Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Fake or real? New study finds consumers wary of manipulated photos
In the age of fake news and doctored photos, wary consumers are not nearly as gullible as one might presume—especially if they have knowledge of social media, experience with the internet and are familiar with online photo-imaging tools. But the source of the images does not matter much as people evaluate what is fake and what is real, a University of California, Davis, study suggests.
In an online experiment with 3,476 people ranging from 20 to 87 years in age, researchers found that most people were able to correctly identify fake images, rating image credibility fairly low on a 7-point scale (1 being not credible at all, 7 being extremely credible). This was true even when they were told they came from The New York Times or NPR, or other known news organizations.
"We found that participants' internet skills, photo-editing experience, and social media use were significant predictors of image credibility evaluation," said the study's lead author, Cuihua (Cindy) Shen, professor of communication at UC Davis. "The results show that participants, no matter how careless or distracted they may be, can still be discerning consumers of digital images."
The findings, published in the journal New Media & Society, surprised researchers. Credibility of the source, and acceptance by others (those who hit buttons to share, like, "favorite" or retweet images), swayed photo viewers in previous studies, but not so much in the current study.
More information: Cuihua Shen et al, Fake images: The effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online, New Media & Society (2018). DOI: 10.1177/1461444818799526
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:47AM
Unfortunately, after reading TFA, my intertubes and antisocial media skills have rated it as fake news.
(Score: -1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:50AM
Minor typo,
Should be
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:54AM (1 child)
Something interesting to think about in context is "back when I was a kid" the majority of images I saw were from professional photographers plus or minus the occasional camera nut relative, but with the death of legacy media, the VAST majority of images my kids and I see in 2018 are from idiot operators of smart phones. Such that quality expectations are extremely low (not technical stuff like megapixels, but photographer skill like lighting, framing the pix, good scene or pose selection, camera angle, etc)
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:20PM
the Weekly World News?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News [wikipedia.org]
Bat Boy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) ) has to be almost 40 by now.
http://weeklyworldnews.com/ [weeklyworldnews.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:58AM
I looked at TFA but it only has one picture. Any source with all the pictures so I can judge them?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aclarke on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:20PM (4 children)
When I was a kid growing up in sub-saharan Africa in the 1980s, many of the adults I talked to around me believed that what they saw on Western TV and movies really happened. They were outraged that Americans and Brits would kill people and film it for others' entertainment. These were people without TVs of their own and only very occasional access to filmed programming. I would try and explain trick photography, fake blood, etc. but I never convinced someone that it didn't really happen. "Of course it really happened! I saw it on the television with my own eyes!"
They weren't any smarter or dumber than we are now, but it's a good reminder for me of how easily tricked the mind is.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:50PM (2 children)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:04PM
Trump! Trump! Trump! MAGA!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:29PM
I believe in masturbating. So is masturbating the new believing? :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:56PM
It must have been fun when Jurassic Park came out :)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by TheFool on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:38PM (1 child)
Most people seem to be evaluating the image itself rather than some whisperings of who the source of the image is - and people seem to be getting better at it. That's good! That's exactly how it should be.
If we're going to survive the internet age with free speech intact we'll need to get better at filtering out garbage, and garbage can come from anywhere. Relying on the state, some random cabal of corporations, or mob rule to tell us what is and isn't garbage is poison to the idea of free speech or free thought.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:52PM
By training human screeners to get better at detecting fake images, we can then use those results to better train deep-fake AI algorithms to create better fake images.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:22PM
The problem with a shopped image goes beyond acceptance. If the viewer realizes the image is untruthful do they unsee it? That image left a certain impression at first glimpse and that impression lingers in the subconscious.
Further, it was a trial. When you look at an image on a screen you don't rate it for credibility; you see what you expect to see. "Wary consumers" are not at all wary once they are done with the trial.
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday October 16 2018, @07:15PM
The education system has yet to kill off critical thinking - but they're working on it.