I think we're never going to be able to have robust ai detection, and current models are as bad as they'll ever be. Instead we really need to have the ability to sign images on cameras that show these are the bits that came off this hardware unedited, that professional news outlets can verify. But that's going to cost money to make and market all these new cameras and I just don't know how we incentivize or pay for t…
Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
71–79 of 79 posts
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#72[flagged]
This is exactly who we are now. We are all complicit. Anger is a valid response.
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#73realpolitik time folks: First do a left-right on the link that Aurornis posted [1]. Notice the extra fat in the chin, the elongated ear, the enlarged mouth and nose, the frizzlier hair, the lower shirt cut. You hate it. You think, intellectually, that this shouldn't work and surely no one would have the gall to so brazenly do this without the fear of being caught and shamed. And then you think, well once the truth is…
Or they do hear about it, maybe a few days or a week later, but they dismiss it because its old news at the point and not worth thinking about to them.
Truth is, most people are never really thinking most of the time. They're reacting in the moment and maybe forming a rationale for their action after the fact.
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You either haven't seen the post, or are being disingenuous. In case some readers haven't seen it, the altered image (crying & wailing, instead of calm & resolute) was posted by the official white house account with the following overlay text: --- ARRESTED FAR-LEFT AGITATOR NEKIMA LEVY ARMSTRONG FOR ORCHESTRATING CHURCH RIOTS IN MINNESOTA --- The post is a reply to one made by the same account half an hour earlier, w…
... Do you understand what mockery is?
The "joke" is distorting her image. The reality is that she was arrested.
The story is trying to present things as if distorting her image is somehow misrepresenting what happened.
But she was in fact arrested, and nobody disputes that.
The sense of humour and critical thinking skill is what allows one to recognize the alteration of the footage. Paying attention to the surrounding context makes it clear that the footage is altered from a real event, and not made up entirely.
I don't need to see the post to understand these things. (And neither does anything you posted disagree with my analysis.)
I am not being disingenuous. I accepted that the footage is altered. Because it doesn't matter.
> Obviously he was joking when he said he would do all those terrible things!
What "terrible things" are you referring to?
As the press release explains, there was a coordinated disruption of the church service, they said they would arrest her for it, and they did.
And as the video makes clear, the disruption was a violation of the church attendees' rights. The church is private property and the protesters were trespassing. They did not leave when asked. They harassed innocent people for no clear reason.
It is in fact perfectly reasonable for the administration to be saying things like
> WE DO NOT TOLERATE ATTACKS ON PLACES OF WORSHIP.
because they shouldn't.
Imagine if it had been a mosque instead of a church; if it had been Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon; if it had been about some political cause you disagree with instead of one you agree with. Would you be reacting the same way? I don't think you would.
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The government "just mocking people" is already disgusting behavior that belongs to failed states, but it's not even that, it was clearly just propaganda to make the opposition look weak. If it was a "meme" they should've said so in the post before being called out.
Trump is also a citizen.
> it was clearly just propaganda to make the opposition look weak
And?
It comes across that you're upset that something you find in poor taste happened to target someone you agree with.
> If it was a "meme" they should've said so in the post before being called out.
Why would they say something that's obvious to people with common sense?
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
it doesnt really matter if you can just take a photo of an AI image that's been printed out
That will look like a photo of a printout though. Seems easier to just hack the hardware to get it to sign arbitrary images instead.
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The current discussion is about the US, where that is very much the case. https://thefederalnewswire.com/stories/673148305-fbi-announc... https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/fbi-agent-ice-shooting...
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current discussion is about the US, where that is very much the case. https://thefederalnewswire.com/stories/673148305-fbi-announc... https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/fbi-agent-ice-shooting...
That's the FBI supporting them, not "the police", which I understood in context to refer to state LEO.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's surely reasonable to assume they meant something that is factually accurate. Using "the police" to refer to law enforcement in general is common; additionally, the alleged crimes are in the purview of the FBI. There is ample context to interpret their words more strongly.
Re: Minnesota activist releases arrest video after manipulated White House version
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the FBI supporting them, not "the police", which I understood in context to refer to state LEO.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html It's surely reasonable to assume they meant something that is factually accurate. Using "the police" to refer to law enforcement in general is common; additionally, the alleged crimes are in the purview of the FBI. There is am…
Anyway, to be clear, it legitimately didn't occur to me that by "the police" the other poster could possibly mean the FBI; therefore it wasn't within the world of "plausible interpretations" I could consider for that comment.