Meta's New Rule: If Your Political Ad Uses AI Trickery, You Must Confess (techxplore.com) 110
Press2ToContinue writes: Starting next year, Meta will play the role of a strict schoolteacher for political ads, making them fess up if they've used AI to tweak images or sounds. This new 'honesty policy' will kick in worldwide on Facebook and Instagram, aiming to prevent voters from being duped by digitally doctored candidates or made-up events. Meanwhile, Microsoft is jumping on the integrity bandwagon, rolling out anti-tampering tech and a support squad to shield elections from AI mischief.
Yeah, sure. (Score:3, Insightful)
Like all social media, they'll interpret the rules to give the owner what he wants.
Democracy is over (Score:2, Interesting)
So if you have the backing of big corporation like MSFT or META, or Soros, or Peter Thiel to spend on high production value advertising, you can make whatever you want, say whatever you want.
If you don't have money to build sets and pay actors but try to do an ad on the cheap with AI - well you'll have all your posts labeled with some kind of mark of taint, which will be universally seen as 'you're a liar' no matter what the content actually is.
Relax it's fine (Score:5, Interesting)
Money in politics isn't about lying, it's about name recognition. People vote for the name the recognize, at least the "independent" voters do. The rest tend to vote on party lines first and finally issues come into play. That isn't great, but it means fake news isn't going to have as big an impact on Democracy as folks think.
Meanwhile a better educated population means that people will do a better job evaluating candidates, so you'll see less of that name recognition voting going on. The parties are so starkly divided you'll still have party line voting, I don't think anyone who'd consider voting for a Democrat could imagine crossing party lines at this point. The talk of closing borders at states to prevent abortions alone shuts that down and purity tests in the Republican party around abortion mean you can't win a primary election without supporting that. But that's still at least issues based voting.
As the baby boomers age out of voting and a younger generation with a *lot* less property and money comes of age you'll eventually see a new new deal though and things will get better. The only question is if something like "Project 2025" (google it) will install the next GOP president as dictator. That's a real possibility, but it won't be fake news causing that, it'll be a classic soft coup scenario.
Re:Relax it's fine (Score:5, Insightful)
What you see 99% of the time is that stuff being taught be some atheist who has never read a Bible, let alone studied any modern apologetics, arguing against Christian faith by refuting a claim that is never made, or something else factually incorrect.
The challenge you have with this approach is there are millions and millions of people who call themselves "Christians" who either don't practice Christ's teachings, or actively campaign against them.
Christ taught us to help the poor and the sick, and to forgive. He was on the side of the exploited and the oppressed.
Yet many people who call themselves "Christian" vote for politicians who actively seek to do the opposite. Trump certainly doesn't live Jesus's beatitudes - He probably couldn't even quote one, and neither could many of his "Christian" followers.
Re:Relax it's fine (Score:4, Interesting)
I want to get t-shirts printed up (Big block letters like ""Frankie Says: Relax") that says...
Christ Was A:
Woke
Liberal
Socialist
Jewish
Person of Color
The lib's need to take him back from the anti-Christians that stole him.
Re: Relax it's fine (Score:2)
I'm an atheist, always have been, and... No, the shoe doesn't fit.
Woke is right out because there doesn't appear to be anything even remotely comparable to the oppression olympics at the time.
Liberalism is defined mostly by being opposed to the idea of absolute rule and separation of church and state. None of those things seemed to be on his agenda.
And socialism... That's a definite no. I've seen the bits where Yeshua says give Cesar what is his, but I've never seen anything about him demanding that Cesar o
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny, the above posters were all talking about Christ's teachings and you reply like you're refuting them but dont mention his teachings once.
I do enjoy that the farther down your post one goes the more it moves away from addressing what anyone said and you even get in some good ol liberal bashing which I'm sure felt good for you so that's nice.
Re: (Score:2)
I do remember the authority of Peter. Never the less Peter is not Christ nor are Peter's wisdoms those of Christ. Off topic,
I went one-by-one through the items given.
Yes and addressed them in a manor completely inconsistent to how they were brought up. I could also go through those points and address every point's merit versus the Giant Spaghetti Monster in the Sky and be as exactly as on point as you were as neither of us would have brought up Christ's teachings once.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope
Re: You're the one stealing (Score:2)
This is the weirdest argument I've read here. Why would anyone care what some dude thought 2000 years ago? Even if that dude was actually representing God, the context changed and that God would be smart enough to see that. Human society was vastly different, being a human was a vastly different experience. Many things said then don't apply now. It's like the obsession with the founding fathers, very absurd.
Present humans decide how present society evolves into future society. Why would some of these presen
Re: You're the one stealing (Score:2)
My post does not mention belief. Nowadays people eat pork and survive just fine, because the context changed. And at least in some cultures the people who have the most sex before marriage are the people who have the least children, because these days we have good contraception, because again, the context changed. The people having many children are typically the more religious, who are also more likely to not have sex before marriage. Thanks for providing two examples supporting my point: what was potentia
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Ignorant coward,
We're talking about what Jesus supposedly said (Sermon on the Mound), not what a council called by the Emperor of the Roman Empire decided (sure, no politics there).
And "white" Ashkenazi Jews are racist against Sephardic Jews - I *saw* this when a cousin married a Sephardic Jew, and he, like all of his family, had darker "dusky" skin color. Not one of our side (well, of course, except for my folks) went over to talk to them.
Re: (Score:3)
> You mean like Pride, which is one of the deadly sins?
Well, if I was to get technical, the Seven Deadly Sins aren't actually in the Bible as such.
But Jesus's Beatitudes are, and many people who call themselves Christian couldn't even name one.
For the record -
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righ
Re: (Score:2)
Their history is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You also have to follow his teachings as outlined in his New Testaments. You have to be a good person - And vote for good people. You have to do your best to help the unfortunate. Every day.
I have no clue what "gaslighting from woke atheists" means, but as a Christian I can tell you that if Jesus was around today, teaching his gospels of peace, understanding and charity, he would be considered a liberal.
I don't know
Re: (Score:3)
Trump certainly doesn't live Jesus's beatitudes - He probably couldn't even quote one, and neither could many of his "Christian" followers.
As a bible thumper myself, it grieved me to see my church friends jump on the Trump Train like he was the messiah he claimed to be. He only started catering to the religious right when it boosted his campaign; prior to that he didn't have a religious bone in his body.
When asked for his favorite scripture, he vaguely referenced that he liked "that eye for an eye thing" - which of course Jesus explicitly refuted. For every open insult to people of faith, for every slap in the face of military heroism, they ju
Re: (Score:3)
But if we make that excuse for Trump, can't we make the same excuse for his GOP rivals, or gasp! even for Biden?
Truly living as Christ taught us is pretty much impossible. All we can do is try to do our best to live as good people and to help those less fortunate than us.
Using that yardstick I would not use that excuse for Trump because he's not even trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... they are. (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is people who have a literal interpretation of the bible (which is funny, because they're interpreting a translation of a translation [imdb.com] that was itself not meant by it's authors to be taken literally in most cases).
The reason for a "literal interpretation" is typically because it discourages questioning authority. The bible becomes the authority and through it the people who read it to you and tell you how to think about it.
This can upset some parents, who want their children to be unquestioningly obedient because that lets them skip the actual hard work of parenting (teaching a child how to think and grow and live). But moreover it really upsets church leaders that want big tithes rather than, you know, following the teachings of Christ.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've got to remember that when protestantism came about, the authority of the Bible was to counterbalance the authority of the Pope. These days we've got lots of other "top authority"s to choose between, but back then even the state was subservient (mostly) to the Pope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Relax it's fine (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll actually find that a lot of atheists have indeed read the bible.
How do you think they became atheist?
Re: (Score:1)
There are two kinds of Bible scholars, beginners and atheists.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think that was true, but it isn't. Many Bible scholars actually do believe in Christianity (some version) or Judaism. It's called suspension of disbelief, and any science-fiction reader should be familiar with it...they just don't drop the suspension when they stop reading. (Often, however, they don't notice the disconnect between their beliefs and their actions.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually pretty sure that most of the "zealous" atheists would just gladly drop the whole issue if it wasn't for the theists trying to cram their Jesus into laws affecting people who don't want some dude crammed down their throats.
If that's your thing, hey, more power to you and have fun, but I have different kinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would atheists read the Bible, Christians don't even do that.
"...arguing against Christian faith by refuting a claim that is never made,..."
What claim would that be?
"While stomping all over the establishment clause."
LOL Atheists are? Atheists are trying to get Congress to establish a religion?
"Which is somehow always a one way street."
Separation of church and state should definitely be a two-way street. It's one-way because of the church, not the state.
"It's not critical thinking when basic premises
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I suspect that many of the things in the Bible that appear contradictory are actually figurative language being mangled by translators. And some are popular fables being presented as truth because "My great-grandfather told my father, and he was only a few miles away".
E.g.: Consider Solomon and the threat to divide the baby in half. It has been strongly suggested to me that this was a parable told (by Solomon?) warning people against civil war. I can't prove that this is correct, but I sure can't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Relax it's fine (Score:4, Insightful)
On the whole, atheists know more about religion in general [pewresearch.org] and the Bible specifically than Christians do. This is clearly evident when so-called Christians claim their religion commands them to be discriminatory against certain groups. Not sure what Bible they're reading because I can't find anything to back them up.
arguing against Christian faith by refuting a claim that is never made,
Which claim is that? That Christians are supposed to be kind to their fellow man? That Christians are supposed to help the poor? That Christians are supposed to pray in private? Which claim are you referring to?
While stomping all over the establishment clause. Which is somehow always a one way street.
Because it is a one way street. The one and only thing the separation of church and state intended to do was prevent the government from telling people how or what to worship. Or not worship. As both Madison and Jefferson stated, and was reinforced by Jackson, there is a wall of separation between church and state which should not be broken because everyone knew the death and destruction which follows if the government meddles in religious dealings or takes sides.
No one is preventing Christians from praying or worshipping as they choose. No one is closing churches. What they are doing is preventing Christians from subverting the Constitution by making false claims about what the Constitution says or that somehow they should be given special treatment above all other religions. This last part is clearly evident when Christians say they should be allowed to pray in schools, but when they are reminded that Satanists should also be allowed to pray in school, suddenly there's an uproar about how awful it is that someone else should be able to pray. And then they drop the request to pray in school. If they can't have their way, no one can.
Which is typical the book banning we see going on by Christians. If they don't want their kid to read a book, no one else's kid should be able to read it either.
Re:Relax it's fine (Score:5, Insightful)
What you see 99% of the time is that stuff being taught be some atheist who has never read a Bible, let alone studied any modern apologetics, arguing against Christian faith by refuting a claim that is never made, or something else factually incorrect.
While stomping all over the establishment clause. Which is somehow always a one way street.
Its not critical thinking when basic premises are falsified. Its called propaganda and lying. Yes its objectionable.
Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/1... [newrepublic.com]
Jesus is now too woke for the republican party.
Re: (Score:2)
Right.
Are you one of those people who I read pastors are being upset by, who *just* read the Sermon on the Mound, and are calling Jesus too "woke" and too "liberal"?
The adaptation is already happening (Score:2)
Trust in media sources - and eyeballs - has/have precipitously declined and will continue to do so. There was a recent Pew poll on this very topic. The trust levels are in the sub-20% at this point in several demographics.
As Goebbels conveniently told us, there are limitations on the power of propaganda. He found that even with a healthy dollop of the truth mixed in with the propaganda, it was disbelieved anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"That isn't great, but it means fake news isn't going to have as big an impact on Democracy as folks think."
Right, because "fake news" can only impact Democracy ON ELECTION DAY, definitely not before. Couldn't possibly impact who turns out to vote, much less how they vote as you say. Some real deep thinking here.
You see, politicians gave up on telling lies because it had no impact on elections.
Re: (Score:1)
Blue state politicians pump out more fake news and propaganda than all others.
Re: Relax it's fine (Score:1)
Education in the US is a jokeâ¦
Re: Relax it's fine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Democracy is over (Score:5, Informative)
You said it, democracy is over.
https://apnews.com/article/ohi... [apnews.com]
https://www.cincinnati.com/sto... [cincinnati.com]
https://news.yahoo.com/having-... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My body, my rules. If you want that fetus to survive, transplant it into your body and carry on.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit, my body my rules is a nonsense statement that sounds good, pretty much every law in existence tells people what they can and can't do with their body.
Don't believe me go in front of a primary school and "play" with your "body". Just the fact that someone sees you doing what you want to your body is enough to get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life. Even laws murder prevents you doing something with your body.
Good laws balance one persons rights against the harm it causes others, If you co
Re: (Score:2)
but spouting meaningless statements like my body my choice, like they are some immutable truth just does not help
If you do not believe one has full control over their body, otherwise known as bodily autonomy [imgur.com], you wouldn't object to the medical community extracting your organs without your consent after you've been in a serious car accident and are on death's door but still breathing. I can't imagine a Jehovah Witness having any objection to this.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not consider an unborn child a person by itself. Neither do the laws in my jurisdiction. A (natural) person's personhood begins at birth and ends with death. Before and after, there is no person.
Re: (Score:3)
It was something forced on the public (which did not support abortion)
Public polling from the last 40 years says differently and no-one is forced to get an abortion, that's why it's called "pro choice".
https://www.pewresearch.org/po... [pewresearch.org]
https://www.axios.com/2023/07/... [axios.com]
"Personhood" is a philosophical and societal concept, not a scientific one. If it was scientific this whole thing would be easy to legislate but it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
But, if you actually read the Old Testament, you will find it has many, many verses on murder and what constitutes it and accidental murder and what constitutes it. The only verses that even come close to dealing with an unborn child is found in Exodus 21:22-25 where it states that if two men fight and cause a woman to miscarry, the husband of the woman has the right to take those who caused the miscarriage to the judges for a civil fine. They don't face an accidental murder charge. If the fight and subsequ
Re:Democracy is over (Score:4, Insightful)
"...abortion is murder and everyone knows it!"
Weren't you just lecturing on critical thinking?
"the science says and recognize fetal personhood."
Science cannot have anything to say about "personhood".
"It was something forced on the public (which did not support abortion) by the court."
An aburd lie. The public supported abortion during the Roe decision and has always since. Even the church overwhelmingly supported Roe. That changed much later when religious extemists looked for a way to gain political power.
"It is as Paul writes, the yeast spreads through the entire dough."
LOL, what insight, and from the certified Biblical sociopath! Remember, Christianity is not about Jesus, it's about Paul, a con man and grifter. No wonder true "christians" idolize a con man and grifter as president, that's who founded the church.
"...will most people again be able to think critically about..."
Weren't you just lecturing on critical thinking?
"...we don't deserve to exist as a nation."
Happy for you to leave. There would be countless people that assist you in that goal.
"Abolition was achieved last time at gun point, so it probably will be again - and it will be worth it."
This is the extent in which you are deluded and the extent in which you would justify violence...and the reason scum like you need to be eliminated.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing democratic about how we got here. It was something forced on the public (which did not support abortion) by the court.
What? It was a straight yes or no question by the voters. You can't get any more democratic than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Abortion is murder and everyone knows it
Ha, do you come up with this nonsense yourself or are you just aping the talking heads you see on the TV?
The reports of democracy's death are overstated (Score:3)
I can tell you right now every Republican strategist is desperately telling them to just accept the defeat and to campaign on it. That's the reason abortion exists is an issue it was specifically selected by the Republican Party in the 60s as a wedge issue that could be used to divid
Re: (Score:2)
You think it will be that good, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
My question is, why would anyone outside a political campaign be generating political ad content for that campaign?
Re: (Score:2)
My question is, why would anyone outside a political campaign be generating political ad content for that campaign?
Why not? Haven't you heard when flyers are sent to voters on the weekend, or even the day, before an election which have no indication who they came from, but will either back one candidate or the other or more usually, denigrate one candidate including lying about them.
Whether the flyer came from the candidate's campaign is irrelevant. The point was to make it so voters got one last thing to think about before the election, but too late for the campaign to respond.
To your questions, imagine someone uses A
No dad (Score:3)
I didn't chop the cherry tree. It was Thomas. I cannot tell a lie.
Re: (Score:3)
Tried to stop him too, that no good Jefferson kid.
Don't need AI for fakes (Score:2)
People were faking videos before AI technology was a thing, using old-fashioned methods. Look at the famous video of Obama kicking the door. It's not really him, but was created using a lookalike actor, similar stage, clothing, and props, and a simple crossfade where the two clips meet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it though, that little clip took some production and care and thought. Now I can just go into Midjourney, "Obama walking up to a door and kicking it down" and it will spit me out something that probably is not as high quality but close enough to fool people browsing on Facebook which is a real problem even for something innocuous like that.
Re: (Score:3)
We've had Photoshop and doctored images for decades too.
The problem is the same that it's always been: media literacy, or lack thereof. At the end of the day, it serves each person to remember that images, video and audio are but one data point and that they can be misleading because they don't paint the full picture.
Even without the use of AI or lookalike actors, videos can be edited using un-doctored source clips in such a way as to mislead. By leaving out crucial context or by editing to create a differe
Too broad (Score:2)
Having to disclose if AI was used to touch up a video or the vocals seems like overreach. If the use of AI is being used to mislead, that is one thing. But if they are using AI to remove a facial blemish or change the color of the candidate's tie, I don't think a disclosure if necessary.
The Standard for Political Ads. (Score:3)
"You will constrain your modes of dishonesty to well-established patterns of evasion, deception, and outright bald-faced lying. Don't get clever. That's Meta's job."
Limited Usefulness (Score:2)
If the findings are not in agreement with the reader's "Trusted Source of Truth" then they will be dismissed as "Fake Newz", "MinTruth", or whatever else will allow them to maintain their particular world view.
If the facts don't match up with their viewpoints, they'll insist that the facts are the problem.
So you're not going to ban them (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think this stuff effects elections as much as people think. Name recognition still Trumps (pun?) fake news all day long.
But this kind of crap can set off a random lunatic on the right wing to go off shooting people. That's happened more than once. Heck it seems to happen 3 or 4 times a year, with another dozen or so cases where they pick the guy up before he manages to do the shooting.
That said, I saw a little graphic today with a list of Trump quotes and Hitler quotes. It wasn't "can you tell the difference" like the old memes, it was a list of things Trump said that were 1 to 1 or nearly 1 to 1 out of old Hitler speeches. Meanwhile we've got things like "Project 2025", which is a plan to disable the bureaucracy that got in the way of Trump overturning the last election (among other things, like seizing control of state legislatures so that fake electors can be sent to vote in whatever president without pesky voters getting in the way). Oh, and there was that thing Ron DeSantis said about slitting government employee's throats ("metaphorically" of course)...
These are pretty major things that are getting little or not mainstream media coverage. At this point it's pretty clear the media is ignoring these things, and you have to start asking why.
And then you look at how much ad revenue they're anticipating next year. It's around $2 billion dollars all told. And it all makes sense. It's gotta be a horse race, otherwise who's gonna put up all that cash for advertisements.
Basically, our entire democracy is at risk because of ad revenue. Your ad blocker might save the world! Huzah!
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to talk about Hitler similarities with Trump right after dismissing the power of "fake news"? You realize that Hitler coined the term "fake news" and "the media is the enemy of the people", right? Propaganda was Hitler's most powerful weapon in his rise to power, and it was Trump's as well.
"Basically, our entire democracy is at risk because of ad revenue."
Well, no. Too reductionist. And Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter is about future propaganda directly benefiting the owners, no ad revenue
Re:Making stuff up (Score:2)
Hitler didn't coin the term "fake news".
Abundant famous examples of deceitful messaging that existed in antiquity can be found by even the laziest researcher using nothing more than Wikipedia, which might be widely seen as a poor source, but the citations on the articles are real. But sure, nothing between antiquity and Nazi Germany had a name for that, and when it was named, it was named by Hitler, and when he named it he used the English language.
Be serious instead of a timewaster. Had you said Goebbels I
Re: (Score:2)
Big Lie & Fake News are different (Score:2)
Repetition like you're talking about isn't Fake News either. It's repeating a lie until it sinks in. That's classic marketing. It's called an "Ad Blitz" these days.
"Fake News" is a slogan used to say there is no truth but your own. It's what religious extremists call "God Glasses". It's new, at least in politics. It's like double think on st
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point, Trump didn't re-invent "fake news" or borrow it from Hitler, he co-opted it from the modern media.
A big issue during the 2016 campaign was literal fake news sites. These sites were largely right wing sites fabricating stories out of this air, and these stories would get circulated around social media.
When the discussion of this started to hit the mainstream media Trump recognized the catchiness of the phrase (and the risk if it got associated with his supporters) so he simply started usin
Re: (Score:2)
Who asked Big Tech to police politics? (Score:1)
Who are these people?
Who asked them to decide who can say what?
How the hell is this legal?
Why aren't our elected officials doing something to rein them in and tell them to stay in their place? (Hint: that last one is a rhetoretical question...)
Facebook and Microsoft are the gatekeepers of political integrity on the internet now. The very same sumbitches who inflict AI upon the world and stop at nothing to steal our private data. The mind boggles.
God this dystopia is depressing...
Re: (Score:2)
You are using their product, if you don't want to be policed don't use Facebook. You can't walk into a church and start preaching from the Koran.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a private establishment that you enter on condition that you comply with its rules.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew a minister who did. The congregation approved. (There are passages and passages.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Who are these people?"
People who fear being held accountable for the damage they do for profit.
"Who asked them to decide who can say what?"
No one. They do it in response to threat of accountability.
"How the hell is this legal?"
Says a LOT about you. How is it legal that they do what they want with the private platforms they control?
"Why aren't our elected officials doing something to rein them in and tell them to stay in their place? "
They are, they're the ones threatening accountability.
"Facebook and Micr
Re: (Score:2)
It's legal because it's their playground, so they get to set the rules. This isn't a government regulation.
Now whether it *should* be regulated by government, that's a different question. But corporations are allowed to control what text/graphics appears on their web pages. (So are people, but few people have popular web pages of their own.)
Re: (Score:3)
It's legal because it's their playground, so they get to set the rules. This isn't a government regulation.
It's funny how people are quick to acknowledge and accept modern fiefdoms.
I would agree with you if there was an alternative place for public speech to take place. But the reality is, those privately-owned and privately-run platforms now *are* the de-factor space for public speech. That includes the press, radio and television, which are also owned by a frighteningly small number of ultra-wealthy individuals.
As such, in my opinion, they lose the right to dictate what goes on on their platforms: they wanted
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about how the laws SHOULD be written, no how they were written.
OTOH, do you want the government deciding even more than they do what can be told? Writing the laws for how things should be done is a very difficult process, and I don't see anyone with any power that I'd trust to alter the basics.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's an improvement from when, if the powers that be didn't like what you were saying in the public square, they would have you arrested (loitering, disturbing the peace, vagrancy etc, followed by resisting arrest), held in jail for a couple of days, beaten and run out of town.
Also needed (Score:5, Interesting)
The rule would apply to any organization engaged in political advertising: campaigns, obviously, but also PACs, political parties, 501(c)3s and 4s, unions, corporations, etc. (Individuals would be exempt.) Each organization would be required to have a single clearinghouse where one could find the original materials: email templates, text messages, videos, glossy mailers, etc. Ideally, the details of each ad campaign would be included as well, e.g., this was a Facebook advertisement, targeting categories A, B, and C, from June 29 thru July 17. Internal messaging would also be exempt (e.g., an email from a union to union members; a text from the RNC to registered Republicans), in part because those tend to get seen by the public sooner or later anyway.
Furthermore, make the outlets that broadcast such messages (TV, radio, Facebook, Google, ad clearing houses, mass mailers) liable ($ per ad instance) if they themselves did not verify that the political advertiser had posted the original content to their "everyone can see" clearinghouse.
Political Advertising (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The implication being political ads have been honest and forthright up until now? Is everyone at Facebook too young to remember the Daisy Ad in 1964?
Considering they would have to be born in the early 50s, I'd say the answer to your question has already been answered. I mean, duh.
Forget implications. The money-based motive here is simple; abuse AI as a bullshit excuse to dismiss and otherwise ignore the obvious human-based corruption that has happened in politics since long before Daisy was running ads, while continuing to profit heavily from such advertising in an election year.
The "other guys" argument is merely another Weapon of Mass Distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn your parties.
There's only one, so that's easy.
It has the "bickering spouses" of Team Red and Team Blue.
If you're casting your vote out of fear for what "the other guys" will do, you're part of the problem.
Unfortunately, the Party has adopted this as one of their core values.
They WANT people to keep the focus on Team Blue versus Team Red because they win either way.
Fixing it starts with YOU.
This assumes that democracy in the United States can be fixed.
I see no evidence of this, although I welcome any that others may have.
As always, I refer you to my signature.
These companies still don't understand "AI" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but MidJourney and other LLMs are AI. They aren't AGI, but they're AI. So is/was Sargon. It was basically a tree parser with alpha-beta pruning, but it was/is AI. (Not a very advanced one, but what do you expect of something running on the Apple ][ in the early 1970s.) The first AI program was probably Samuel's Checkers player. https://medium.com/ibm-data-ai... [medium.com] Back in the early 1960's Scientific American had an article (Martin Gardner?) about an AI computer built with matchboxes, string, jujub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it can learn and adapt to the input it encounters, it's an AI. Existing AIs aren't very smart, but that's just a matter of degree. And there's no theoretical reason to put people at the top of the possible AIs, besides that they don't qualify on the "artificial" bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does the "word spell check" learn the way words are spelled without manual intervention? If so, then it's a rudimentary AI, but I really doubt that it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Ignore Human Political Trickery. (Score:2)
Meta's New Rule: If Your Political Ad Uses AI Trickery, You Must Confess
Common F. Sense's New Rule: If you must abuse "AI" as an excuse to dismiss obvious human trickery in politics, you must confess.
Meta likes pretending us "dumb fucks" don't realize how much AI has fuck-all to do with corruption in politics, now or before.
So all of them (Score:2)
Since Photoshop now uses AI...
And in other news (Score:3)
but the days of politicans confessing to lies (Score:2)
Pointless rule no teeth (Score:1)
So you can still use it, just have to confess? ...like...with a microprint disclaimer?.... riiiiight... self policing has always worked historically