Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks The Internet

Facebook Bans Deepfake Videos In the Lead Up To the 2020 US Election (unirobotica.com) 65

Posted by BeauHD from the misleading-manipulated-media dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Bans Deepfake Videos In the Lead Up To the 2020 US Election More

Facebook Bans Deepfake Videos In the Lead Up To the 2020 US Election

Comments Filter:

  • no help (Score:3)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @05:32PM (#59597198)
    Then FB goes on to claim they got Trump elected and likely the same thing will happen in 2020, so what's the point?
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07... [cnn.com]

  • Still allow stuff taken out of context (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They still approve of video that has been cut up and rearranged with no context

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So who's decision of whether it is fake or not? Still up to interpretation...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      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

    • Probably the decision of the person allegedly potrayed? Not sure how that is "up to interpretation".

  • Oh BULLSHIT (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @05:46PM (#59597224)

    "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!

    • They'd have to ban most of the media, especially the countless late night shows.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      "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.)

    • "this policy does not extend to video that has been edited solely to...change the order of words."

      Good, safe are my Yodoshopped videos.

    • to have him say "America is going to war with Iran!"
      when he actually said "America is NOT going to war with Iran!"
      is perfectly fine then.

      Awesome.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by scrout ( 814004 )
        Yunno, the media saying Trump said shit he didn't say is very common, right? The entire 2.5 year Russian Collusion horseshit was a deep fake, QPB Ukraine the same. That Soleimani was somehow such a good terrorist we shouldn't have killed him talking point. But you have never sought out any other sources, so how would you know a deep fake?
    • It'd be pretty hard to make any promotional video, unless it was all shot in one continuous take. I understand your point, and agree their exception could've (should've) been worded better. But I understand what they were trying to get at with that exception, and it's not as nefarious as you're making it out to be.

  • That's probably reasonable... how will they apply (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @05:52PM (#59597238)

    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)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Whats a deep fake? A political cartoon with a face from the media at 30 to 60 fps? Artwork using photography/a series of digital images at 30/60 fps? A created movie poster with placed in political art?
      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 ... Fake...and its removed along every account of the sinful "international" people who shared the funny art link...
      An image from the media with a new politica
  • I’ve yet to see a confirmed Deepfake video that did not live smack in the middle of the creepy depths of the uncanny valley at best, while the rest are ‘clearly fake’ in the vein of playstation 2 graphics.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      I’ve yet to see a confirmed Deepfake video that did not live smack in the middle of the creepy depths of the uncanny valley at best . . .

      that you know of.

  • Will they remove a Deep Fake if Trump posts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @06:01PM (#59597274) Homepage

    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)

      by quonset ( 4839537 )

      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)

        by sexconker ( 1179573 )

        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.

    • Why remove them? They're not "news" organizations, they by definition are "social media". They're allegiance is to profit not facts. It's users who are too stupid to know the difference and lack critical thinking skills. Sheeple, just plain sheeple.

      • 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

    • He has gotten away with a lot worse.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      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)

        by fenrif ( 991024 )

        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)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )
          Bullshit. He's only upset that other people are complaining and so he has to spend some effort convincing those people that he's doing something, which distracts him from raking in the advertising money.

  • 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.

  • "We, the large American Corporation, will decide what information and political satire is acceptable for the people to see." The current Chinese government and former Soviet Union would be proud. Glad we know what team you're on, facebook.

  • how can you tell? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fish_in_the_c ( 577259 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @06:09PM (#59597300)

    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?

    • can you algorithmically filter for likely deep fakes?

      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.

    • 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.

  • So like when a politician gives a speech and the news plays the first few words, but then does a voice-over where they put words into his mouth?

  • This will solve everything!

  • I was getting tired of pictures of the US Supreme court with Ruth Bader Ginsburg alive.

  • deep fakes are becoming soo good as it's getting to a point where it's (almost) impossible to see if it's actually a deep fake. And most problems arrise from being taken out of context (like someone else here already mentioned)..
  • This just sounds like they want to reject all the stuff they disagree with.

    It's legal, but make sure you note this when you decide if you're going to engage FB.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close