Meta Allows Deepfake of Irish Presidential Candidate To Spread for 12 Hours Before Removal (irishtimes.com) 35
Meta removed a deepfake video from Facebook that falsely depicted Catherine Connolly withdrawing from Ireland's presidential election. The video was posted to an account called RTE News AI and viewed almost 30,000 times over 12 hours before the Irish Independent contacted the platform. The fabricated bulletin featured AI-generated versions of RTE newsreader Sharon Ni Bheolain and political correspondent Paul Cunningham announcing that Connolly had ended her campaign and the election scheduled for Friday would be cancelled.
Connolly responded in a statement that she remained a candidate and called the video a disgraceful attempt to mislead voters. Meta confirmed the account violated its community standards against impersonating people and organizations. Ireland's media regulator Coimisiun na Mean contacted Meta about the incident and reminded the platform of its obligations under the EU Digital Services Act. An Irish Times poll published last Thursday found Connolly leading the race with 38% support.
Connolly responded in a statement that she remained a candidate and called the video a disgraceful attempt to mislead voters. Meta confirmed the account violated its community standards against impersonating people and organizations. Ireland's media regulator Coimisiun na Mean contacted Meta about the incident and reminded the platform of its obligations under the EU Digital Services Act. An Irish Times poll published last Thursday found Connolly leading the race with 38% support.
Frightening because (Score:4, Interesting)
...such shenanigans can swing an election. Somebody needs bigly jail, or a cruise missile up the wazoo if overseas.
Re: Frightening because (Score:1)
Free speech absolutists won't like this
Re: (Score:2)
Moot because those guys aren't any longer anyhow, as half died in a theater panic after a faker yelled "fire!" and the other half drank Clorox to prevent Covid.
Re: Frightening because (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing. The people who claim they are free speech absolutists are the first ones to prohibit speech they don't like or which doesn't fit their narrative.
They only want free speech when it applies to them and echoes their speech.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
wrong. there absolutely are free speech absolutists, that you have never encountered one says a lot more about the circles you run in..
"Free Speech Absolutists" want a free audience... (Score:4, Insightful)
wrong. there absolutely are free speech absolutists, that you have never encountered one says a lot more about the circles you run in..
That's absolutely not the case. You say something offensive, I don't want you banned...I want the right to tell you to go fuck yourself. EVERY FUCKING "Free Speech Absolutist" doesn't want free speech, but a free, passive audience where they can say whatever they want without feedback. For awhile, ever right wing asshole on slashdot was complaining about free speech when people called them assholes for their comments....and were horrified at the downvoting system
Free speech goes both ways....feedback is speech...being booed is free speech. Free speech is not a magic privilege where you can say whatever you want and we'll patiently listen to you....you have the freedom to say what you want without being jailed by the government...not the freedom to force an audience to listen to your bullshit without feedback.
First of all, free speech absolutism is childish and stupid...no...no one actually wants free speech...we're in the age of AI and Russian troll farms...no one wants "speech" that is fraud or clearly lies. Yeah, it makes you feel good to say you're for free speech, but you don't want to listen to a nonstop stream of lies and commercials and scams. Modern technology allows bad actors to overwhelm audiences in ways that the founding fathers could have never anticipated. In 1776, it was easy to read a newspaper and say "this is a lie"...they didn't receive the same lie 1000x in their e-mail, texts, and various online outlets. People like Putin have figured that if you lie forcefully enough, the opposition eventually cedes.
Secondly, people who use "free speech" in comments and sentences are the ones most likely to be fragile when reading opposing views. Free speech isn't a hall pass to be an asshole and not face social consequences. You have the right to be an asshole....I have the right to call you an asshole...either of us can get downvoted on platform for our words and behavior....that's free speech.
No to shouting back - but let's talk? (Score:3)
As someone who has the time and makes the effort to read a very wide range of views, I'm always annoyed when people resort to shouting down an opponent. For me Facebook is actually a useful environment; some boards there have caused me to engage with people I'd never have met in real life and sometimes I've even changed my views. Usually I've had to go away and think harder - but come back with a coherent response that at least satisfies me. I enjoy being made to think.
Unfortunately most people don't. They
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Society needs for absolutists of all kinds to not like a lot of things.
Re: (Score:1)
As a free speech absolutist myself, I don't care if people are so stupid that they believe everything they're being told. The only problem I have is there are people believe the lies and vote.
See my signature for more info. Democracy is the collective stupidity of all of us, telling the rest of us how we ought to be ruled. -
Re: Frightening because (Score:4, Insightful)
As a free speech absolutist myself, I don't care if people are so stupid that they believe everything they're being told. The only problem I have is there are people believe the lies and vote.
So it would be OK with you if someone were telling your young child that mommy and daddy were hurt and needed them to come quickly? And that they were there to take them to their parents? That they have candy in the back of the van? That there is a lost puppy over in the trees just outside the park? Poison labeled as candy?
Free speech, no limits!
There are a lot of things that people can say that need to be prohibited by society because they lead directly to harm of vulnerable people. Absolutism does not work. Where do we draw the line? And how do we enforce it?
Good argument, thank you (Score:2)
Once it is acknowledged that encouraging a human to do something fundamentally harmful to them should be outlawed - like telling the child to eat the poison sweet, then it's hard to find a good stopping point. Protect children? So tobacco advertising should be allowed if aimed at adults? But if tobacco advertising can be banned, why not ban adverts in favour of capitalism, socialism, racism etc etc...
Re: (Score:2)
You're demanding the world change from "everybody lies (about something)" to '(powerful) people lie about everything'.
Thankfully, you have two great role models: Fox News and Donald Trump. They're not telling you to take heroin or socialism because, they don't make a profit. Similarly, denying you education or healthcare, is very profitable. How is 30 years of that, working-out for the American people?
On the other hand, the USA almost uniquely, has 'you're a victim' laws. The problem isn't merely,
Re: (Score:2)
As a free speech absolutist myself, I don't care if people are so stupid that they believe everything they're being told. The only problem I have is there are people believe the lies and vote.
So it would be OK with you if someone were telling your young child that mommy and daddy were hurt and needed them to come quickly? And that they were there to take them to their parents? That they have candy in the back of the van? That there is a lost puppy over in the trees just outside the park? Poison labeled as candy?
Free speech, no limits!
Are those even examples of free speech scenarios?
Kidnapping someone is already illegal.
Giving someone poison is already illegal.
Assaulting someone or recklessly inducing someone into physical danger is already illegal.
There may in fact be a lost puppy over in the trees. It being truth doesn't make the subsequent kidnapping and abuse okay "because free speech". It was already not-okay regardless of whether the inducement method was a lie or truth or real candy or real video games.
There may in fact be a hurt
Re: (Score:2)
Kidnapping someone is already illegal.
Yes? So they'll get prosecuted if they succeed. But as a free speech absolutist, you won't mind them trying again and again since anything before the kidnapping is just words, i.e. speech.
In the world of free speech absolutism, soliciting and commissioning a crime is fine because that act is just words, i.e. speech.
recklessly inducing someone into physical danger is already illegal.
That's because you don't live in a free speech absolutism society. With free speech absol
Re: (Score:2)
Kidnapping someone is already illegal.
Yes? So they'll get prosecuted if they succeed. But as a free speech absolutist, you won't mind them trying again and again since anything before the kidnapping is just words, i.e. speech.
In the world of free speech absolutism, soliciting and commissioning a crime is fine because that act is just words, i.e. speech.
recklessly inducing someone into physical danger is already illegal.
That's because you don't live in a free speech absolutism society. With free speech absolutism, that wouldn't be illegal because it's speech.
It being truth doesn't make the subsequent kidnapping and abuse okay "because free speech"
And that's why free speech absolutism is stupid.
Your choice of how you define "speech" is new to me. It seems very strange and unworkable. I have never placed the border between "speech" and its "context" so far into the territory of context that context completely disappears from the evaluation and absolutely everything becomes "speech". With that framework, I can see how you would wish to oppose "free speech absolutism", because your framing doesn't differentiate "speech" from context - action, intent, motive, consequence etc. And therefore within you
Re: (Score:2)
Your choice of how you define "speech" is new to me.
Words spoken or written. You know when you flap your meat and blow air through it and make meat sounds? And those have meaning to the other meat?
It seems very strange and unworkable.
That's kind of the point: free speech absolutism IS unworkable. The only way free speech absolutism works is for the absolutists to have a definition of speech which excludes many things.
The reductiveness of your framework
It's not me that's reductive, it's the notion of absolut
Re: (Score:2)
Since you're resolute in your commitment to defining "speech" as "any and all behaviors and situations that are attached to the act of someone communicating", can you identify who are these "free speech absolutists" you are arguing against?
Like most older computer nerds, I have been discussing/arguing/debating various points of politics, religion, science, economics, sociology, etc. since the pre-GUI newsgroup and BBS days. I've heard (and at times in my life, proposed) passionate arguments for the most ext
Re: (Score:2)
We do have limits to speech. Already.
Limits to causal reactions and effects. You can scream fire all you want, even in a crowded theater. The moment it causes panic and an event that causes death or injury, that no longer is free speech.
Threatening people's life and limb is banned.
Slander and Libel
Some of these limits are criminal (causing actual harm) while others require civil court actions (Libel). And even there, there are limits in favor of Liberty.
In your example, we have additional protections for ch
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see a difference between free speech and fraud?
This is mild (Score:1)
Not reasonable (Score:2)
It's not reasonable to expect a company that allows user posting of material to be aware of everything that is posted.
Is there is some rule that requires removing of "bad" info, it should only be after a period of time after a company is notified it exists and has had time to investigate and determine its veracity.
That's the basis of the EU regulations (Score:2)
As I understand them. Subject to abuse of course, but that's inevitable in this arena.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not reasonable to expect a company that allows user posting of material to be aware of everything that is posted.
Yes it is. This is a business that they have _chosen_ to set up to make a profit. They have the option to hire enough people to screen every single post, and to implement rate-limiting to ensure that the volume of posts remains manageable. This will cut into their profits so instead they wish to be absolved from some of the consequences of the business model they have chosen. It shouldn't be down to the government to legislate someone a viable business model.
This is no different than a company dumping known
Other question (Score:2)
Meta has offices and employees in Ireland, so was this simply an oversight or is there some reason Meta would benefit from or prefer Catherine Connolly not winning?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely feasible for them to charge a micro-payment per post to rate limit the volume of material they have to monitor. They've chosen not to and the consequences of that choice should be on them.
It's out of control (Score:2)