Facebook Bans Deepfake Videos In the Lead Up To the 2020 US Election (unirobotica.com) 65
Ammalgam shares a report from Unirobotica: Last year, Facebook announced measures to protect the 2020 U.S. election from foreign influence and misleading information last year. Now, in addition to those, [The Washington Post reports] the firm has announced that it is banning deepfakes -- manipulated photos and videos -- from its platforms, a move aimed to curb misinformation ahead of the U.S. presidential election later this year.
This move is similar to a move made by Twitter to ban deepfakes from it's platform. This was announced in a blog post by Monika Bickert, their Vice President of Global Policy Management, stating that "misleading manipulated media" would be removed if it meets the following criteria: "It has been edited or synthesized -- beyond adjustments for clarity or quality -- in ways that aren't apparent to an average person and would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not actually say. And: It is the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning that merges, replaces or superimposes content onto a video, making it appear to be authentic." Facebook did reveal that "this policy does not extend to content that is parody or satire, or video that has been edited solely to omit or change the order of words."
This move is similar to a move made by Twitter to ban deepfakes from it's platform. This was announced in a blog post by Monika Bickert, their Vice President of Global Policy Management, stating that "misleading manipulated media" would be removed if it meets the following criteria: "It has been edited or synthesized -- beyond adjustments for clarity or quality -- in ways that aren't apparent to an average person and would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not actually say. And: It is the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning that merges, replaces or superimposes content onto a video, making it appear to be authentic." Facebook did reveal that "this policy does not extend to content that is parody or satire, or video that has been edited solely to omit or change the order of words."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you saying the only thing US conservatives can offer to the world is deep fakes? You're probably right.
Re: (Score:2)
The projection is strong with this one.
no help (Score:3)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07... [cnn.com]
Still allow stuff taken out of context (Score:1)
They still approve of video that has been cut up and rearranged with no context
Re: (Score:2)
They still approve of video that has been cut up and rearranged with no context
They know they shouldn't mess with a time-honored tradition.
Sounds suspicious... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we express the reality of the situation. In the near future, Facebook bans real life animation. You know that is just down the pike, completely fake, animation, who owns that face, the animator or the person who believes it looks like them. Different name, different person, so Don Don the Orange Orangutan can look similar to Trump perhaps not the weird white raccoon mask around his eyes but then again, yeah, I suppose the orangutan could also have that weird white raccoon mask around the eyes.
So t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Camera based MD5 checksums prove the video has been unaltered since being recorded
I strongly doubt they do any such thing.
Re: Sounds suspicious... (Score:2)
Oh BULLSHIT (Score:4, Insightful)
"this policy does not extend to video that has been edited solely to omit or change the order of words."
Editing the pictures is bad because that confuses people as they're too stupid to realize the truth - but editing what the speaker is SAYING is perfectly a-ok!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"this policy has been edited solely to omit or change the order of words."
Editing the pictures to the truth does not extend to video. That is bad, because that confuses people, as what the speaker is SAYING is too stupid! But editing does not extend to perfectly a-ok video!
FTFY. (Omitted three words.)
Be with you, the Force (Score:3, Funny)
Good, safe are my Yodoshopped videos.
So changing a Trump speech video (Score:2)
when he actually said "America is NOT going to war with Iran!"
is perfectly fine then.
Awesome.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, without that exception (Score:2)
That's probably reasonable... how will they apply (Score:4, Insightful)
The policy itself seems reasonable to prevent confusion, but I have this feeling that a lot of conservative parody videos that are not truly Deep Fakes, will fall victim to this new policy....
Re: (Score:1)
The movie never had that political leader in it.... Fake.. and its gone with the account of the sinful creative person.
The movie never existed
An image from the media with a new politica
Re: (Score:2)
There's no video.
Of President Trump.
Sucking a ding dong.
Still not convinced (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
that you know of.
Will they remove a Deep Fake if Trump posts (Score:3, Interesting)
Most social media seems to be willing to let Politicians, including Trump, to say whatever they want without any punishment.
They can spread lies, falsehoods, etc. with no consequences.
So the question is not if they will ban Russia from using Deep Fakes, but whether if the President of the US posts a Deep fake, will they punish him in ANY way.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So the question is . . . whether if the President of the US posts a Deep fake, will they punish him in ANY way.
Considering Moscow Mitch and Benedict Arnold Graham have already said, before a trial has even begun in the Senate, the con artist is free to abuse his office and commit other crimes, I don't think FB will have any say about punishment. Because if they do you can be sure the whiny Republicans will immediately jump up and down claiming their conservative lies are being censored.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Moscow Mitch is standard left-can't-meme bullshit. It's unfounded, and lame, but at least it's part of your established narrative.
But what the fuck are you accusing Graham of, exactly? He's not even in agreement with Trump 90% of the time. He's one of his biggest critics on the right.
FYI - correct memeing on Mitch McConnell will always involve his melting turtle face. If you just made cartoons of him as a dopey old turtle, you'd have far more success in attacking him.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no legal definition of news or social media.
As for the sheeple argument, it is at heart the argument of an authoritarian. Dictator/king/racist.
Basically you are saying that the majority of people are stupid (with the implication that you are one of the 'superior' non-stupid/sheeple people).
If you were right, then democracy should be abandoned as a failure.
This is not true. Yes, 20% of the people are stupid. So what. Smart people can split the stupid vote. Democracy can still work.
But it requi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shame on you for assuming any politician tells the truth.
When zuckerfuck announced he was working on misinformation on the internet, he was questioned about political misinformation and false statements. His answer was crap. He should have said it is impossible to sensor and edit political speech because if you removed all the false statements all you have left is just their @name .
If you still think anyone in politics is telling you the truth you are a naive millennial who is ridiculously wet behind the ea
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand. He's not upset about people lying. He's upset about what the other tribe is doing. It just so happens that he thinks they are lying. So he's upset the other tribe is lying.
His tribe can do whatever they want. They're the "right team" on the "right side of history."
Re: (Score:2)
Won't make a difference (Score:2)
People these days refuse to fact check even the most basic of obviously manipulated bullshit. Banning deep fakes means nothing in a world where major media outlets decide who wins an election.
2020=1984 (Score:1, Troll)
how can you tell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a really super naive question here maybe, but isn't the point of a deep fake that it is REALLY hard to tell if what you are looking at is real or faked?
If I post a video of a presidential candidate saying or doing something stupid, who gets to decide if that event really happened ? How do they know?
I mean can you algorithmically filter for likely deep fakes?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, easily. There are artifacts that are much easier for software to see than the human eye. But it's obvious this will start a whack-a-mole game and soon enough it will require software to discern the difference. Like spam filtering, if a human couldn't recognize spam.
Re: (Score:2)
There are artifacts that are much easier for software to see than the human eye.
Assuming one can stay ahead of the deepfake GANs.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's obvious this will start a whack-a-mole game
Yo, dawg... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Iamthecheese is an idiot.
They're easy for people to distinguish. Very easy.
They're hard for computers to distinguish, mainly because they networks that generate them train themselves in the same way a network to detect them would.
Further, you can slather blur, downscaling, artificial noise, extra compression, etc. on top for the finished product, further confusing any mechanical analysis. People will see right through that shit, however.
They are just trying to pick on poor old Forrest (Score:2)
That's what we call the news (Score:2)
At last! (Score:2)
This will solve everything!
Thank goodness (Score:2)
I was getting tired of pictures of the US Supreme court with Ruth Bader Ginsburg alive.
good luck... (Score:2)
What? How do they know what is a DF Video? (Score:1)
It's legal, but make sure you note this when you decide if you're going to engage FB.