3 ms·

Those are not evidence of the contrary. They're attempts, at best.

• digging 3y ago
  On the other hand, there's no evidence this stuff isn't influencing elections either, is there? It's happening, and people are believing it, so I'd say it's almost self-evident that it's influencing elections. People usually expect politics to have decisive, iconic moments like Napoleonic battles. And possibly that was true, back in Napoleonic times. But modern politics is much more like modern warfare, which is nuanced and messy and complex. We don't and can't currently track the factors that lead to someone casting their single vote in a particular way (or at all), but we still need to recognize that they are myriad and complex reasons (in the case of someone who can be swayed... many of us are going to vote one way or another virtually regardless of what happens).
• tremon 3y ago
  The original assertion was about "none of [videos in a political context that could change the course of an election or lead to political violence] having transpired". Of course a single example of a deepfake appearing in a political context is evidence of the contrary. As formulated, it isn't necessary for either election outcomes or political violence to be attributed to said fake videos, and I would say that demanding that kind of evidence is unreasonable (it's a common denialist tactic to require an absurd level of evidence). So why exactly are those not evidence of the contrary according to you?