Twitter Proposes Flagging Deepfakes, But Would Only Remove Content That Threatens Harm (venturebeat.com) 16
Twitter is proposing a handful of new features designed to help its users spot "synthetic" or "manipulated" media, including deepfake videos. From a report: The social networking giant last month announced plans to implement a new policy around media assets that have been altered to mislead the public. Today heralds Twitter's first draft proposal, alongside a public consultation period, as it works to refine the rules and how they will be enforced. "When you come to Twitter to see what's happening in the world, we want you to have context about the content you're seeing and engaging with," said Twitter VP of trust and safety Del Harvey in a blog post. "Deliberate attempts to mislead or confuse people through manipulated media undermine the integrity of the conversation."
Of course once in place this wont be abuse... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can't trust tech companies to be unbiased and competent
Read your first sentence and tell me why anyone should trust anyone to be unbiased and competent.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the Good Old Days(tm), anyone with a printing press and some capital was able to start a newspaper. The success or failure of that company was based on subscriptions and advertisement. If you spewed a lot of lies and made readers feel foolish among their peers, you'd lose subscribers. There is no real formal regulation to truth in reporting, it's all based on our perception and the standards of the community. Tell us lies that don't line up with reality, we'll eventually catch on. Careful spin doctoring and half-truths and we'd let it slide, especially if it confirms our own bias.
How is this any different than today? You need even less capital or know how to start a YouTube channel or launch a website and your audience isn't just limited to some local market, but encompasses nearly the entire world. If you're enough of a crank, the rest of the internet will make fun of you, but if your website or channel gives people what they want to hear you'll have plenty of followers that will overlook minor foibles. It doesn't really matter how much people use SEO tactics to promote something s
Re: (Score:2)
Read the headline wrong... (Score:2)
Deliberate attempts to mislead or confuse people (Score:2)
From Dictionary.com:
Internet: noun. The deliberate attempt to mislead or confuse people through manipulated media.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet: noun. The deliberate attempt to mislead or confuse people through manipulated media.
You don't mean the internet; you mean the World-Wide Web. Slashdotters should know the difference.
This is the direction to go in (Score:2)
Flagging content without removal is definitely the direction we should all be going. We're at a point where we can't trust even video recordings. The human eye can still tell what's real, but it takes concentration - way more than a casual viewer will ever give.
Still, we can't let technology be a censor. Flagging is as far as we can safely go without bigger problems. It would be even better if there was a way to publicly see details of the analysis so that it doesn't require blind trust of an algorithm
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not content can be considered legally trustworthy, until it is proven in court. As a contract administrator that was the same view held for all contracts, sure you have a contract, how good or bad it is, is not a reality until it is actually tested in court.
So you make you choice accept what you will, reject what you dislike and well if you want it tested, take it to court and test it there, that is the only place truth or lies are legally tested beyond that it is only people's opinions but watc
When you come to Twitter... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Twitter is a good way to get through the media filter. If you follow politicians you can get their immediate takes on things, not just the particular sound-bite that they chose for the evening news.
Of course some of them have PR teams controlling their accounts but a lot don't. It can be quite enlightening to see their unfiltered responses to things. You can reply and engage some of them in conversation too, giving you unprecedented ability to influence politics for free.
The good censor (Score:2)
Block the great political art that is too sensitive for Communist China, Spain, Germany
they'll flag almost everything (Score:2)
I'm sure lots of young people take raw photos and videos and dump them on the internet. I know there are many people who conscientiously edit their stills & vids for best effect before uploading them. If only raw camera output is OK, there's going to be a lot more crap than usual out there.
For my part, it's possible that I've never saved an image that wasn't cropped and edited in various ways for size, clarity and other normal purposes. I don't use the 'artzy' Photoshop filters, but many do--does that m
Re: (Score:2)
The gov of the UK, France, Germany, Spain has political experts to help with that.
Some political NGO in the USA will have experts for that.
They once worked to detect "Russians" for the US gov/mil. Now they work in the private sector for the NGO...to find Russian art and jokes online..
NATO has experts too.
Re "How will they be trained to identify "Deliberate attempts to mislead or confuse people through manipulated media "?"
If its t
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually: If it has found any of the approved "truths" to be a (deep)fake, it must be a Russian conspiracy". In order to be "approved" the truth needs to get the approval from the list you just mentioned.
My favourite one is this "approved truth" video which has been used by all of the mass media as a the definitive proof the idea of Russian involvement in the MH017 shoot-down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
It has 40+ artefacts from computer edi