Oh, No She Didn't

[U.P. Cinnabar]

https://apnews.com/500d7c83712242b3949f79a762b6a1e6

WASHINGTON (AP) — A doctored animation and photo have surfaced online appearing to show one of the survivors of the Florida high school shooting tearing up the U.S. Constitution.

The image of Emma Gonzalez was doctored from a March 23 “Teen Vogue” story in which she ripped up a shooting range target. The publication’s editors pointed out the fake image on Twitter.

The doctored animation and news stories about it were shared nearly 70,000 times on social media.

Supporters of the Second Amendment pointed to the image as evidence that gun control supporters are going too far.

Gun control supporters expressed outrage when the image was shown to be fake.

Gonzalez spoke with other Parkland, Florida, students on Saturday at a protest in Washington to demand action on gun control.

The NRA has no shame
And, no side

[Korto]

And even if she had, so what?
Americans really seem to get emotional about this whole 'patriotism' thing. She could wipe her arse with the Australian constitution, and I honestly believe the majority of us really wouldn't give a shit.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, there's a specific symbology of tearing up a written constitution that includes the enshrined rights of your citizens. Like, if a bunch of neo-Nazis tear up a copy of the Constitution at a rally, the signal is pretty damn clear: "We want to take away your constitutional rights." It's reasonable to consider that objectionable symbolism.

Now, if she'd been said to tear up, say, a copy of the Declaration of Independence, that would just be Americans being easily triggered about 'muh patriotism.' This is more than that.

...

More generally, we're going to see a lot more of this in the future. Fake videos are only getting easier to make. By the mid-21st century, it will probably be easy for anyone with a bit of resources and access to some talent to create entirely fictitious videos of political opponents taking bribes, saying things they never said in real life, or for that matter doing unsavory things with barnyard animals. I can only hope that we react to this by learning not to put to much trust in arguments of the form "and as this video clearly shows, Bob is one of the baddies."

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Even after such videos are exosed as fake, the damage is not already done, not only will those who believe in the lie insist it's true, not only will actual video evidence be dismissed as fake(as some are doing to Gonzalez's actual video), the time will come where such lies are defended as necessary, because the other side did everything they could to obliterate the real truth.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And even if she had, so what?
Americans really seem to get emotional about this whole 'patriotism' thing. She could wipe her arse with the Australian constitution, and I honestly believe the majority of us really wouldn't give a shit.

That's because, to too many Americans, patriotism is their excuse for being miserable, self-centered bullying, sad sacks of shit.

[Simon_Jester]

Even after such videos are exosed as fake, the damage is not already done, not only will those who believe in the lie insist it's true, not only will actual video evidence be dismissed as fake(as some are doing to Gonzalez's actual video), the time will come where such lies are defended as necessary, because the other side did everything they could to obliterate the real truth.

Well, I'm thinking in terms of distant future equilbrium states right now because there's not much to say about the present here except "RAR OUTRAGE."

And in that future equilibrium, I think sooner or later everyone but the most hardcore of the conspiracy nuts will realize that the 'video evidence' accusing every single politician on both sides of ghastly crimes can't literally all be true.'

Eventually.

[Elheru Aran]

Considering they've already taken shots at recreating deceased actors via CGI (Tarkin in Rogue One, young Leia in same), I suspect people will become more aware of such fakery via Hollywood before it starts becoming a big thing for "IRL". Part of the problem is that unless you're trying to exploit low-quality film, making really realistic CGI duplicates is *hard* (with home/OTC office-quality computers and average hardware, anyway). Much easier to fake something that someone's holding, insert the wrong audio into a bit of video, stuff like that.

As far as Hollywood goes, the success of Rogue One *despite* the slight uncanny-valley effect the CGI characters had suggests they will almost certainly explore using the technology further. There are some failures, of course-- the terrible moustache-removal on Henry Cavill in Justice League being an excellent example-- but overall it's only getting better and cheaper. Even 'low budget' SF shows these days can have starships and graphics far better than what they had in say the early 2000s. Recreating objects and vehicles is far easier than recreating organics and people, granted, but it's still being done. There's pages on Deviantart with pictures of people that you could swear were taken with a camera. Fewer than the ones that you can tell weren't, of course, but the fact is it's happening.

Of course in a decade, probably far less, we'll start seeing Hollywood-quality fake people coming from home computers, and if you run it through some kind of filter that simulates, say, cellphone video in a low-light setting, it would be pretty easy to fake for example a sexual encounter (because I'm pretty sure the majority of the US population isn't going to give up being slightly prudish about sex by then) or some kind of illicit dealing. There is already plenty of graphic artistry software out there, including software for making your own animated films. Putting realistic CGI into live action is a different proposition, and would require some more specialized effects suites and more expensive hardware, but in a decade or less... sure.

A few more years will probably be required for the general public to start regarding all media as slightly suspect unless verified with raw data, though... I wouldn't be surprised at all if for example someone posts a "cellphone video" of an opposition male candidate having his way with another man, or worse, a child, within a few years or less of the present, and though completely fake, it does serious damage to their campaign.

[Vendetta]

Of course in a decade, probably far less, we'll start seeing Hollywood-quality fake people coming from home computers, and if you run it through some kind of filter that simulates, say, cellphone video in a low-light setting, it would be pretty easy to fake for example a sexual encounter (because I'm pretty sure the majority of the US population isn't going to give up being slightly prudish about sex by then) or some kind of illicit dealing.

If by "in a decade" you mean "already".

[houser2112]

Considering they've already taken shots at recreating deceased actors via CGI (Tarkin in Rogue One, young Leia in same)

Although it doesn't invalidate your point at all (because she couldn't realistically play herself at -40 years without a lot of help), the pedant in me must point out that Fisher was still alive when Rogue One was released.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Of course in a decade, probably far less, we'll start seeing Hollywood-quality fake people coming from home computers, and if you run it through some kind of filter that simulates, say, cellphone video in a low-light setting, it would be pretty easy to fake for example a sexual encounter (because I'm pretty sure the majority of the US population isn't going to give up being slightly prudish about sex by then) or some kind of illicit dealing.

If by "in a decade" you mean "already".

I think Jeff meant it would become more common as time went by, though I would also have to disagree, as such fakery is becoming more prevalent now, as is the cynical acceptance of same.

Land of the cheat code, after all.

[Elheru Aran]

Ooh, deepfakes. I actually forgot about those. Silly me.

By "Hollywood-quality fake people" I meant completely or mostly CGI recreations. High-powered face-swap software is certainly another kettle of fish... an easier one to boot. The flap that nipped the legit pornsites hosting deepfakes is just going to drive them deeper into the darknet, where the general public won't be as aware of them. This also means that political campaigns will be less aware of them, at least until they start talking to black-hat types.

Deepfaking a movie or a porno is a bit of a different proposition from deepfaking say a news tape though. Matching resolution and graphics quality would be tricky, not to mention synchronizing audio and visuals. You also have to make it believable; you might be able to seamlessly deepfake say Bernie Sanders' face onto Trump's body without too much trouble... but Bernie Sanders' face on say RuPaul? Yeah, no. Even in that clip you can see a clear contrast between Cage-Picard and Cage-Dwayne Johnson. One works far better than the other. Cage-Picard only requires a little mental adjustment to get past the 'whoa that's not right'; Cage-Johnson simply doesn't work nearly as well because if you recognize Nicholas Cage's face you know dang well he doesn't have a build anywhere near Johnson's, plus the clip is of Johnson is of crappier quality than the face-rip of Cage so they don't quite match.

That's probably the reason why the use of deepfake software on politicians isn't that much of a thing, if at all, at the present-- it's harder to make it work than pasting a Hollywood actress's face upon a porn actress's, as a modern porn video from a high end studio is probably at similar visual quality to a Hollywood movie, and young and pretty faces and bodies are fairly easy to match up versus the gamut of generally middle-aged-to-elderly, generally white, usually (thank God) clothed politicians out there. Certainly tweaks can be made via the software-- 'auto match media quality' or whatever, but I can't say I've seen it myself yet.

I've been a poor prophet before, though. Now that I've been reminded of deepfakes... yeah, it'll probably happen sooner than a decade that someone fakes up something that makes it big.

[Raw Shark]

Would it be ultimate irony if people took up arms against the first amendment rights of the (perhaps dishonest) supporters of second amendment rights? Lucky Number Nine and I await your groupthought decision!

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Perhaps dishonest?! These are the same "people" who defended a terrorist and a child killer 23 years ago this coming April 19th.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I noticed something else about the doctored photo. They changed the lighting on her face to make her look more malevolent, same way the light always shone up into John Colicos' Baltar's face in all the oBSG throne room scenes for exactly that same effect.

Son of a bitch.

[Simon_Jester]

That's probably the reason why the use of deepfake software on politicians isn't that much of a thing, if at all, at the present-- it's harder to make it work than pasting a Hollywood actress's face upon a porn actress's, as a modern porn video from a high end studio is probably at similar visual quality to a Hollywood movie, and young and pretty faces and bodies are fairly easy to match up versus the gamut of generally middle-aged-to-elderly, generally white, usually (thank God) clothed politicians out there. Certainly tweaks can be made via the software-- 'auto match media quality' or whatever, but I can't say I've seen it myself yet.

So when you shoot a video of Senator Brown-Smith taking a suitcase full of cash from a sleazy guy in a suit, you hire an old white guy to provide the body actor. It's not like there's a shortage of options for that, and it's not like sex tapes are the only thing that can be involved here.

[Elheru Aran]

That's probably the reason why the use of deepfake software on politicians isn't that much of a thing, if at all, at the present-- it's harder to make it work than pasting a Hollywood actress's face upon a porn actress's, as a modern porn video from a high end studio is probably at similar visual quality to a Hollywood movie, and young and pretty faces and bodies are fairly easy to match up versus the gamut of generally middle-aged-to-elderly, generally white, usually (thank God) clothed politicians out there. Certainly tweaks can be made via the software-- 'auto match media quality' or whatever, but I can't say I've seen it myself yet.

So when you shoot a video of Senator Brown-Smith taking a suitcase full of cash from a sleazy guy in a suit, you hire an old white guy to provide the body actor. It's not like there's a shortage of options for that, and it's not like sex tapes are the only thing that can be involved here.

That is a fair point. The only reason I can think of as to why it hasn't been done yet is that either they haven't thought of it yet, or its application to political dirty tricks is limited at the moment for whatever reason, be it technical or implementation or whatever. For someone like a Presidential candidate, for example, it's pretty easy for them to account for their movements once they start their candidacy-- if nothing else, once they get far enough along, the Secret Service keeps tabs on that, and could presumably produce records that Senator So-and-So did, in fact, spend the night in his bedroom rather than slinking down to this shady bar to give national secrets to the Russians or whatever. For other campaigns, of course, that would be less of an option.

If nothing else, I might expect an attempt at more records-keeping once deepfake software becomes more common. Location tagging on a regular basis for example-- if you post on your official Facebook page that you were at yea campaign office meeting with some people rather than boinking your supposed mistress in an anonymous motel room, it gives you something of an alibi. Of course such things can be easily faked... I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here.

[Simon_Jester]

Once it becomes easy to produce fake video/audio of prominent people... The only stable equilibrium state is one where people start ignoring fakes. And anything that might be a fake, including a lot of the real stuff. The only trustworthy documentary evidence is the kind that no one is in a position to fake, or that no one could have faked on such short notice.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Unless one gets the idea of marrying tempest and deepfake technology to doctor live streaming on the fly.

[Simon_Jester]

[Nods]

Strictly, though, all that does is narrow down "the list of things no one could have faked on such short notice" to further approach "the list with no things on it."