4 ms·
The point is to have an immutable source to compare against. If you suspect a video is faked, you can find the verified original video that was used to make the
by atonalfreerider 7y ago
The point is to have an immutable source to compare against. If you suspect a video is faked, you can find the verified original video that was used to make the fake and compare against it.
- xienze 7y agoWhat if the fake video is the first one to be uploaded?
- jakear 7y agoThat’s where they use their fancy computer vision software to determine if the source has been tampered with.
- xienze 7y agoAnd if they can’t determine that?
- munk-a 7y agoI think this is sort of where we realize that Oscar Wilde was actually the democratic candidate in the 2016 election - falsely attributed quotes have gotten out of hand and even relatively reputable sources have made this mistake... I suspect the same will be true of videos soon, your trust in the accuracy of the information will be solely tied to your trust in the organization - if you don't trust NYT you won't trust videos you see there and declare them "fake news", ditto for Fox and everyone else. This is leading society to a very dangerous place where the truth is becoming a matter of opinion.
- groby_b 7y agoWe've been there. It led to impartial professionals who, in person, report what they witnessed, and who made a career out of being truthful and exact. The Bard is back again!
- theptip 7y agoYes, it's an arms race. Surely this is obviously the case? "What if the government can't determine if a 100 dollar bill is fake?" Answer to both questions: those who have a vested interest in detecting fakes spend more money on fake-detection mechanisms.