That's true. People see stock footage from After Effects in a Youtube video or a lens flare or a bad Maya model and believe it's credible evidence of ghosts or UFOs or politicians secretly revealing themselves to be reptilians. Not a lot of people actually need video to be convincing to be convinced by it - bias is self sustaining.
Most of humanity is completely unable to personally verify the claims made by climate scientists. For most people is mostly a consequence of who they trust and what they want to believe.
Deepfakes have the capacity remove one of the few ways to convince "ordinary people", ie video. If only specialists can tell the difference (and perhaps even they), different groups will be able to construct complete alternate realities for themselves.
I'm most worried when we can't evaluate the footage in question. Currently, the media is advocating regime change in Saudia Arabia on the basis on a video that has allegedly been reviewed by the CIA (and journalists?) but the American people are not allowed to see this film.
Meanwhile, we are being blasted with propaganda by the same folks (Vox, Buzzfeed, et al) that says "Don't believe something is true just because you see it on video". Does anyone else see the contradiction?
Regime change is a serious and violent consequence for a video provided by an ally with a strong motive to have MBS removed, and no one is questioning whether this could be the "killer app" use case of this technology? I think it could be, but there is no way of knowing unless we see the footage. The alternative is to trust the CIA.
The Saudis themselves aren’t claiming they didn’t kill Khashoggi, only that MBS was unaware of it. This boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? I’d be a lot more concerned if they took a position that this was a total farce. They haven’t. Why do you think some kind of fake video or audio was needed then to convince world leaders that this has crossed a line?
Also, how are the collective of regular people at all qualified to verify such a video? There are people whose job it is to do this kind of thing and if we think that is a broken system, that’s another issue altogether.
No, the CIA position that MBS knew about and ordered the murder and that it was not a rogue operation does not differ only by “semantics” (except in the sense that every difference in meaning, even the mostvsubstantive, is “semantic”) from the “rogue operation” cover story that the KSA retreated to after their “he visited and left the consulate with no problem, if something happened it had nothing to do with us” story failed and then the “okay, he was killed in our embassy, but it was not murder, just a fight that he started” story also failed.
> I’d be a lot more concerned if they took a position that this was a total farce.
They did take that position until they realized that it wasn't working.
So are you saying they changed their story to fit a false narrative? If so why would they do that?
Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation, executed by Saudis, wouldn’t the Saudis still hold some responsibility?
If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay.
> So are you saying they changed their story to fit a false narrative?
They changed their story from one false narrative (that exculpated them from any connection) through a series of others (which admitted slightly more connection in each, but in all cases carefully denied a direct role for the crown prince.)
> If so why would they do that?
The initial lie was to deflect any blame. The subsequent revisions were due to the fact that the initial lie was transparently false, so everyone assumed the worse, so they continued to search for a lie which would both be accepted and at least mitigate the blame the regime was getting.
> Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation
I'm not saying that, the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is. That's the story they've retreated to, all previous exculpatory stories having failed.
> If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay.
Since MBS is in the middle of massive purges to consolidate his absolute control under the cover of an anticorruption campaign, having the excuse of a rogue operation to also use in those purges isn't exactly inconvenient. But, yes, the “rogue operation” story does naturally bring some blame onto the government of the Kingdom, which is why it was the third story, and not the first.
I am not assuming you have an opinion or knowledge on this but you seem more informed than I am. If the Saudis are retreating to this story, what is the theory on what may have really happened? This back and forth, I thought, stemmed from the idea that the recording is or could have been faked (unclear by who, Turkey?), it sounds like, from what you said above, the tape doesn’t matter except that it caused Saudi Arabia to change its story. If it did, it sounds like it was a good thing since it made them retreat from as you said, a transparently false lie.
At this point I’m not sure what my point is any more. Sorry :)
> the Saudis are retreating to this story, what is the theory on what may have really happened?
The dominant one (and what the CIA has reportedly concluded) is that the Crown Prince (the effective ruler of the Kingdom) ordered the murder; the precise motivation isn't (AFAIK) clear; Kashoggi was a critic of the regime with a significant media impact, but what in particular led to the killing is murky, but MBS isn't running a warm fuzzy regime that is generally respectful of human rights and individual liberty, so while them killing a dissident Saudi journalist abroad is unusual, it's not much outside of their normal patterns; murdering dissidents (or executing them without an opportunity for presenting a defense) isn't new, nor is surveillance and harassment of Saudi dissidents abroad.
> This back and forth, I thought, stemmed from the idea that the recording is or could have been faked (unclear by who, Turkey?)
Yes, and that was the initial Saudi claim when Turkey claimed to have tape. Apparently, some of Saudi Arabia’s defenders haven't caught up with the new regime story, which no longer denies anything that is believed based on the tape alone, but only the attribution of the acts captured in the tape to the command of the leadership rather than rogue elements, which (AFAIK) is not at all rooted in the tape content itself.
The video itself has become a litmus test in the media so it's definitely relevant. The media are particularly obsessed with whether or not Trump has seen the tape, with the implication that it would influence his view on the matter.
There is a lot of pressure in the media (including leaks of the transcript by the CIA) for the President to watch the tape.
Headline of this article: "Khashoggi
Trump refuses to listen to audio tape of Jamal Khashoggi's 'vicious' murder"
I kind of get your point - if his view is different only because he hasn’t seen the tape that is interesting. This suggests the tape is the only evidence of wrongdoing? I thought there was sigint showing calls being made to and from the embassy from MBS, and other corroborating evidence, and the tape was meant to be the smoking gun. Maybe I’m just brainwashed. I think my take is something horrific happened and someone should be answering for it, we rarely have a smoking gun and still need to make decisions based on the information we have, it’s odd to me that this thread kind of is telling me, or I’m way misinterpreting things (possibly!), that the tape’s existence brings everything we know into doubt because it could be faked and we should pretend nothing happened, or just let the Saudis tend their own house, ignoring our shared economic and military ties.
The case for regime change in Iraq was fabricated with far less, so I don't think the introduction of deepfakes really upsets the status quo in that regard. It's not as if there's an actual discussion in which the American people have a say - if the US wants regime change, it'll get it whether you like it or not.
These were supposedly accounted for before we went, they're not "The WMD" we went looking for. These stories are written in a manner to confuse and mislead. I'm still confused, anyhow, the latest is below
I think this misses the point. Deep fakes will simply make all video and audio evidence subject to significant doubt. We simply lose a whole body of media as evidence that most people will accept - the provenance will become all important.
Like Mattress reviews - all video and audio will become an evidential dead zone.
Not just new videos. It will instantly render all videos from the history of videos as deniable.
What can we do now to establish authenticity of POTUS interviews and declarations for example, when the quotes by themselves are often in need of video evidence as they are surprising.
How can any public figure be held accountable for what they say now when in a few years it will all be unverifiable.
I fear a lunar landing denialists scenario generalized to every piece of news.
26 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 65.3 ms ] threadYou don’t need deepfakes to trick people. Some people are just wired to believe in conspiracy theories.
Join any discussion on climate change in the Wall Street Journal and you’ll see a large number of people who believe it’s also fake.
Deepfakes have the capacity remove one of the few ways to convince "ordinary people", ie video. If only specialists can tell the difference (and perhaps even they), different groups will be able to construct complete alternate realities for themselves.
That is likely to lead to war.
Meanwhile, we are being blasted with propaganda by the same folks (Vox, Buzzfeed, et al) that says "Don't believe something is true just because you see it on video". Does anyone else see the contradiction?
Regime change is a serious and violent consequence for a video provided by an ally with a strong motive to have MBS removed, and no one is questioning whether this could be the "killer app" use case of this technology? I think it could be, but there is no way of knowing unless we see the footage. The alternative is to trust the CIA.
Also, how are the collective of regular people at all qualified to verify such a video? There are people whose job it is to do this kind of thing and if we think that is a broken system, that’s another issue altogether.
No, the CIA position that MBS knew about and ordered the murder and that it was not a rogue operation does not differ only by “semantics” (except in the sense that every difference in meaning, even the mostvsubstantive, is “semantic”) from the “rogue operation” cover story that the KSA retreated to after their “he visited and left the consulate with no problem, if something happened it had nothing to do with us” story failed and then the “okay, he was killed in our embassy, but it was not murder, just a fight that he started” story also failed.
> I’d be a lot more concerned if they took a position that this was a total farce.
They did take that position until they realized that it wasn't working.
Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation, executed by Saudis, wouldn’t the Saudis still hold some responsibility?
If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay.
They changed their story from one false narrative (that exculpated them from any connection) through a series of others (which admitted slightly more connection in each, but in all cases carefully denied a direct role for the crown prince.)
> If so why would they do that?
The initial lie was to deflect any blame. The subsequent revisions were due to the fact that the initial lie was transparently false, so everyone assumed the worse, so they continued to search for a lie which would both be accepted and at least mitigate the blame the regime was getting.
> Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation
I'm not saying that, the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is. That's the story they've retreated to, all previous exculpatory stories having failed.
> If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay.
Since MBS is in the middle of massive purges to consolidate his absolute control under the cover of an anticorruption campaign, having the excuse of a rogue operation to also use in those purges isn't exactly inconvenient. But, yes, the “rogue operation” story does naturally bring some blame onto the government of the Kingdom, which is why it was the third story, and not the first.
At this point I’m not sure what my point is any more. Sorry :)
The dominant one (and what the CIA has reportedly concluded) is that the Crown Prince (the effective ruler of the Kingdom) ordered the murder; the precise motivation isn't (AFAIK) clear; Kashoggi was a critic of the regime with a significant media impact, but what in particular led to the killing is murky, but MBS isn't running a warm fuzzy regime that is generally respectful of human rights and individual liberty, so while them killing a dissident Saudi journalist abroad is unusual, it's not much outside of their normal patterns; murdering dissidents (or executing them without an opportunity for presenting a defense) isn't new, nor is surveillance and harassment of Saudi dissidents abroad.
> This back and forth, I thought, stemmed from the idea that the recording is or could have been faked (unclear by who, Turkey?)
Yes, and that was the initial Saudi claim when Turkey claimed to have tape. Apparently, some of Saudi Arabia’s defenders haven't caught up with the new regime story, which no longer denies anything that is believed based on the tape alone, but only the attribution of the acts captured in the tape to the command of the leadership rather than rogue elements, which (AFAIK) is not at all rooted in the tape content itself.
There is a lot of pressure in the media (including leaks of the transcript by the CIA) for the President to watch the tape.
Headline of this article: "Khashoggi Trump refuses to listen to audio tape of Jamal Khashoggi's 'vicious' murder"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/jamal-khashogg...
edit: *leaks
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/10/cant-breathe-...
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-m...
Like Mattress reviews - all video and audio will become an evidential dead zone.
What can we do now to establish authenticity of POTUS interviews and declarations for example, when the quotes by themselves are often in need of video evidence as they are surprising.
How can any public figure be held accountable for what they say now when in a few years it will all be unverifiable.
I fear a lunar landing denialists scenario generalized to every piece of news.
We might become more critical of videos but footage from an untrusted source has never been reliable.