10 ms·

Of course they didn't restrict themselves to "deepfakes"; they made sure to encompass anything "deceptive", "manipulated" media, "tropes", and "unwanted attenti

Of course they didn't restrict themselves to "deepfakes"; they made sure to encompass anything "deceptive", "manipulated" media, "tropes", and "unwanted attention" - which, given every video clip has a start and end point, seems tailor made to allow them to flag eg clips of Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide or Hillary Clinton collapsing in public as leading to an incorrect political conclusion rather than being actually false.

Nuzzerino 7y ago
Will they go as far as to censor statements by politicians such as this? https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/media-bias-nbc-news-fact-check-declares-false-that-hillary-acid-washed-her-server/ https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/media-bias-nbc-news-fact-...
- iscrewyou 7y ago
  Hopefully. Same as certain individuals yelling innocence while obstructing and tampering jury as well as evidence.
  - Nuzzerino 7y ago
    That was meant to be rhetorical, but I forgot that Poe's law was a thing.
    - iscrewyou 7y ago
      Looking at the rest of the thread, it was hard to get a rhetorical vibe from your comment. But I get it now.
Mangalor 7y ago
Personally, given 2016 and now Iowa, I would rather err on the side of allowing users to find "on the fence" content outside of Twitter, rather than letting the propaganda chips fall where they may. These are ultra-powerful tools, and our society clearly hasn't mastered them (yet).
ravenstine 7y ago
They'll label these things "mostly false", a la Snopes.
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  My first thought was that scope creep from facts to implication is what broke down trust in Snopes. Per their blog, it appears they have several tiers of action but what standard label. I imagine that the first time people see "false" next to a clip that's real (and flattering to their opinions, perhaps), they're going to discount the warning pretty sharply.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
>Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide This is exactly why the policy is needed. If a baby is born with its spinal column outside of its body, a quivering mass of braindead flesh, unsustainable, destined for a slow and lingering death-- it should be terminated. That is infanticide. Humane infanticide. People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother. They just want to stir up shit and get people yelling. And because they assume that all people are as amoral (or immoral) as they are, people shouting about "infanticide" think that women are rushing to the doctor late in their third trimester to abort healthy babies for no good reason.
- captainredbeard 7y ago
  Do you have the ability to read minds? Because you're doing some mind reading in that comment. Many people find the flippant nature of his response disturbing. I'm not "anti-abortion" but I found the Northam situation squicky. YMMV, and that's the beauty of living in a free and liberal society. Your comment would probably win hearts and minds if it was more about educating folks about the medical reality some parents are faced with instead of castigating and denigrating "the other side" (which doesn't exist, it's a spectrum).
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    It's not just the tone - there are plenty of religious people who flatly disagree with the moral claim above. "The baby is going to die, so this isn't murder, and it's going to suffer, so this is mercy" is not necessarily a background assumption. For some people, those claims are the debate. Deontologists actually exist, and some of them sincerely believe in souls, and eternal damnation or paradise. To them, the doctor is committing a mortal sin, and for the infant any life long enough for baptism can mean the difference between limbo and heaven. Whatever Northam's intent, they would genuinely find his position morally similar to any other infanticide. I don't intend to argue for that position, but I think it's important to realize how quickly "simple" rulings on misinformation or malice can become judgements on entire ideologies. If Bentham, Kant, and the Pope would all disagree on whether a choice is ethical and humane, perhaps it's not a matter to be settled by Twitter moderation rules?
eanzenberg 7y ago
Hillary admitted to collapsing due to pneumonia in her interview on the Howard Stern Show recently. So unless you consider the health of potential presidents "deceptive, manipulated, tropes, unwanted attention" etc., then it's news that ought to be taken seriously.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  When combining news about health in a focus on not electing someone unhealthy, especially when the news is focused on a few public incidents that don't indicate general health and lack any sort of general health check, I think it can qualify as deceptive propaganda. Where does standard but uneven news reporting cross over into deceptive propaganda? I think that is quite an interesting question and, at least when measured by the standard we would set when we are on the receiving end of such, quite a common occurrence.
  - captainredbeard 7y ago
    "If I disagree, it's propaganda."
SilasX 7y ago
So, stuff like the time someone copied the smoke over to make it look thicker (albeit very poorly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controv...

Nuzzerino 7y ago

Will they go as far as to censor statements by politicians such as this? https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/media-bias-nbc-news-fact-check-declares-false-that-hillary-acid-washed-her-server/ https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/media-bias-nbc-news-fact-...

iscrewyou 7y ago
Hopefully. Same as certain individuals yelling innocence while obstructing and tampering jury as well as evidence.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  That was meant to be rhetorical, but I forgot that Poe's law was a thing.
  - iscrewyou 7y ago
    Looking at the rest of the thread, it was hard to get a rhetorical vibe from your comment. But I get it now.

Mangalor 7y ago

Personally, given 2016 and now Iowa, I would rather err on the side of allowing users to find "on the fence" content outside of Twitter, rather than letting the propaganda chips fall where they may. These are ultra-powerful tools, and our society clearly hasn't mastered them (yet).

ravenstine 7y ago

They'll label these things "mostly false", a la Snopes.

Bartweiss 7y ago
My first thought was that scope creep from facts to implication is what broke down trust in Snopes. Per their blog, it appears they have several tiers of action but what standard label. I imagine that the first time people see "false" next to a clip that's real (and flattering to their opinions, perhaps), they're going to discount the warning pretty sharply.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago

>Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide This is exactly why the policy is needed. If a baby is born with its spinal column outside of its body, a quivering mass of braindead flesh, unsustainable, destined for a slow and lingering death-- it should be terminated. That is infanticide. Humane infanticide. People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother. They just want to stir up shit and get people yelling. And because they assume that all people are as amoral (or immoral) as they are, people shouting about "infanticide" think that women are rushing to the doctor late in their third trimester to abort healthy babies for no good reason.

captainredbeard 7y ago
Do you have the ability to read minds? Because you're doing some mind reading in that comment. Many people find the flippant nature of his response disturbing. I'm not "anti-abortion" but I found the Northam situation squicky. YMMV, and that's the beauty of living in a free and liberal society. Your comment would probably win hearts and minds if it was more about educating folks about the medical reality some parents are faced with instead of castigating and denigrating "the other side" (which doesn't exist, it's a spectrum).
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  It's not just the tone - there are plenty of religious people who flatly disagree with the moral claim above. "The baby is going to die, so this isn't murder, and it's going to suffer, so this is mercy" is not necessarily a background assumption. For some people, those claims are the debate. Deontologists actually exist, and some of them sincerely believe in souls, and eternal damnation or paradise. To them, the doctor is committing a mortal sin, and for the infant any life long enough for baptism can mean the difference between limbo and heaven. Whatever Northam's intent, they would genuinely find his position morally similar to any other infanticide. I don't intend to argue for that position, but I think it's important to realize how quickly "simple" rulings on misinformation or malice can become judgements on entire ideologies. If Bentham, Kant, and the Pope would all disagree on whether a choice is ethical and humane, perhaps it's not a matter to be settled by Twitter moderation rules?

eanzenberg 7y ago

Hillary admitted to collapsing due to pneumonia in her interview on the Howard Stern Show recently. So unless you consider the health of potential presidents "deceptive, manipulated, tropes, unwanted attention" etc., then it's news that ought to be taken seriously.

SkyBelow 7y ago
When combining news about health in a focus on not electing someone unhealthy, especially when the news is focused on a few public incidents that don't indicate general health and lack any sort of general health check, I think it can qualify as deceptive propaganda. Where does standard but uneven news reporting cross over into deceptive propaganda? I think that is quite an interesting question and, at least when measured by the standard we would set when we are on the receiving end of such, quite a common occurrence.
- captainredbeard 7y ago
  "If I disagree, it's propaganda."

SilasX 7y ago

So, stuff like the time someone copied the smoke over to make it look thicker (albeit very poorly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controv...