4 ms·

I get that this is juicy for news and journos. but deepfakes are overrated especially in influence ops. you don’t need fake content or lies to create disinform

I get that this is juicy for news and journos. but deepfakes are overrated especially in influence ops. you don’t need fake content or lies to create disinformation. In fact, you want to use the truth as much as possible. Just not the whole truth. Selective editing is an extremely simple technique, which has worked since many decades. The real casualties of deepfakes aren't political adversaries but young women (something which isn't talked about enough). edit: here is a really good take on this by grugq: https://medium.com/@thegrugq/cheap-fakes-beat-deep-fakes-b1ac91e44837 https://medium.com/@thegrugq/cheap-fakes-beat-deep-fakes-b1a...

Apocryphon 6y ago
This is incredibly true. And the thing is, sometimes you don't even need selective editing, so much as framing what the footage one is about to see before someone sees it. The aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election is replete with examples of footage from election centers and dueling narratives emerging from people interpreting what the staffers were doing. I remember back at the 2004 presidential debates, people were accusing Bush of having a listening device strapped to his back based on a few dark pixels that looked like a bump. And 9/11 footage must have been poured over for millions of man hours now, with conspiracists seeing what they want to see. I'm not sure if even "concrete" evidence like video proof is worth anything anymore. People will choose to believe what they want to. Evidence isn't the problem. Consensus is. Like the crisis of reproducibility in science, the communal framework for evaluating news (usually for political or other tribal ends) is broken. It doesn't matter how real evidence is if people aren't going to reject anything that conflicts their story, prima facie. Deep fake footage is bad, but as you say, there are simpler techniques like selective editing, that have always existed. And you can provide the most pure and uncut evidence, but if there's no mutually agreed-upon protocol among observers, they will walk away with their own interpretation.
CharlesW 6y ago
> I get that this is juicy for news and journos. but deepfakes are overrated especially in influence ops. This warning isn't about what is, but what will be. I don't see how one can be familiar with the recent history of disinformation created using relatively unsophisticated methods, and simultaneously not understand the Pandora's Box being opened by cheap, easy, and perfectly-convincing synthetic content.

Apocryphon 6y ago

This is incredibly true. And the thing is, sometimes you don't even need selective editing, so much as framing what the footage one is about to see before someone sees it. The aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election is replete with examples of footage from election centers and dueling narratives emerging from people interpreting what the staffers were doing. I remember back at the 2004 presidential debates, people were accusing Bush of having a listening device strapped to his back based on a few dark pixels that looked like a bump. And 9/11 footage must have been poured over for millions of man hours now, with conspiracists seeing what they want to see. I'm not sure if even "concrete" evidence like video proof is worth anything anymore. People will choose to believe what they want to. Evidence isn't the problem. Consensus is. Like the crisis of reproducibility in science, the communal framework for evaluating news (usually for political or other tribal ends) is broken. It doesn't matter how real evidence is if people aren't going to reject anything that conflicts their story, prima facie. Deep fake footage is bad, but as you say, there are simpler techniques like selective editing, that have always existed. And you can provide the most pure and uncut evidence, but if there's no mutually agreed-upon protocol among observers, they will walk away with their own interpretation.

CharlesW 6y ago

> I get that this is juicy for news and journos. but deepfakes are overrated especially in influence ops. This warning isn't about what is, but what will be. I don't see how one can be familiar with the recent history of disinformation created using relatively unsophisticated methods, and simultaneously not understand the Pandora's Box being opened by cheap, easy, and perfectly-convincing synthetic content.