many examples because these people are soon forgotten, but Donald Trump was almost one of these guys until he got some new ideas late in life.

A wealthy person has a net worth of $100 billion, is driven around in a Mercedes S600, has a 120 foot sailboat, goes to private parties at Sundance, values their time above everything else, and is focused on his legacy and place in history. His economic activity is focused on investment. He wants to leave his kids with enough money, connections, and capabilities to become among the great American families, shaping policy and public life for centuries. Think Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#68

Post by untog »

colordrops wrote: post #59
ceejayoz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They messaged that Hillary was in the lead before primaries even began based on predicted super delegate numbers. Which was true. > They claimed with over 90% certainty that Hillary would win the election on election day, even when it was obvious to casual observers such as myself that that number was totally wrong. Even election day doesn't necessarily prove that "wrong". 90% chance of Hillary winning means a 10%…

> Which was true. Except that it was not. Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. You seem to be defending the news coverage. Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one?

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote.

The superdelegates were always going to vote for Hillary. Everyone involved, Bernie included, knew this. You might say that's very unfair and I'd agree with you, but surely the problem here is the Democratic party's delegate system? It seems very odd to blame the media when they were simply reporting the accurate facts on the ground. Should they also refrain from reporting polling numbers? After all, those too can change in time.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#69

Post by colordrops »

untog wrote: post #68
colordrops wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which was true. Except that it was not. Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. You seem to be defending the news coverage. Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one?

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. The superdelegates were always going to vote for Hillary. Everyone involved, Bernie included, knew this. You might say that's very unfair and I'd agree with you, but surely the problem here is the Democratic party's delegate system? It seems very odd to blame the media when they were simply reporting the accurate facts on the ground. Should they also refrain from reportin…

If the media didn't report the super delegates as in the bag, and didn't surreptitiously do everything they could to bias their coverage toward Hillary, and Bernie won the primaries in a landslide, do you really think the super delegates would still cast their votes for Hillary? Do you not see the flaw in this logic?

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#70

Post by [deleted] »

colordrops wrote: post #69
untog wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. The superdelegates were always going to vote for Hillary. Everyone involved, Bernie included, knew this. You might say that's very unfair and I'd agree with you, but surely the problem here is the Democratic party's delegate system? It seems very odd to blame the media when they were simply reporting the accurate facts on the ground. Should they also refrain from reportin…

If the media didn't report the super delegates as in the bag, and didn't surreptitiously do everything they could to bias their coverage toward Hillary, and Bernie won the primaries in a landslide, do you really think the super delegates would still cast their votes for Hillary? Do you not see the flaw in this logic?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN