SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"If you were to ask me what the key risk in the 2020 election is, I would say it's not deepfakes," said Kathryn Harrison, the founder and CEO of the DeepTrust Alliance, a coalition fighting deepfakes and other kinds of digital disinformation (that is: intentional, malicious false info). "It's actually going to be a true video that will pop up in late October that we won't be able to prove [whether] it's true or false."
This is the bigger, more devious threat, what's known as the Liar's Dividend. The term, popular in deepfake-research circles, means the mere existence of deepfakes gives more credibility to denials. Essentially, deepfakes make it easier for candidates caught on tape to convince voters of their innocence -- even if they're guilty -- because people have learned they can't believe their eyes anymore.
[...] "I don't think anyone's going to see a piece of video content, real or fake, and suddenly change their vote on Election Day," said Clint Watts, distinguished research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who testified to Congress last year about deepfakes and national security. "Trying to convince people Joe Biden touches people too much or whatever….I don't see how people's opinions can be really shaped in this media environment with that."
What worries him more are deepfakes that undermine election integrity -- like an authoritative figure reporting misinformation about turnout, polling site disruptions or voting machines changing your ballot.
Another worry: Deepfakes could destabilize the vote on US soil by causing havoc at a US outpost abroad. Imagine a fake that triggers an attack like the one on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, which became a political flashpoint in the US. State actors like China or Russia, for example, could find an effective strategy in forged videos that endanger US soldiers or US diplomats, particularly in war-torn regions or countries ruled by a dictator, where populations are already struggling to separate truth from propaganda and rumor.
[...] No matter what form an election deepfake tries to take, the time to be on highest alert is right before you cast your vote.
"If it happens 48 hours out of the Election Day," Watts said, "we may not have a chance to fix it."
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday May 05 2020, @08:32PM (9 children)
My apologies. I didn't know you needed such clear reality spelled out. Seriously, this is the part that amazes me, simply as a matter of human perception and decision making. I mean, Really?
Ok. What Trump did wrong was the Quid Pro Quo. Instead of handing it to the appropriate bodies in Congress to investigate, he decided to be a mafia don and hold back financial aid till he got what he wanted. There is more than enough evidence for this, but all the witnesses and evidence was suppressed. The best evidence is from the mouth of Orange Anus itself. It's not a question of whether or not he withheld aid from the Ukraine till they agreed to publicly state Biden was under investigation. We all know this is true, and Orange Anus is on video saying it. That's extremely clearly an attempt to manipulate elections, manipulate justice, and in general, perform corrupt actions not befitting the office of the President Of The United States.
You act like it's an appropriate thing to do, while ignoring the quid pro quo. No, it's not, and nothing makes it appropriate. Like I stated, the appropriate way to do it without any semblance of political machinations, is to publicly hand everything over (all the evidence you think you have, your suspicions) to Congressional bodies. Then it's not the President doing it, but the legally appointed bodies in Congress that conduct the investigations.
I would agree with you on this, if Trump never pushed the quid pro quo. If all Trump did was have a conversation with the guy, and said he believed Biden had possibly committed crimes and the Ukraine should investigate their corruption, then I would agree that it is a total nothing-burger. That's an appropriate thing to speak about it with another head of state, if still pretty unwise and stupid with a political rival. The best way to protect yourself, is not to be a vigilante, but involve law enforcement. Trump had a more than friendly Senate he could've passed the investigation to, and it would've likely been quite a partisan affair by itself. Yet, it still would not have been a crime, and it still could've been possible that they uncovered Biden's corruption and held a powerful person accountable.
Trump involved nobody but himself, demanded a specific outcome, and then withheld previously agreed upon military aid to a country with an extreme aggressor right next to it. There is nothing impartial about that, and nobody seriously believes this was an appropriate vehicle to deliver justice to anyone.
Yes, I love investigations and trials too to make powerful people accountable. That's why the impeachment trial should've removed Orange Anus from office. I'm not saying don't investigate Biden, and it's a false dichotomy to say we can't have both.
No, Trump still needs a bullet in the head. Justice was never delivered, the "court" was a complete farce, the facts are clear for everyone to see, and those charged with bringing justice, flagrantly, blatantly, and openly turned a blind eye to justice for purely political reasons.
That's why the system is broken. A person who clearly committed crimes in the highest office of the land wasn't removed, in an extremely polarized and partisan fashion. There are no more lawful ways to get rid of Trump, and we already used the method of last resort, the impeachment process. It failed, the Senators failed, the Congressmen failed, America failed.
We are a failed broken country sliding into decline. Period.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @08:48PM (7 children)
Actually, yes, that is one of his many jobs. You can always amend the Constitution to reduce the latitude given to the President concerning such negotiations or reduce his power to investigate wrongdoing in Congress, but I would oppose both of those. Sorry, even existence of quid pro quo arrangements is not good enough. In particular, it's too easy to interpret any way you'd like. For example, quid pro quo is a standard diplomatic tactic in treaty making, and the President usually benefits politically from a successful treaty. So should we be throwing them into impeachment every time they make some quid pro quo arrangements in order to get a treaty because they'll personally benefit?
The specific outcome was an investigation not a conviction. Nobody has accused him of more than that. Given that it was in the national interest to investigate the two Bidens and an alleged key reason for why that investigation hadn't happened before was the elder Biden's alleged interference, I'm going to need more than just a quid pro quo arrangement to decide that Trump violated the respective emoluments clause.
Elections, of course, being the obvious and well mentioned counterexample.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday May 05 2020, @11:12PM (6 children)
100% disagree, and I couldn't disagree more in any measurable way known to science :)
Quid Pro Quo involving a political rival is 100% impeachable, it's dishonorable, it's unnecessary, it's unwise and stupid optics, and especially with Trump, it's an impossible time selling impartiality in the process to gain bipartisan support. Yes, we should be throwing them into impeachment each and every time they don't immediately inform Congress when it involves a political rival. Going with your assumption of glowing motives in the best interests of the country, it's entirely inappropriate for that to be kept secret from the public when it involves the election process. Whatever angle you want to look at this, it's inexcusable for Trump to have done what he did.
However, I don't think you're a rabid Trumpette, or suffer from the delusions those people have to support their side at all moral and ethical costs. So I respect your position.
The specific outcome was to sabotage an election process, which is why I don't believe Trump had any pure motives whatsoever. It was just a campaign trail Tuesday to him. The quid pro quo is more than enough for me, especially with all the blocking of all witnesses, the blocking of the trial. If the quid pro quo was innocent enough, then why can't we have the whole trial again? We suffered through how many different Hillary investigations in a search for the truth, but we can't suffer ONE investigation into Trump? If you can't talk about the truth, and it needs to be blockaded from testifying, loudly proclaimed to be unnecessary, than it isn't truth. It's providing shade and darkness for activities to be performed outside of the public, beyond accountability.
Only as a process in an intact and functional system. When the system is malfunctioning, the logic perverted, pathways and channels blocked, other processes or inputs must be considered. Like how the body selects fever as a response to infection. In this analogy, elections are no longer the appropriate process. Wholesale revolt, and replacement (repair) of the system is required, while isolating the infection and purging it from the system.
We may not agree on this, but for me the system failed so abjectly at the highest level, that I have no more faith in it at all. I used to have the faith that maybe the system could evolve, but not anymore. Not under the current conditions of corruption.
Only voting process that I'm interested in now is a single issue. Article 5 convention. That way we can amend the Constitution as you suggest, and you can oppose, and I can propose, and we can attempt to fix the checks and balances within it.
Otherwise, yeah, I'm out at the fringe now. Not interested in participating in the normal economy, or taxation without representation we have now. The extent of my contributions to the community will be extremely direct and local, with supporting food banks and the growing hordes of the unemployed shitting in the streets. So seriously, my contributions might be supporting "porta-potties" in the local communities.
That's it. You have my official vote of no confidence in the system, and a vote for wholesale replacement including firing of every politician simultaneously. You know, by paper, by email, by proclamation, by canon, by firing squad, .etc :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 06 2020, @12:57AM (5 children)
And NO BAG LIMIT. You want less corruption? This is how you get less corruption. Reward them for going after each other rather than just taking their place at the trough. Cultures of corruption work because few rat anyone out. When big fish start going after each other's misdeeds in public and in court, that creates the climate for a sea change to a less corrupt system as everyone exposes each others' criminal misdeeds in a spectacular nuclear exchange. That's why I just don't care about the optics. We're way beyond that. Look at you. There's some serious shit that looks attractive, because of how corrupt things are.
My take is that if things really are that bad, we need a house cleaning. Not a return to the status quo.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 06 2020, @01:01AM (4 children)
Well, that is something we 100% agree on.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @04:14PM (1 child)
Starting to think most of the conservative users around here are Russian agents. Seems a little far fetched, but the alternative is that they're reaaaaallly fucking dumb. Like unimaginably dumb.
Could that simply be the Fox News effect at work? Like, do their brains literally auto-filter out negative Trump press because "fake news!" or something?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @04:19AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @04:27PM (1 child)
Nothing says Russian shill like "well, in that case you should all kill each other" because while the sentiment "clean house of all corruption" sounds nice it is effectively just a way to kick of civil war.
Khallow's posts have taken on a new angle, and I for one do not trust it. Most likely he projections show Trump getting his ass handed to him even by Biden so the narrative is shifting to continue the division and chaos in the US.
Don't worry, I am totally comfortable with the possibility of Hanlon's razor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @04:39AM
All Soylentils can read my words and decide for themselves. Meanwhile your posts can't be so read because you post anonymously. Let's remember that fundamental dishonesty in what follows.
Notice that nobody other than you, Mr AC said "well, in that case you should all kill each other". And is it coincidence that I get accused of being a Russian shill after I start criticizing some blatant Russian propaganda [soylentnews.org] on the Crimea?
And who here really believes that civil war could be kicked off by political foes taking out the most corruption on each side? Should I turn that same, peculiarly broken reasoning to Trump's impeachment? Are the House Democrats risking civil war by accusing Trump of crimes? Should they tread lightly, letting him get away with whatever because conflict is to be avoided at all costs?
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday May 06 2020, @03:22PM
That's some top shelf delusion - yes, Trump is guilty of plenty, but not of "russiagate" (which has certainly been a moving target over the years), at least as presented in the mainstream left media where no credible alternate opinions are ever presented. Alternate media is better. Cenk (host on The Young Turks, and proprietor) is a genuine russiagater, and has been intellectually honest enough to debate others on the merits of russiagate. He has been forced to concede there was no quit-pro-quo... and also no truth to all the previous incarnations of russiagate right back to the pee tapes. Notice how the narrative shifted over time, always on to the new when fact emerge that make the old uncomfortable? Cenk still refuses to believe Trump is innocent (understandable given his standard fare corruption... but he IS innocent of russiagate). Cenks position now is that everyone is looking in the wrong place, and the REAL russian collusion involves laundering money for Russian mobsters in Trumps realestate deals.
The best reporters on russiagate are Aaron Mate and Matt Taibbi. They're lefties, but are very detail oriented, and also intellectually honest enough to call out their own side when it's required, and that's certainly the case when it comes to the ever evolving russiagate narrative.