3 ms·

That horse has bolted. The reason is that this trust was misplaced in the first instance.

• akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >That horse has bolted. I don't follow. Sure, existing images can't be retroactively made verifiable, but tech like this can stem the tide from this point on, and that is useful. >The reason is that this trust was misplaced in the first instance. I don't follow this either. Trust in photos? It has always been appropriate to trust a photo in proportion to the difficulty of faking it. Are you commenting on the fact that it has recently become much easier to fake a variety of photos (deepfakes, etc.) but a large fraction of society isn't yet wise to this?
  • 8note 3y ago
    The trust is misplaced because while the photo might be accurate of what the photographer saw as they clicked the button, nothing says its representative of the overall scene, or that a different picture of the scene could show a very different description. For an example, consider a side on closeup of a trump campaign speech vs a top down view zoomed out of the whole park. Photojournalists can choose which pictures to use to make an argument, and people are too trusting that there aren't alternatives that more strongly support a different argument The photo doesn't have to be untrue to be misleading
    • akoboldfrying 3y ago
      >nothing says its representative of the overall scene This is a genuine concern, but one that's shared by all forms of inductive reasoning. The same concern could be raised about everything our senses tell us about the world.