3 ms·
So are they advocating for tougher libel laws? The photo and video used as examples are pretty obviously fake, but even if it was indistinguishable, what then?
by creaghpatr 9y ago
So are they advocating for tougher libel laws? The photo and video used as examples are pretty obviously fake, but even if it was indistinguishable, what then?
Fake photoshopped images are so common now that ppl should assume any highly controversial/compromising photo that isn't corroborated by AP or Reuters is probably fake. Doesn't stop people from believing in fake photos or fake stories, but that's how it's always been and fake videos are the next logical step.
Only solution I can see is to make it easier to prosecute entities that have demonstrated intent to defraud the public with fake news/images/video. The press would absolutely hate that, and rightfully so.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- hanbura 9y ago>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
- creaghpatr 9y agoWould 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.
- baq 9y agoLaw must be adapted to technology. I wouldn't take anything for granted.
- threatofrain 9y agoIt's not a legal problem... even the courts are going to have to grapple with the deeper underlying issue of how do we detect fake evidence. Courts rely on videos, pictures, and audio too.