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

Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 197 posts

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#71

Post by artursapek »

ajross wrote: post #47
snowwrestler wrote: post #45

It seems like fake video can be handled the same way we handle fake text. We're just not used to doing that yet. Anyone can write an article and sign it "Barack Obama," and post it online somewhere. Not many folks will fall for it. Most people understand how easy it is just write someone else's name down, so they look for provenance to help decide what is real. An article by "Barack Obama" on the Wall Street Journal…

> Anyone can write an article and sign it "Barack Obama," and post it online somewhere. Not many folks will fall for it. That's just stunningly naive. Imagine if Pizzagate or some other such nonsense was accompanied by a video of Podesta mumbling something about sex slaves. Fake News is a a real thing even without video corroboration. > Naked video files, found at random places on the Internet, You honestly think Bre…

No matter how much you disagree with FOX, it's in their best interest to make damn sure they never print "fake text" or play "fake videos" on their platforms.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#72

Post by lolc »

rossdavidh wrote: post #42
lolc wrote: post #25

There will be a plethora of "Deepfake" apps for your pocket computer tomorrow. People will learn quickly not to trust video. They will have no choice because they don't want to fall for pranks. Humanity will stand through this.

My thought is that it is much like what to do about any new technological threat, for example too many calories or too much information or too many distractions while driving. Bad things happen, and after about a generation coping mechanisms get developed, and some people adopt them more successfully than others. One is reminded of how populations adapt to new diseases. One valid question, though, is whether or not t…

We're able to distinguish entertainment "fake" video from "real" video in our minds. The separation is not clear-cut, and fictional movies affect our thinking about real events. So I understand the concern.

But faking video is not a new invention. It's happened before and in a way I welcome the broad availability of faking-tools to inoculate against the fakes that have been with us since video existed. Now everybody will know that videos can be faked.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#73

Post by distances »

creaghpatr wrote: post #62
VikingCoder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I perceive your comment as nothing more than an ad hominem attack, so I struggle to understand why others have apparently voted it up. The main reasons I trust any sources of information is that I trust that they hold themselves to a standard of journalism - such as verifying their sources. Doing original primary research into subjects. When a video shows up in my Facebook news feed, I'm now more suspicious of it tha…

We have front page stories in the NYT, WSJ et al that hinge entirely on 'unnamed sources' '[gov org] senior officials' and 'people familiar with the matter'. Video should be easy because it's either real or it's not. For stories based on secret sources, we never get a chance to ask the source if they really said that.

> We have front page stories in the NYT, WSJ et al that hinge entirely on 'unnamed sources' '[gov org] senior officials' and 'people familiar with the matter'.

That's about trusting the journalistic integrity the parent mentioned. I do trust journalists to know/keep track which sources are reliable, and report truthfully. Of course the source may have their own agenda on revealing things, but that's part of how the news landscape works.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#74

Post by lkbm »

snowwrestler wrote: post #60
ajross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone can write an article and sign it "Barack Obama," and post it online somewhere. Not many folks will fall for it. That's just stunningly naive. Imagine if Pizzagate or some other such nonsense was accompanied by a video of Podesta mumbling something about sex slaves. Fake News is a a real thing even without video corroboration. > Naked video files, found at random places on the Internet, You honestly think Bre…

How many people believe Pizzagate is real? Shall we litigate the exact numerical definition of "not many?"--which is what I said, not "none."

> How many people believe Pizzagate is real?

That's a question that made me want an answer. It seems that, as of 2016, it may have been a lot:

> Among the questions asked by pollsters was whether respondents believed that leaked emails stolen from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager and published by WikiLeaks prior to the Nov. 8 election “contained code words for pedophilia, human trafficking and satanic ritual abuse — what some people refer to as ‘Pizzagate.’ “

> ...

> Specifically, 9 percent of registered Republicans who responded to the question said the allegations were “definitely true,” coupled with 40 percent of Republicans casting the claim as “probably true.”[0]

A different December 2016 poll[1] also seems to put "yes"/"definitely" at it at 14%[1] with a lot of "maybes".

Given the margins in US Presidential elections, it seems like the answer is "enough to matter". (Not that I think PizzaGate turned anyone from voting for Clinton or to voting for Trump, but fake news stories probably swayed a lot of voters overall.)

[0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/28/pizzagate-t...

[1] https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/...

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#75

Post by VikingCoder »

distances wrote: post #73
creaghpatr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have front page stories in the NYT, WSJ et al that hinge entirely on 'unnamed sources' '[gov org] senior officials' and 'people familiar with the matter'. Video should be easy because it's either real or it's not. For stories based on secret sources, we never get a chance to ask the source if they really said that.

> We have front page stories in the NYT, WSJ et al that hinge entirely on 'unnamed sources' '[gov org] senior officials' and 'people familiar with the matter'. That's about trusting the journalistic integrity the parent mentioned. I do trust journalists to know/keep track which sources are reliable, and report truthfully. Of course the source may have their own agenda on revealing things, but that's part of how the n…

Good point - "selective revealing" is also something awful.

We've got lists of the logical fallacies. Other than going to journalism school, is there a good list we can refer to for "journalistic sins"?

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#76

Post by chocolate_ »

Retra wrote: post #27
wybiral wrote: post #17

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?

For my master's thesis, I designed/built a prototype that would track video modifications and add them to a signed report like this. Maybe it's finally relevant: http://www.dissertations.wsu.edu/Thesis/Spring2015/E_Houle_0...

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#77

Post by chiefalchemist »

amirmc wrote: post #57
chiefalchemist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust..." Spot on. What the more purely science-mind can't seem to grasp is facts are only as good as the receivers' trust of the source. The irony is, there's plenty of science to support this. Yet, ironically, science too ignores itself. If…

> (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc.) Science blames the customer/consumer. It feels like there's a conflation of science and science reporting in here somewhere. Most of the actual research output makes measured claims but the journalism around it ends up being sensationalised (yes, some researchers also participate in that but not as a rule).

What I was trying to communicate is that Science makes mistakes. Such is life. However, Science makes no effort to own those mistakes.

If your sig other __from your pov__ constantly "deceives" you, what happens?

Science is oblivious to the __cumulative__ effect its process has on belief, trust, etc. The irony of this truth baffles me.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#78

Post by api »

I think it's safe to say that today any "evidence" without verifiable provenance can be entirely ignored. Absolutely anything can be forged, and in many cases using consumer PCs and readily available software.

That means anonymous evidence or evidence with dodgy sources has zero credibility whatsoever.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#79

Post by DelightOne »

gameswithgo wrote: post #48
uptown wrote: post #41

There's a relevant and insightful thread on Twitter posted by David Roberts here: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/988144274720964608 His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust. That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to, so in orde…

>That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure to In the case of climate change it is actually possible to self-inform yourself about some of the key aspects of climate change. Raw data is freely available (noaa and others), and some simple scripts can answer questions like "are the claimed warming trends real or artifacts of bias due to adjustments or other factors". This…

> possible to self-inform

Doesn't mean the self-inform is reproducible though due to obvious reasons.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#80

Post by opportune »

lkbm wrote: post #74
snowwrestler wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people believe Pizzagate is real? Shall we litigate the exact numerical definition of "not many?"--which is what I said, not "none."

> How many people believe Pizzagate is real? That's a question that made me want an answer. It seems that, as of 2016, it may have been a lot: > Among the questions asked by pollsters was whether respondents believed that leaked emails stolen from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager and published by WikiLeaks prior to the Nov. 8 election “contained code words for pedophilia, human trafficking and satanic ritual abuse — w…

We must never forget that half of voters are even dumber than the average voter
Post reply on HN