What's the future of fake news?

[Argus]

I wasn't sure whether to put this into technology, but I think the implications are greater in media. No doubt the more tech savvy of you are already aware of a burgeoning technology which replaces the face of a person in videos with someone else. Everyone has seen those fake porn pictures, I'm sure, where faces were often clumsily replaced by famous actresses. Apparently the technology has greatly improved and has now made its way to video. It's now a fairly simple matter for the proverbial guy in his basement to replace the face of a porn actress with that of a celebrity and have it look pretty realistic.

So what can the real pros do? If the amateurs can make a realistic looking video of Emma Watson having group sex what can experts do to manipulate videos we might soon start seeing on the news? How much of what we see will we be able to believe in future? I understand there are also apps to manipulate voices, to make them sound like another person by recording them and then breaking down the speech to individual syllables and sounds, and then having the voice say whatever you wish. Combine that with this and you can show just about any fake video to the masses. A video of Hillary Clinton stabbing babies perhaps? Just Trudeau having gay sex with an underage boy? Trump giving a resignation speech admitting he's being blackmailed by Putin?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42905185

[eyeball]

This is the sort of stuff that will compel people to conclude that internet content must be controlled by governments.

That's probably the point at which the future of fake news will really start shining brightly. 

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 That's probably the point at which the future of fake news will really start shining brightly. 

If everyone agrees on news, it's not 'fake'.   

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Just Trudeau having gay sex ....

 

Gay sex is legal...even in Canada...14 years or older !

Any such "fake news" probably has some legal protections as freedom of expression, artistic license, or political dissent.

Edited February 1, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Hal 9000]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If everyone agrees on news, it's not 'fake'.   

So, consensus over facts?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Hal 9000 said:

So, consensus over facts?

Consensus is facts.   I'm thinking of Copernicus here.  People spouting madness that everyone knows is false ... well that's fake news isn't it ?  Or do you think Trump could be wrong about such a thing ?

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

If everyone agrees on news, it's not 'fake'.   

Huh? Everyone agreeing on something is usually the surest sign that it's wrong. 

[Hal 9000]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Consensus is facts.   I'm thinking of Copernicus here.  People spouting madness that everyone knows is false ... well that's fake news isn't it ?  Or do you think Trump could be wrong about such a thing ?

Wow, I know some people do think this way, and I'm sure that's what CNN and MSNBC bank on, but it's just sad to see people admit to it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Huh? Everyone agreeing on something is usually the surest sign that it's wrong. 

Are you saying Trump is wrong ?

Look, I get it but we're talking about epistemology.

And what you don't know will kill you.  The universe is ultimately unknowable so what we agree on represents folkloric 'truth'.  And if you disagree, then I respectfully submit that you are a witch and invite you to submerge yourself in the dunking pond.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Wow, I know some people do think this way, and I'm sure that's what CNN and MSNBC bank on, but it's just sad to see people admit to it.

 

CNN is FAKE NEWS !  What are you talking about ?  Everybody on FOX says it, so it must be true.

[Hal 9000]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

CNN is FAKE NEWS !  What are you talking about ?  Everybody on FOX says it, so it must be true.

You're saying that you're quite comfortable believing the consensus.  So, if we have two news outlets telling you that Trump is unhealthy because he eats fast food and drinks a lot of diet coke, you're willing to believe that over the one non-bias doctor who personally examined him and says he's healthy, because two is greater than one.  That's exactly what the media want from you.  

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

That's exactly what the media want from you.  

I am to please.  And apparently my playful flippant tone doesn't raise your fake news alarm anyway.

[Hal 9000]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am to please.  And apparently my playful flippant tone doesn't raise your fake news alarm anyway.

It's not just you, it's the new system.  This is the thinking that we've been warned about for years.  You're suggesting exactly what Argus is referring to, if the consensus agree that that really is Hilary stabbing babies, then it must be true. 

Here's an example; The GOP wants to release the FISA memo, and in a panic, the Dems want to release their own "memo".  The Dems memo is going to be put forth for the exact reason that you are suggesting, regardless of facts, the media will undoubtedly support the Democrat memo.  And, people like you will buy into the census.  Don't you see the manipulation?

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

  And, people like you will buy into the census.   

Census ?

 

People like me ?

 

What are you like ?  

[Hal 9000]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Census ?

 

People like me ?

 

What are you like ?  

I learned very early to judge the validity of something, based on how it's being sold. 

 

[OftenWrong]

On 01/02/2018 at 2:36 PM, Michael Hardner said:

apparently my playful flippant tone doesn't raise your fake news alarm anyway.

Tone?

[Cum Laude]

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:12 AM, Argus said:

I wasn't sure whether to put this into technology, but I think the implications are greater in media. No doubt the more tech savvy of you are already aware of a burgeoning technology which replaces the face of a person in videos with someone else. Everyone has seen those fake porn pictures, I'm sure, where faces were often clumsily replaced by famous actresses. Apparently the technology has greatly improved and has now made its way to video. It's now a fairly simple matter for the proverbial guy in his basement to replace the face of a porn actress with that of a celebrity and have it look pretty realistic.

So what can the real pros do? If the amateurs can make a realistic looking video of Emma Watson having group sex what can experts do to manipulate videos we might soon start seeing on the news? How much of what we see will we be able to believe in future? I understand there are also apps to manipulate voices, to make them sound like another person by recording them and then breaking down the speech to individual syllables and sounds, and then having the voice say whatever you wish. Combine that with this and you can show just about any fake video to the masses. A video of Hillary Clinton stabbing babies perhaps? Just Trudeau having gay sex with an underage boy? Trump giving a resignation speech admitting he's being blackmailed by Putin?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42905185

I was watching the "news" the other day and the MSM sounds like some 3rd rate country’s government controlled media outlet. It’s really incredible. CNN in particular is transparently and eagerly attempting to say anything to discredit the Nunes memo; “partisan”, “controversial”, “disputed”, “intel agencies dispute it”, etc etc.

When did the MSM become the guardians of government bureaucracy & the establishment?

I was watching the Rubin report a couple days ago, and Rubin had on Jordan Peterson and Ben Schapiro together. Rubin made the remark, and I think he is correct about this, is that the type of platform and the type of guests that he had on is becoming wildly popular, and is really replacing the MSM. People actually do wanna watch a 3 hour program with very intelligent people that do not tow the government line and are perceived as ‘thoughtcriminals’ by the MSM and elites.

Canadians think that a panel that includes Craig Oliver, Bob Fife, and Rosie Barton is top notch. Ahhh...Canadians.

[OftenWrong]

18 minutes ago, Cum Laude said:

When did the MSM become the guardians of government bureaucracy & the establishment?

Maybe always were, but in the past it was less obvious. I can't find any news outlet that simply gives facts without adding their opinion, excuses and unfounded, biased allegations. They've got these guest characters coming on as though they are some kinda "expert", making excuses to downplay a memo that days earlier they furiously opposed being released. Now the memo doesn't mean anything, so why did you strongly oppose its release? Do they think the public is totally stupid, has no memory and not aware of how we are being manipulated? Yes they do, and that will be their undoing.

[Cum Laude]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Maybe always were, but in the past it was less obvious. I can't find any news outlet that simply gives facts without adding their opinion, excuses and unfounded, biased allegations. They've got these guest characters coming on as though they are some kinda "expert", making excuses to downplay a memo that days earlier they furiously opposed being released. Now the memo doesn't mean anything, so why did you strongly oppose its release? Do they think the public is totally stupid, has no memory and not aware of how we are being manipulated? Yes they do, and that will be their undoing.

You just displayed more common sense than anything I've seen on CNN. Personally, I enjoy listening and reading the writings of Mark Steyn.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Maybe always were, but in the past it was less obvious. I can't find any news outlet that simply gives facts without adding their opinion, excuses and unfounded, biased allegations.

 

I think the 24 hour cable news cycle created a programming vacuum that had to be filled by these talking heads, so the media maw expanded the scope and length of "coverage" on any single issue, until it is time to move on to the next "threat to democracy".    The only thing that will interrupt the cycle is a natural disaster, terrorism, or a mass shooting.

Straight, hard news can no longer garner advertising support...that model is dead.

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:38 AM, Cum Laude said:

I was watching the "news" the other day and the MSM sounds like some 3rd rate country’s government controlled media outlet. It’s really incredible. CNN in particular is transparently and eagerly attempting to say anything to discredit the Nunes memo; “partisan”, “controversial”, “disputed”, “intel agencies dispute it”, etc etc.

When did the MSM become the guardians of government bureaucracy & the establishment?

Maybe it's just a guardian of truth and balance, hmm? The memo, from what I've seen, is total political BS, one-sided, and using cherry-picked information. Why would the mainstream news simply report it and not point out how dishonest it is? 

[Cum Laude]

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 2:32 PM, Argus said:

Maybe it's just a guardian of truth and balance, hmm? The memo, from what I've seen, is total political BS, one-sided, and using cherry-picked information. Why would the mainstream news simply report it and not point out how dishonest it is? 

The allegations look really bad only to people who care. Take away the Trump hating and the number of people who will remain concerned about snooping excesses will be down to twelve. The fourth amendment is far too abstract in our land of nothing matters and everything goes for our Uber generations to care about.

America is a nation of voyeurs who alternate between the big blue screen on the wall or the little blue screen in your hand. The idea of such people becoming concerned with snooping and its propriety or misuse is ludicrous. Pedestrian snooping which takes up at least four hours of an average Americans day is also limited to entertainment where there is no possible participation with the dancing images. The painful mental leap of realizing that more than watching can go on is never made.