4 ms·

You don't need deepfakes to fool boomers on facebook. You could create an image with rolling fields, an American flag in the background, and the caption "Share

by nova22033 7y ago

You don't need deepfakes to fool boomers on facebook. You could create an image with rolling fields, an American flag in the background, and the caption "Share if you think veterans shouldn't be euthanized when they catch a cold"... Boomers would smash that share button so hard CA would experience another earthquake..

keketi 7y ago
Yea, no kidding. Here's a fine example: https://twitter.com/mumonamission5 https://twitter.com/mumonamission5 Based on just a few tweets she appears to believe ancient aliens existed, satan worshippers hide their symbols everywhere, said satan worshippers occupy most positions of power and sacrifice children, "everything is energy", Nikola Tesla invented free limitless energy, the elites consume adrenochrome extracted from tortured children, all electricity comes from tall structures collecting lightning strikes, ancient cultures were able to utilize said "athmospheric energy" and humans are sprayed with aerosols released from aeroplanes. That was just from the tweets of the past week. It's truly mind boggling to gaze into such a fractal of conspiracy theories.
- baq 7y ago
  > "everything is energy" that's... not wrong, but I guess for the wrong reasons.
- yhamv 7y ago
  Picking that person as the average boomer is as fair as reading the FBI crime statistics.
- rasz 7y ago
  To be fair most of the things you listed can be "learned" on Discovery History Channel.
- jawilson2 7y ago
  Well that was a fun rabbit hole to go down
mieseratte 7y ago
> You don't need deepfakes to fool boomers on facebook. You don't need deepfakes to fool millenials on Facebook. You could just take statistics that could support your narrative and claim they do. They'll smash that share button so hard...
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  Thanks for this - treating easily-debunked fakery as a boomer problem is absurd. Entire sites like Mic exist to convert shoddy n=8 studies or narrow statistical observations into grand narratives for 20-somethings to believe uncritically. I've gotten really good at catching misleading statistics. In the areas where I have expertise I have a lot of practice with noticing reverse causation, un-normalized data, p-hacking, manipulated time windows, and so on. Every so often, I see someone cite evidence for a claim I strongly disbelieve that's really convincing, that looks clear and direct and immune to basically all the usual tricks. And it can take me an embarrassingly long time to remember that I should go and check the damn source. Because even in a world of fancy statistical tricks, there's nothing stopping people from making claims that simply don't appear in their source, or outright falsifying the claim. There's nothing quite as irritating as somebody claiming a "twenty year high" in something and citing a paper about a "twenty year low". And I always wonder just how hopelessly screwed up my - and everyone else's - knowledge base is. If a "vaccines cause autism" claim gives me so much whiplash I check the source and find it's fake, how many plausible claims did I not run down? If I read a Vox article and barely catch a statistical mistake that invalidates the entire claim, how many stories have completely-invalidating flaws I don't catch? Deepfakes might be important as a way to disrupt some of our strongest forms of proof. Something like an uncut high-fidelity video of a politician saying something atrocious is basically undeniable today. That can help convince people biased against believing the story, or let untrusted sources provide trustworthy contributions. But deepfakes are going to be a mere ripple on the total amount of bullshit; that's been high for decades, riding on totally disprovable claims.

keketi 7y ago

Yea, no kidding. Here's a fine example: https://twitter.com/mumonamission5 https://twitter.com/mumonamission5 Based on just a few tweets she appears to believe ancient aliens existed, satan worshippers hide their symbols everywhere, said satan worshippers occupy most positions of power and sacrifice children, "everything is energy", Nikola Tesla invented free limitless energy, the elites consume adrenochrome extracted from tortured children, all electricity comes from tall structures collecting lightning strikes, ancient cultures were able to utilize said "athmospheric energy" and humans are sprayed with aerosols released from aeroplanes. That was just from the tweets of the past week. It's truly mind boggling to gaze into such a fractal of conspiracy theories.

baq 7y ago
> "everything is energy" that's... not wrong, but I guess for the wrong reasons.
yhamv 7y ago
Picking that person as the average boomer is as fair as reading the FBI crime statistics.
rasz 7y ago
To be fair most of the things you listed can be "learned" on Discovery History Channel.
jawilson2 7y ago
Well that was a fun rabbit hole to go down

mieseratte 7y ago

> You don't need deepfakes to fool boomers on facebook. You don't need deepfakes to fool millenials on Facebook. You could just take statistics that could support your narrative and claim they do. They'll smash that share button so hard...

Bartweiss 7y ago
Thanks for this - treating easily-debunked fakery as a boomer problem is absurd. Entire sites like Mic exist to convert shoddy n=8 studies or narrow statistical observations into grand narratives for 20-somethings to believe uncritically. I've gotten really good at catching misleading statistics. In the areas where I have expertise I have a lot of practice with noticing reverse causation, un-normalized data, p-hacking, manipulated time windows, and so on. Every so often, I see someone cite evidence for a claim I strongly disbelieve that's really convincing, that looks clear and direct and immune to basically all the usual tricks. And it can take me an embarrassingly long time to remember that I should go and check the damn source. Because even in a world of fancy statistical tricks, there's nothing stopping people from making claims that simply don't appear in their source, or outright falsifying the claim. There's nothing quite as irritating as somebody claiming a "twenty year high" in something and citing a paper about a "twenty year low". And I always wonder just how hopelessly screwed up my - and everyone else's - knowledge base is. If a "vaccines cause autism" claim gives me so much whiplash I check the source and find it's fake, how many plausible claims did I not run down? If I read a Vox article and barely catch a statistical mistake that invalidates the entire claim, how many stories have completely-invalidating flaws I don't catch? Deepfakes might be important as a way to disrupt some of our strongest forms of proof. Something like an uncut high-fidelity video of a politician saying something atrocious is basically undeniable today. That can help convince people biased against believing the story, or let untrusted sources provide trustworthy contributions. But deepfakes are going to be a mere ripple on the total amount of bullshit; that's been high for decades, riding on totally disprovable claims.