3 ms·

It's already possible to lie with text. Pixels are pixels. If we can't blindly believe pixels to show the truth, we will be simply back to the pre-photography e

It's already possible to lie with text. Pixels are pixels. If we can't blindly believe pixels to show the truth, we will be simply back to the pre-photography era which managed to have a concept of truth regardless.

BoredPositron 5mo ago
When could you ever trust pixels?
- onetokeoverthe 5mo ago
  [dead]
- the_af 5mo ago
  You and I did whenever we assumed the pixels were an upload of a digitized photo taken with an actual camera of, say, a historical event, or something in nature (e.g. some rare bird), a birthday party, etc. The photo could be staged (e.g. Cottingley Fairies), it could be altered physically (like cutting or painting over, e.g. Stalin), it could be cropped intentionally to tell a different story (plenty of examples), and more recently it could be photoshopped, etc. All of these were possible, though harder than it is now, but let's not pretend we didn't "trust pixels". We all did, just as we trusted newspaper photographs. Now that era must come to a firm end, and I believe it's a tragedy.
  - BoredPositron 5mo ago
    Photoshop is older then the web...
    - the_af 5mo ago
      Where did I mention the web?
latexr 5mo ago
For the umpteenth time, scale and ease of access and propagation matters. A knife and a handgun aren’t comparable to a machine gun and a bomb. When you have equal access to all of those, the damage you can enact is exponentiated. You could lie with text before, but it took effort and time and skill to do it convincingly. You could also lie with images but they took even more time and effort and skill, greatly limiting the pool of people who could do it and the possible damage. When anyone anywhere can convincingly lie and have it do two laps around the world in a matter of minutes, the whole game changes. It’s becoming very hard to believe that people making arguments like yours are doing so in good faith. Maybe you’re not even a person but a shill bot. That’s a very real and trivial possibility today, which is the whole point and illustrates the problem.
- bonoboTP 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - latexr 5mo ago
    That’s a non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with “mainstream media”. Which, by the way, is not a singular entity you can blindly trust or distrust, don’t fall into that indoctrination trap. This is basic despotic citizen control: Get everyone to distrust those who hold them accountable; label them as irredeemable liars so you can do as you please. Edit: Removed swipes while keeping the core argument.
    - streetfighter64 5mo ago
      Ah yes, accusing people of being shills and bots, and "indoctrinated", the core principles of good faith arguments. > Label them as irredeemable liars so you can do as you please. Do you not see the irony?
      - latexr 5mo ago
        You’re right. I should’ve done better and apologise. I have lightly edited the post above to keep the core point while removing the swipes. I disagree with the irony point on the basis that none of us here (I assume) is a despot or in a position of power high enough to lie to the point of discrediting entire institutions to the masses. We can be victims of it, but not perpetrators. Also, nowhere have I accused anyone in particular of being a liar. Still, given that my ill chosen words will have no doubt clouded your understanding of the point—which is on me—I won’t hold that against you, I take responsibility.

BoredPositron 5mo ago

When could you ever trust pixels?

onetokeoverthe 5mo ago
[dead]
the_af 5mo ago
You and I did whenever we assumed the pixels were an upload of a digitized photo taken with an actual camera of, say, a historical event, or something in nature (e.g. some rare bird), a birthday party, etc. The photo could be staged (e.g. Cottingley Fairies), it could be altered physically (like cutting or painting over, e.g. Stalin), it could be cropped intentionally to tell a different story (plenty of examples), and more recently it could be photoshopped, etc. All of these were possible, though harder than it is now, but let's not pretend we didn't "trust pixels". We all did, just as we trusted newspaper photographs. Now that era must come to a firm end, and I believe it's a tragedy.
- BoredPositron 5mo ago
  Photoshop is older then the web...
  - the_af 5mo ago
    Where did I mention the web?

latexr 5mo ago

For the umpteenth time, scale and ease of access and propagation matters. A knife and a handgun aren’t comparable to a machine gun and a bomb. When you have equal access to all of those, the damage you can enact is exponentiated. You could lie with text before, but it took effort and time and skill to do it convincingly. You could also lie with images but they took even more time and effort and skill, greatly limiting the pool of people who could do it and the possible damage. When anyone anywhere can convincingly lie and have it do two laps around the world in a matter of minutes, the whole game changes. It’s becoming very hard to believe that people making arguments like yours are doing so in good faith. Maybe you’re not even a person but a shill bot. That’s a very real and trivial possibility today, which is the whole point and illustrates the problem.

bonoboTP 5mo ago
[flagged]
- latexr 5mo ago
  That’s a non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with “mainstream media”. Which, by the way, is not a singular entity you can blindly trust or distrust, don’t fall into that indoctrination trap. This is basic despotic citizen control: Get everyone to distrust those who hold them accountable; label them as irredeemable liars so you can do as you please. Edit: Removed swipes while keeping the core argument.
  - streetfighter64 5mo ago
    Ah yes, accusing people of being shills and bots, and "indoctrinated", the core principles of good faith arguments. > Label them as irredeemable liars so you can do as you please. Do you not see the irony?
    - latexr 5mo ago
      You’re right. I should’ve done better and apologise. I have lightly edited the post above to keep the core point while removing the swipes. I disagree with the irony point on the basis that none of us here (I assume) is a despot or in a position of power high enough to lie to the point of discrediting entire institutions to the masses. We can be victims of it, but not perpetrators. Also, nowhere have I accused anyone in particular of being a liar. Still, given that my ill chosen words will have no doubt clouded your understanding of the point—which is on me—I won’t hold that against you, I take responsibility.