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

Post by earenndil » Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 4:52 AM UTC

adamson wrote: post #38

walrus01 wrote: post #30

Here's what I'm worried about with fake video. If you think fake Russian bot news in US politics is a problem, consider the following. Facebook is increasingly populated with a large number of new users from developing nations who are basically one or two generations removed from subsistence farming. The level of naivete and rumor spreading that you can see in Pakistani Facebook is alarming. Now combine nation-state…

Why should we assume that being one or two generations removed from subsistence farming implies that a user is naive? There are plenty of naive persons worldwide who grew up in middle class households in the West who are just as naive. I don't think the connection is that clean.

Post by Uhhrrr » Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 8:25 AM UTC

s_m_t wrote: post #36

Uhhrrr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember when you had to really pay attention to catch bias in the news. I wonder about this. Part of the reason you had to pay attention was that there were far fewer information sources to check against. No one was reporting on Martin Luther King's affairs, and no one was reporting on the FBI's attempts to get MLK to commit suicide over them either.

That strikes me as some sort of backwards reasoning, people had to literally break into FBI offices and steal documents so that those things would come to be known. You can't really fault the news for not reporting on something they had, unless I'm mistaken, absolutely no way of knowing unless they were to, y'know, infiltrate the FBI.

Post by carry_bit » Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 1:05 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #11

white-flame wrote: post #6

> It's a time when we need to rely on trusted news sources That's the rub, isn't it? Who's a "trusted" new source? All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Lots of people therefore consider some fly-by-night facebook feed that says what the majors don't to be more "trusted" in response. We shouldn't "rely" on single points of perceived trust, especially in this massive for-profit, for-po…

> All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Bunching those together feels disingenuous. Do the New York Times, Washington Post, WSJ, etc etc all have their own perspectives? Sure. That's bias, to an extent. But when have they been corrupt? When have they manipulated their reporting? To put it simply: if a reputable outlet was caught modifying a video of Trump to put words in his mouth it…

Post by colordrops » Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 6:56 AM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #74

colordrops wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, in fact. Many of the superdelegates had already said so publicly. Their votes are, by design, not bound by practicality. All media coverage combined had negligible effect on superdelegate votes, if any at all. The Democratic party did wrong by Bernie Sanders, unquestionably. The media generally made errors in their coverage of the entire election cycle. But there are reasons for the media's inability to understa…