Posted on 06/28/2019 8:17:22 AM PDT by Red Badger
Using a clip from a recent appearance on Conan, a YouTuber deepfaked Arnold Schwarzeneggers head onto comedian Bill Haders body. Photo: YouTube
============================================================
A shadow looms over the 2020 election: Deepfakes! The newish video-editing technology (or really, host of technologies) used to seamlessly paste one persons face on anothers body, has activated a panic among pundits and politicians. During an appearance on CBS This Morning this week, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri summed up the general attitude toward deepfakes, which his platform currently doesnt have a policy against: I dont feel good about it. Earlier this month, deepfaked and manipulated videos of Mosseris boss Mark Zuckerberg and Nancy Pelosi were each the subject of breathless mainstream media coverage; last week, Congress held hearings on deepfakes. The media, a Politico headline claims, is gearing up for an onslaught of fake video. An onslaught! I dont feel good about it!
Into this fray steps the the Washington Posts Glenn Kessler, Fact Checker columnist, whos published a guide to manipulated video with Nadine Ajaka and Elyse Samuels. The result is a beautifully designed taxonomy of what I think of as the deepfakes extended cinematic universe. The writers divide manipulated video into three categories missing context, deceptive editing, and malicious transformation and then subdivide each of those three categories into two subcategories, creating in the process a spectrum of video misinformation from misrepresentation (unedited but misleadingly presented videos) to outright fabrication (deepfakes, baby). This guide, they write, is intended to help all of us navigate this new information landscape and start a necessary conversation.
What struck me most, though, seeing all the possibilities of misleading video presented side by side, is that deepfakes dont seem particularly threatening. Of the three examples of actual prominent deepfakes provided, two are basically, anti-deepfake PSAs videos created with the express purpose of educating people about the misinformation potential contained in deepfakes. In other words, the best examples of widespread deepfaked videos are videos in which Mark Zuckerberg and Barack Obama were deepfaked to warn people not to fall for deepfaked videos. That seems, well, like a good thing. (The third of the three examples is a video created with the express purpose of putting Nic Cages face on Donald Trumps body, which is misinformation of a kind, I suppose, if youd never seen Donald Trump or Nicolas Cage before.)
In fact, much more frightening than the example deepfakes in the guide more frightening than any of the example videos that used computers to edit or manipulate videos were the clips on the opposite end of the spectrum: unaltered video presented in an inaccurate manner so as to misrepresent the footage and mislead the viewer. What makes these unedited and unmanipulated videos frightening to me is that theyre being shared by prominent political figures under incredibly dishonest premises. Who needs deepfakes when you have a congressman like Matt Gaetz willing to share video of a crowd in Guatemala and suggest that it shows a crowd of Hondurans being paid by George Soros to migrate into the U.S.?
Put another way, by placing all of these misleading or manipulated videos in a row, the Post helps demonstrate that the threat of misinformation in videos, such as it exists, isnt a function of new technology, but of social context. Most people determine the authority or veracity of a given video clip not because its particularly convincing on a visual level weve all seen mind-bogglingly good special effects but because its been lent credibility by other, trusted people and institutions. Who shared the video? What claims did they make about it? Deepfakes have a viscerally uncanny quality that make them good fodder for panic and fearmongering. But you dont need deepfake tech to mislead people with video.
Beyond this lies a deeper question: to what extent are people actually being misled by videos like the examples in the guide? That the video of Nancy Pelosi, manipulated to make her appear drunk, was widely shared on the right-wing internet doesnt necessarily mean that it was widely believed to be true, in some empirical sense. I tend to agree with the technology writer Rob Horning, who argues that many manipulated and misrepresented videos are enjoyed and shared less for factual information than emotional gratification. There may be sophisticated actors who create manipulated videos for specific and highly targeted goals, but your average right-wing video edit exists not to try to trick people but to entertain them with their very fakeness, to help people pierce through what they believe to be an overly deferential consensus reality to expose some kind of deeper truth in the case of the Pelosi video, say, the truth being that the Speaker of the House is a fraud, or incompetent, or should be removed from office.
But that may be delving too deeply into psychological terrain. We dont have to psychoanalyze people who share faked videos to see their most obvious effect on politics.
Early in the morning of June 11, a number of Malaysian journalists and politicians were anonymously invited into two WhatsApp groups, where a video of two men having sex had been shared. One of the two men in the clip, accompanying documents implied, was the Economics Affairs Minister of Malaysia, Mohamed Azmin Ali. The WhatsApp video was fairly low quality, but an accompanying was confession posted to Facebook a few hours later by a 27-year-old Cabinet aide named Muhammad Haziq Abdul Aziz, who identified Azmin, and claimed to be the other man in the clip. What more proof would anyone need? Malaysia is a relatively socially conservative, democratic country with a high rate of smartphone penetration, and the clips quickly went viral across WhatsApp.
On the other hand can you trust everything you see? Almost immediately, just as police launched an investigation and rivals called for Azmin to resign, his supporters began loudly crying that the minister had been victimized by deepfakes. Haziq, one Azmin ally insisted, is too out of shape to be the fit man you see in the Facebook confession: He has not been working out at the gym in a while, and his body isnt as built as in the video. The investigation continues, and there is still pressure on Azmin, but the possibility that either or both of the videos were deepfaked seems to have saved the ministers job. Nowadays you can produce all kinds of pictures if you are clever enough, Azmins boss, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, said. One day you may also see my picture like that. It would be very funny.
Were either of the videos deepfakes, or even just regular old staged fakes? Probably not but the difficulty of ascertaining, clearly, one way or another, the veracity of the videos, is the point. Deepfakes arent a cause of misinformation, so much as a kind of symptom a technology thats only really relevant to us because we already live in a world thats having trouble settling on a consensus account of reality, and whose greatest use isnt creating fakes but undermining our ability to ascertain whats true. If you want a vision of the future, dont imagine an onslaught of fake video. Imagine an onslaught of commenters calling every video fake. Imagine a politician saying he has not been working out at the gym in a while, and his body isnt as built as in the video, forever.
TECH PING!...................
CGI Ping!...............
I still say this is mostly News because certain expect unsavory videos of the Clintons to surface real soon.
The videos, of course, *cough*cough* will be fake.
In LIVING COLOR!................
Has nothing to do with the Clintons. Bill and Hillary Clinton are yesterday's news. They will never be prosecuted for selling favorable U.S. foreign and domestic policy arrangements in exchange for donations to their family slush fund and then covering it up.
"Deep fake" image generation however poses to be one of the greatest technological challenges that we are only now beginning to comprehend and it will affect every facet of on-line activity.
Most FReepers spotted Omoeba as a DeepFake when he first ran, but nobody in the District of Mordor cared.
What does “Wear Orange” mean?..................
We used to call those photo-chops.
I still have photoshop and if I find the right two pictures, I can make one that you wont know is a chop unless you’re told.
Our ability to create propaganda exceeds our wisdom as a species.
If I have access to the file code, I can tell.................
Thanks Red Badger. It fits the overall journalistic milieu.
I don't know. Maybe a reference to the show Ozark where he clearly is engaged in illegal activities.
The Running Man. Schwarzenegger was deep faked vs Jessie the Body.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.