Firstly, if you watch both videos side by side, the effect isn't that great [1]. I thought she was drunk in the original. Secondly, do you really want to make

Firstly, if you watch both videos side by side, the effect isn't that great [1]. I thought she was drunk in the original. Secondly, do you really want to make Facebook the great filter of political truth? Is this a role you want to give to a private company with its own agenda? Of course, for somebody working at The New York Times this kind of power is a dream scenario, where truth is simply whatever they write. Criticism of the opinion article itself: > Facebook decided to keep up a video deliberately and > maliciously doctored to make it appear as if Speaker Nancy > Pelosi was drunk or perhaps crazy. Interesting wording, did Facebook decide to keep the video up or did it not decide to take it down? An assumption of malice is a dangerous place to start. > The social media giant deemed the video a hoax and demoted > its distribution, but the half-measure clearly didn’t > work. This is the truth of their opinion, only wiping all traces of problematic material from the internet is an acceptable solution, anything else is a half-measure. What if this video was a piece of art, a political statement, a meme? Is there anyone who we can trust to make the decision without asserting their own bias? > “We think it’s important for people to make their own > informed choice for what to believe,” [..] This is > ridiculous. When did a company passing the responsibility of interpretation to the viewers become controversial? Why is it ridiculous to think of content consumers as having the ability to decide what is real and what is not? > Would a broadcast network air this? Never. Would a > newspaper publish it? Not without serious repercussions. > Would a marketing campaign like this ever pass muster? > False advertising. Newspapers and serious repercussions? You mean a (comparatively) small monetary fine at most? The biggest consequence of bad journalism I've ever seen was the phone hacking scandal for News of the World, where Rupert Murdoch was basically told to reorganize his assets and make the name "News of the World" disappear [2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDOo5nDJwgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDOo5nDJwgA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...