4 ms·

It was hidden camera footage from a whistle blower who worked at CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4

by swebs 7y ago

ianleeclark 7y ago
Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the fact that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont-see-in-okeefe-video-may-be-as-important-as-what-you-do/2017/06/28/dcb67446-5b7c-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont... Deep fakes are going to rock your world.
- swebs 7y ago
  Are you claiming that the recordings of the CEO of CNN presented here are deep fakes?
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    No.
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  (deleted my original comment, because I think this thread is a more suitable place to reply) > Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the fact that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy. Agree. I was interested in fringe politics as a social phenomenon and I've been following it for a year or two. I now see CNN as a media outlet largely serving their interest groups. But see RT, Project Veritas, etc., as "second-order propaganda" serving their respective interest groups by selectively "exposing" targets for their political utility, not because they care about truth, it's half-truth, half-falsehoold. Meanwhile, the accusations of the mainstream media are made against them, not because they care about truth, but because their existence damaged the mainstream's own interest. It's all biases vs. biases all the way down. If someone spends enough time and effort while maintaining rationality, it's possible to extract a great deal of useful information from the sum of all these propaganda. I think it's what open-source intelligence is largely about. But I don't want to waste time doing this. Nowadays, I view many things in politics as mere talking points without make judgements, and get most of my news from Hacker News (which is, of course, heavily biased towards the Silicon Valley). > Deep fakes are going to rock your world. Definitely. I think most (internet-savvy) people will eventually learn it and ignore things like that. In Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG (second season of the TV animation), one group of politicians for their personal interests within the government, has launched a conspiracy to intensify a military conflict (against the refugee uprising) that involves nuclear weapon. The protagonists from Section 9, a national security agency that operates independent from the executive, saw the truth from the satellite footage, had the following dialogue. > "How do we stop it? Can we post the video footage online?" > "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day." Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes. Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look like.
  - starfallg 7y ago
    >> "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day." >Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes. >Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look like. I think the current situation is a bit more severe than what was portrayed there. It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing. All evidence is interpreted through the eyes of tribalism first and foremost, while truth is relegated to the back, because how information is disseminated now exploits our natural behavioural patterns in a negative way. That is the core of the rot in our great age of "(dis)information".
    - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
      Great comment. > It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing. Why not both? It's a mixed bag. Unreliability can be one problem. For example, "quoting one's words" is a common type of political videos on YouTube, they're mainly a few-second or few-minute of video segments that quote someone's words, and makes a point about it. Some of these videos are mostly reliable, but some other videos intentionally remove the relevant context and mislead the viewers to draw another conclusion. Because of the existence of misleading videos, my first response to any of them is distrust until it's proven reliable. The same principle applies to expressing a statement of something by a politician - is it true or is it misleading rhetoric? This is why fact-checking becomes more and more popular. But the issue of reliability is greater than objective facts, you can fact-check data but you cannot fact-check the framing or context. As technology marches on, the issue of unreliability will become greater, e.g. DeepFake. Unconvincing can be another issue. For example, some activists have been warned us about mass surveillance for a decade based on reliable evidence. Both work together.
      - jonhohle 7y ago
        When the fact checkers have the same bias as the original authors, what point is there? Without penalty of perjury or some other penalty the loudest voices will control the “facts”.
- turk73 7y ago
  CNN is inherently untrustworthy. And wasn't it ABC that just got caught red-handed using footage from some kind of night-time machine gun shoot in the US and playing it off as footage from the Turks fighting the Kurds? What is mind-boggling is just how propagandized our media is. It's not worth watching at all if only to save your eyeballs. It is worse than Pravda, worse than anything the East German Stasi did.
- WestCoast 7y ago
  Deep fakes have been used overwhelmingly in porn. Claims it'll be used and transform politics have been largely overstated.
  - pennaMan 7y ago
    Online payments and video streaming were first used overwhelmingly in porn
    - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
      It's true. Pr0n is greatly underrated.
CelestialTeapot 7y ago
Wow, Project "Veritas" really blew the lid off checks notes a news organization doing news? A CEO directing the news org to focus on a particular leading story? People having their own internal biases? I mean, what exactly is he blowing the whistle on? Where's evidence of any misconduct? Treating O'Keefe as anything other than a political agitator is a joke.

It was hidden camera footage from a whistle blower who worked at CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4

by swebs 7y ago

It was hidden camera footage from a whistle blower who worked at CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4

ianleeclark 7y ago

Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the fact that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont-see-in-okeefe-video-may-be-as-important-as-what-you-do/2017/06/28/dcb67446-5b7c-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont... Deep fakes are going to rock your world.

swebs 7y ago
Are you claiming that the recordings of the CEO of CNN presented here are deep fakes?
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  No.
segfaultbuserr 7y ago
(deleted my original comment, because I think this thread is a more suitable place to reply) > Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the fact that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy. Agree. I was interested in fringe politics as a social phenomenon and I've been following it for a year or two. I now see CNN as a media outlet largely serving their interest groups. But see RT, Project Veritas, etc., as "second-order propaganda" serving their respective interest groups by selectively "exposing" targets for their political utility, not because they care about truth, it's half-truth, half-falsehoold. Meanwhile, the accusations of the mainstream media are made against them, not because they care about truth, but because their existence damaged the mainstream's own interest. It's all biases vs. biases all the way down. If someone spends enough time and effort while maintaining rationality, it's possible to extract a great deal of useful information from the sum of all these propaganda. I think it's what open-source intelligence is largely about. But I don't want to waste time doing this. Nowadays, I view many things in politics as mere talking points without make judgements, and get most of my news from Hacker News (which is, of course, heavily biased towards the Silicon Valley). > Deep fakes are going to rock your world. Definitely. I think most (internet-savvy) people will eventually learn it and ignore things like that. In Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG (second season of the TV animation), one group of politicians for their personal interests within the government, has launched a conspiracy to intensify a military conflict (against the refugee uprising) that involves nuclear weapon. The protagonists from Section 9, a national security agency that operates independent from the executive, saw the truth from the satellite footage, had the following dialogue. > "How do we stop it? Can we post the video footage online?" > "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day." Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes. Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look like.
- starfallg 7y ago
  >> "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day." >Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes. >Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look like. I think the current situation is a bit more severe than what was portrayed there. It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing. All evidence is interpreted through the eyes of tribalism first and foremost, while truth is relegated to the back, because how information is disseminated now exploits our natural behavioural patterns in a negative way. That is the core of the rot in our great age of "(dis)information".
  - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
    Great comment. > It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing. Why not both? It's a mixed bag. Unreliability can be one problem. For example, "quoting one's words" is a common type of political videos on YouTube, they're mainly a few-second or few-minute of video segments that quote someone's words, and makes a point about it. Some of these videos are mostly reliable, but some other videos intentionally remove the relevant context and mislead the viewers to draw another conclusion. Because of the existence of misleading videos, my first response to any of them is distrust until it's proven reliable. The same principle applies to expressing a statement of something by a politician - is it true or is it misleading rhetoric? This is why fact-checking becomes more and more popular. But the issue of reliability is greater than objective facts, you can fact-check data but you cannot fact-check the framing or context. As technology marches on, the issue of unreliability will become greater, e.g. DeepFake. Unconvincing can be another issue. For example, some activists have been warned us about mass surveillance for a decade based on reliable evidence. Both work together.
    - jonhohle 7y ago
      When the fact checkers have the same bias as the original authors, what point is there? Without penalty of perjury or some other penalty the loudest voices will control the “facts”.
turk73 7y ago
CNN is inherently untrustworthy. And wasn't it ABC that just got caught red-handed using footage from some kind of night-time machine gun shoot in the US and playing it off as footage from the Turks fighting the Kurds? What is mind-boggling is just how propagandized our media is. It's not worth watching at all if only to save your eyeballs. It is worse than Pravda, worse than anything the East German Stasi did.
WestCoast 7y ago
Deep fakes have been used overwhelmingly in porn. Claims it'll be used and transform politics have been largely overstated.
- pennaMan 7y ago
  Online payments and video streaming were first used overwhelmingly in porn
  - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
    It's true. Pr0n is greatly underrated.

CelestialTeapot 7y ago

Wow, Project "Veritas" really blew the lid off checks notes a news organization doing news? A CEO directing the news org to focus on a particular leading story? People having their own internal biases? I mean, what exactly is he blowing the whistle on? Where's evidence of any misconduct? Treating O'Keefe as anything other than a political agitator is a joke.