3 ms·

There are old examples with photos including newspapers/TV that used faked images, so it not something new. If there is a big punishment for intentionally fakin

There are old examples with photos including newspapers/TV that used faked images, so it not something new. If there is a big punishment for intentionally faking videos and presenting them as true similar like for official documents or impersonating officials then this technology would be used a lot less in the countries where this laws apply.

pdpi 6y ago
Convincingly faking photos was, until recently, pretty damn hard. This is currently possible by just using a screenshot from a game and an app from the AppStore: https://twitter.com/nillxzero/status/1369452664979943427 https://twitter.com/nillxzero/status/1369452664979943427
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- shard 6y ago
  I think people's ability to detect fake photos have increased over the years. Consider the Cottingley Fairies photos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies), to my modern eyes, the fairies are unmistakably fake: the lighting is wrong, the resolution is wrong, the texture is wrong. However there were people who were convinced that these were real photos of fairies back then.
- JetSpiegel 6y ago
  > Convincingly faking photos was, until recently, pretty damn hard. Stalin did it nearly 100 years ago.
noxer 6y ago
But its not about evidence. Its about shifting public opinion. There is and most probably never will be a law that prevents people from sharing/liking/commenting or otherwise trigger the algorithms to spread something based on the fact that it is fake. Media also fakes stuff by simply not providing context. It need no "active" image manipulation. cutting and embedding it into other content works fine since years and apparently there is very very little that can legally be done against this. The fact that the original is out there is also rather meaningless. take for example the very popular "very fine people on both sides" quote, nothing stops you or me to listen to the full conversation. But even today from random people on the street who recognizes the quote probably 50% do not know the real context. Most probably because they simply dont care enough. They involuntary heard the quote but they will not involuntary hear the context, because one goes viral the other does not.
- simion314 6y ago
  I was thinking at some tabloids, sure some anonymous can post fake stuff but if a journalists creates the fake image/video or documents then there should be more consequences. Also I am not from US so I am not targeting a specific camp, when I was watching news (I stopped years ago_ a lot of energy was spent on discussing insinuations, fake stuff or trivial things. I realized that politicians know how to throw the media some delicious bones to keep them busy with whatever they want.
  - noxer 6y ago
    Its called "accountability", something mainstream journalism doesn't seem to have in most places. Its just a fact that biased "news" get more clicks and thus more money. Its hard to define when "faking" starts and where its is just non-neutral reporting.

pdpi 6y ago

Convincingly faking photos was, until recently, pretty damn hard. This is currently possible by just using a screenshot from a game and an app from the AppStore: https://twitter.com/nillxzero/status/1369452664979943427 https://twitter.com/nillxzero/status/1369452664979943427

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
shard 6y ago
I think people's ability to detect fake photos have increased over the years. Consider the Cottingley Fairies photos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies), to my modern eyes, the fairies are unmistakably fake: the lighting is wrong, the resolution is wrong, the texture is wrong. However there were people who were convinced that these were real photos of fairies back then.
JetSpiegel 6y ago
> Convincingly faking photos was, until recently, pretty damn hard. Stalin did it nearly 100 years ago.

noxer 6y ago

But its not about evidence. Its about shifting public opinion. There is and most probably never will be a law that prevents people from sharing/liking/commenting or otherwise trigger the algorithms to spread something based on the fact that it is fake. Media also fakes stuff by simply not providing context. It need no "active" image manipulation. cutting and embedding it into other content works fine since years and apparently there is very very little that can legally be done against this. The fact that the original is out there is also rather meaningless. take for example the very popular "very fine people on both sides" quote, nothing stops you or me to listen to the full conversation. But even today from random people on the street who recognizes the quote probably 50% do not know the real context. Most probably because they simply dont care enough. They involuntary heard the quote but they will not involuntary hear the context, because one goes viral the other does not.

simion314 6y ago
I was thinking at some tabloids, sure some anonymous can post fake stuff but if a journalists creates the fake image/video or documents then there should be more consequences. Also I am not from US so I am not targeting a specific camp, when I was watching news (I stopped years ago_ a lot of energy was spent on discussing insinuations, fake stuff or trivial things. I realized that politicians know how to throw the media some delicious bones to keep them busy with whatever they want.
- noxer 6y ago
  Its called "accountability", something mainstream journalism doesn't seem to have in most places. Its just a fact that biased "news" get more clicks and thus more money. Its hard to define when "faking" starts and where its is just non-neutral reporting.