Live data from Hacker News

Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

vox.com

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#91
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…

> isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust

Spot-on.

This is severely exacerbated players like Google & Facebook, whose algorithms favor "engagement" and "virality", with zero regard for truth. It/s been shown [1] that falsehoods sperad faster, in part because they contain more 'surprise value'.

The result is that these info vendors effectively create an editorial environment favoring falsehoods.

Google has done a bit to clean it up on their search engine, e.g., the Flat Earth search generally points to debunking entries, but the same company's YouTube site contains a bunch of fakes in the top 10 results on the same search.

It is no exaggeration at this point to say that these tech giants are significantly undermining our society by failing to exercise responsibility over their implicit/explicit/algorithmic editorial decisions.

[1] http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/articles/study-false-news-s...

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#92
Reminds me of an old science-fiction where all events on the media were computer-generated fakes.

There has been no "underestimating" of that potential.

"Mind-warping" has been researched and is being research extensively by the CIA for some time. Most of that research is still top-secret, but well known are the extreme psychological manipulations of subjects during the MK-Ultra experiments.

I will focus on the CIA and it's influence in the past, as this is more controversial and influential than that of other agencies/countries. The influence of MI5/6 or Mossad is great, but a lot of it is still hidden. The influence of the KGB was different, as the citizens did not really believe much in them to begin with. The Chinese are going a whole different way again.

The CIA also did experiments involving the manipulation of the control of subjects in social media, like facebook. But it did not stop there.

After the peace-protests during the Vietnam war, the CIA has infiltrated into the press and media and anti-war movements. They now use that influence to bend war and destruction into a peace-giving action. So we had "Freedom fighters" in Afghanistan etc. Which was portrait in the Rambo movie. And the US supported Saddam fighting Iran with US made chemical weapons. Later the US fights the parties that it created and armed. Some strange thing that keeps repeating in the US history.

At the same time the CIA has the Phoenix program and other society destructive programs. They worked together with the "economic hitmen" and with local crime-lords to strengthen their destructive programs.

The influence of the CIA in other countries was great, but it also worked into influencing the US elections. Jesse Ventura found himself talking with the CIA after he was elected, because they did not expect a "third party" candidate to win. And they wanted to prevent that in the future.

Whistleblowers also show that they spy on political candidates, and pressure them (via blackmail?) before they even get into office. That way they can have direct influence on decisions. One well known example is that they spied on congress when they where investigating the CIA-torture program. Also they were able to destroy much evidence before it became public. Whistle blower Kevin Shipp explains how the CIA is out of control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQouKi7xDpM

But the CIA is not the only US-agency influencing the US elections. Every company is doing it too. Represent us: Corruption is legal in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig And just a few companies own all the press and media in the US.

So while we are looking at potential fake videos, we have a fake press and fake democracy underneath that.

It does not mean that everything is fake, but that it is controlled by agencies and companies that have their own agenda. And indeed we see videos and other media repeating agendas of certain political parties or of certain companies over and over again.

We can actually stop this by putting the agencies and companies back into democratic control, and back into justice. And both need to be moved out of the democratic system. For example: Flint can never get fresh water if the companies and politicians involved can do whatever they like.

It does not mean that other countries all do it better. Most have different kinds of corrupt systems in place. Small communities like Iceland, seem to be able to stop corruption. Maybe we can learn from them.

So how can we counter this mind-warping?

Well: How can you spot propaganda?

If the same thing is repeated over and over again. When no evidence is shown. When a certain party or person is portrayed as "Hitler" or "devil" or as "heroes". When a problem is shown as black and white. When people are "just crazy". If you are only limited to 2 bad choices. If investigations are shallow, and many important questions are unanswered.

Usually you can spot them with logical fallacies. So we need to learn to use logical fallacies and use critical thinking in all the news. And we need to be critical of all ideas. This includes your own ideas as our confirmation bias is also our downfall.

And this brings us back to the story. If our mind is bend, we can learn to bend it back via critical thinking. And stop watching the news, if the same thing gets repeated over and over again.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the NYT, WSJ, and many others, have an excellent track record of only publishing stories that hinge on "unnamed sources" "senior officials" and "people familiar with the matter" when they should. They are asking me to trust them that, if I knew who their sources were, that I would trust their sources. As journalists, they ask that I believe them that they have confirmed the matter through multiple independen…

>We used to have to contend with dishonest people editing context out Any reporter relying on unnamed sources is selectively editing context out, whether complicity or not. It's the price you pay for access.

I had a different meaning of the phrase in mind - I meant like in a video.

"Now, my opponents would like you to think I hate all guns, and want to get rid of them. But that's not true!"

With the kind of context editing I was referring to, that can easily become:

"I hate all guns, and want to get rid of them."

But yes, when we trust a journalist to cite unnamed sources, yes, of course, we lose much of the context. And if over time it turns out the news source has a bad habit of covering the news poorly, we should stop giving them attention.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the model for “trusted news” would follow other established certificate signing models

So what would the trust criteria be? There is a lot of credible disagreement about trustworthy media sources today after all.

The idea is that you could at least trace news back to the source. Whether you “trust” Fox News or ABC News or whoever is up to you. So this would be a client that shows you News items which are each signed and verified where they came from.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#95
post #65
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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).

Science is science reporting. Normal people can only understand what is reported. If you want to read the actual papers, prepare to spend a couple hours to barely understand what is going on. Most people aren’t able to do that for all of the hundreds of papers published each year that could be relevant to their lives.

I wish scientific journals would start encouraging “human language”, as opposed to impenetrable thickets of mathematical gobbledygook. When I was still in academia, reading papers germane to my field was a chore. It would take considerable time to decipher a complex looking mathematical equation, only to go, “oh, they just mean X.” Basically as soon as I saw a \Sum sign, I knew the equation was pointless peacocking.

This is something I hope to see gain traction with the new gust of open wind blowing through scientific reporting. Open results, accessible results, means more than just the accessibility of the PDF, if you ask me. Publicly funded research has a duty to be readable and understandable by the public, who paid for it.

Or, at the very least, not more opaque than strictly necessary.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#96
post #83

One point that is often lost on the discussions of fake video/"deepfake" is that this development won't only make it easier to fool people into believing something that's made up, but it might also make people more distrustful of things which are actually true. When it's been spread out enough that anything can be doctored to an indistinguishable extent, everything becomes deniable by those being caught, and the skep…

This is arguably what Putin's trolls are really after. If western societies stop trusting themselves, both internally and externally, it's an easy target for his men to pick up what's left of them.

Note that non-democratic government's are much more resilient to this type of attack on trust, because there's much less of it to begin with.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#97
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…

> matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to But in the case of climate change anyone over thirty-five or so knows damn well the weather has gone funny. People are scared, way deep down where it's hard to think about, because they know on a cellular billion-year-old level that you cannot escape the weather. Once you grasp that, climate denialism is an obvious coping mecha…

I think more likely some obvious deep fakes will be circulated, people will cry about it and beg for regulations, government will step in and regulate the shit out of the internet. Congrats now we are back to getting all our news from the oh so trustworthy unbiased mainstream media.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#98
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The press would absolutely hate that, and rightfully so. 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

Would also need to distinguish between fake and parody too. For organizations like The Onion, will they create 'deep-fake' parody videos. Will they be allowed to? Since they can create parody news and images, I'm inclined to believe yes.

Law must be adapted to technology. I wouldn't take anything for granted.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#100
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.

> Humanity will stand through this.

Or not. What if the Great Filter isn't a nuclear war but collapse of ability to tell truth from falsehood? To tell reality from fake images and videos?

Post reply on HN