3 ms·

I wonder why the article has the title '20170629-the-hidden-signs-that-can...' in the url. That date would suggest it's from the 29th of june 2017 (while the da

by hwers 5y ago

I wonder why the article has the title '20170629-the-hidden-signs-that-can...' in the url. That date would suggest it's from the 29th of june 2017 (while the date below the headlines says 2020), way before the current breakthroughs of deep fakes.

commoner 5y ago
Nice catch. The article was republished. Here's an archive from 2019 of the original 2017 version: https://web.archive.org/web/20191030232152/https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170629-the-hidden-signs-that-can-reveal-if-a-photo-is-fake https://web.archive.org/web/20191030232152/https://www.bbc.c...
- hwers 5y ago
  I'll be honest and admit that in taking a second look I noticed that they totally admit to this being a republished article from earlier: "[...] BBC Future has brought you in-depth and rigorous stories to help you navigate the current pandemic, but we know that’s not all you want to read. So now we’re dedicating a series to help you escape. We’ll be revisiting our most popular features from the last three years in our Lockdown Longreads.[...]"
  - commoner 5y ago
    I didn't see that, either. My eyes glossed right over the italics.
  - dang 5y ago
    Still kind of dodgy not to include the original date, and to display today's date in exactly the same way that a publication date is usually displayed.
dang 5y ago
We've added the year to the title now. Thanks!