118 pointsby nicpottier15 days ago16 comments
  • epistasis15 days ago
    > “Enforcement of the law will continue. The memes will continue.”

    The Whitehouse thinks digitally altering photos of people it arrests is a "meme"?

    That's just as perverted an understanding of a "meme" as their understanding of "law". Namely: the law protects but does but bind the in-group, and binds but does not protect those in the out-group. Thus the January 6 insurrectionists get pardons, and the killer of Renee Good has the automatic internal investigation cancelled.

    "Meme" my ass.

    • JumpCrisscross15 days ago
      > Whitehouse thinks digitally altering photos of people it arrests is a "meme"?

      It’s made to go viral. They’re signaling intent. This is where algorithmic, ad-fueled social media leads a republic.

      • dinfinity15 days ago
        > This is where algorithmic, ad-fueled social media leads a republic.

        Only if we keep repeating things like this.

        People have agency and there are many people who are not led by or actively abusing social media. You don't tell a heroin addict it's not their fault, that the presence and malice of dealers made their fate inevitable.

        • davkan15 days ago
          You’re asking for a hundred million people to personally overcome engineered manipulation rather than addressing the manipulators. What you say is true for the individual but it’s not a solution at scale for our societal issues.

          It’s much akin to suggesting that poor people should not blame the system that keeps them poor and instead should focus on their education and getting themselves out of their current situation. Sure it’s accurate for the individual but, it’s not an actual solution to the problem at scale.

          Heroin addicts quit aided by the intense and direct efforts and support of the people around them. Whether that’s hospital staff or family. And you often do tell heroin addicts it’s not their fault. You tell them addiction is a disease. That their addiction is not a moral failing.

          • epistasis15 days ago
            There's room for a yes-and approach, it's not either-or.

            Some people can make the change, and since social media is social, that small vanguard causes others to switch as well.

            One can blame the system for keeping them poor, while also doing as much as possible to change their own position within the current system, those are not in opposition to each other! In fact, discouraging people from getting educated because of the system is its own form of oppression.

            Highlighting people's own agency to make changes for themselves also highlights how the engineered manipulation of social media is not inevitable. These are complimentary things to do.

            • davkan15 days ago
              > In fact, discouraging people from getting educated because of the system is its own form of oppression.

              Who is doing this? Did I suggest that addressing the systemic issues with the cycle of poverty precludes individuals pursuing education? No, I said it doesn’t on its own resolve the issue of poverty as a whole.

              > Only if we keep repeating things like this.

              I still think the answer to this problem will not hinge on individuals choosing to interact with social media less and more intelligently. The vast majority of us know social media is manipulating and dividing the population. We all know we should use it less. We already have these discussions and have been for years and it shows to have very little actual effect on the overall situation we find ourselves in.

              You are right in that it can be a yes-and type situation but my worry is that bringing personal responsibility to the forefront of the conversation mostly serves to diminish the responsibility we face as a society to reign in these monstrous (in both ways) companies that are actively destroying our social fabric in pursuit of profits in the most charitable view, or in pursuit of bringing us into a hellscape of a new world order, re Thiel et al.

        • epistasis15 days ago
          We also need to leave platforms with highly manipulated and unclear algorithms. Especially the former Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok.

          This is one of the great things about BlueSky, you can make your own feeds. The bad thing about BlueSky is that the default algorithms are pretty bad (except for the simple "following" feed). But choosing your own sets of feeds, each with their own algorithms, is a great way to keep up with highly focused news and also allow discovery of new information, without as much manipulation as you'll get on the past generation of social media.

    • spwa415 days ago
      Well if they're altered photos ... then it's really more like "lying will continue", isn't it?
  • JumpCrisscross15 days ago
    During France’s Reign of Terror, executions by guillotine were public. It was considered distinguished for victims to go stoically, and many did, which left the crowds to have their fun.

    I recall, however, and this may be apocryphal, that one woman went to the stand screaming and crying and begging for mercy. This humanized her. The crowds, soured to their revelry, went home.

    I am curious if her pleas were heard because those people were better than we are today, or because social media amplifies our cruelty beyond even that of our darkest modern histories.

    • spwa415 days ago
      During France's Reign of Terror, the line towards the guillotine is rumored to have been over 4 kilometers long. 30% of Paris died. This done to kill the bourgeoisie, despite that over 90% of those executed didn't hold any titles. It turned into a massacre, and was replicated across France. The son of the king was locked up at age 8, alone, until he died, before his 11th birthday. The youngest person actually guillotined was 13 years old.

      ... I don't think there was much "humanizing" going on at all.

      • touwer15 days ago
        Bs. I live in Paris. There is no evidence at all of 4 km or your other claims. The total number of executions in France during the Reign of Terror is estimated at around 16,000 to 40,000, with about 2,600 to 3,000 executions in Paris alone. Paris's population at the time was roughly 600,000, so the percentage of Parisians who died by execution was closer to 0.5%, not 30%.
        • kjsingh15 days ago
          Likely so - when executions expand to 30% of the population, they are no longer fun
      • throwaway9182715 days ago
        Revolutionary terror in 1789 wasn't about killing the Bourgeisie- the French Revolution was a Bourgeois revolution- the Revolution was about overthrowing the Aristocracy, the nobles, the people with, as you say, titles- Being Bourgeois generally meant that you're common-born but well-educated and moneyed.

        The fact that the Bourgeois of France were growing in real power, but completely unrepresented in the formal political systems in France, was one of the major pressure points that caused the entire system to explode into Revolutionary violence.

        I think you're right to point out the irony that revolutionary violence mostly affected the common man, and not the aristocracy, but the "enemies of the revolution" were nobles, clergy, and their sympathizers (perceived or otherwise), not "the bourgeoisie".

        Proletarian revolutions against the Bourgeois don't really happen until there IS an urban proletariat in the first place- in pre-industrial 1789, the bourgeois and the sans-culottes were grouped together socially in the "Third Estate".

      • JumpCrisscross15 days ago
        Oh I don’t mean to humanize the Reign. I’m just saying that even in those depths of depravity, tears were recognized for what they were, at least once, perhaps, again, apocryphally. The notion that tears would inflame an audience to more violence is interesting juxtaposed against that.
    • justonceokay15 days ago
      Social media makes things further away. It allows the callous of the inner city to grow over the heart of the most rural peasant. It democratizes a kind of mental illness that used to only affect famous Hollywood stars.

      But this is all irrelevant to the article at hand

      • JumpCrisscross15 days ago
        > this is all irrelevant to the article at hand

        I don’t think it is. The White House describes the image as a meme because it’s designed to go viral. It’s made for the algorithms to boost to specific audiences.

  • Havoc15 days ago
    It’s the likely intent here that is most alarming.

    Don’t think anyone would care if they photoshopped something ugly or inconvenient out of a picture.

    This is signally more “look we’re traumatising people” which means they think there is an audience that wants to see that. Dark AF

  • myrmidon15 days ago
    Having the government manipulate mass-media material is frankly insane.

    Everyone involved in something like this should be sacked immediately, but I have very little hope that voters are going to punish egregious misbehavior like this as long as it's "their" side doing it.

    If you had told republican voters in 2016 that within the decade, there were going to be widespread searches/arrests by federal agents without warrant or trial, unapologetic image falsification by the White House and even killings of unarmed civilian protesters: They would have gone absolutely ballistic- rightfully so.

    • NickC2515 days ago
      >They would have gone absolutely ballistic- rightfully so

      Sadly, I disagree here. They would have qualified their reaction by asking who would be in power. If it was a GOP held white house, they'd probably rationalize it and say it's good.

      Partisanship rot goes very deep on the republican side. Granted, the democrats suck, but the republicans fall in line every time without question.

      • mysterydip15 days ago
        As someone who has a largely republican family, ironically they say the same thing: “the republicans suck, but the democrats fall in line every time without question.”
        • HaZeust15 days ago
          While a generalization has the flaws of being, well, a generalization; I've noticed that this trope is at least more true than not when you qualify what TYPE of Democrats and Republicans you're talking about.

          I think one is true of the representatives - Democrat constituents generally fall in line without question; whereas I think the other is true of the people - Republican voters generally fall in line without question.

          The rot is deep for the constituents on either side, however. There's a LOT of incentive to preserve party/ideological status quo regardless of where you land.

        • anigbrowl14 days ago
          well, what do the facts say? Thinking back to the last powerful Dem politician to get in trouble, Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, I don't recall any outpouring of support from him from his colleagues or diehard Dem voters.
    • dfxm1215 days ago
      The situation we're in today has obvious roots in the aftermath of 9/11 and the PATRIOT act, and the relative lack of voter outcry after the Snowden leaks. Voters seem all too glad to trade in freedom for fear of boogiemen & have a reverence for LEO that is wholly unearned. I honestly think the reaction would be closer to something like, "well, what did they do to deserve it?" (until it happens exactly to them, of course)
    • 15 days ago
      undefined
    • Someone15 days ago
      > Having the government manipulate mass-media material is frankly insane.

      It’s repeating history. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So... with, for example

      “On May 5, 1920, Lenin gave a famous speech to a crowd of Soviet troops in Sverdlov Square, Moscow. In the foreground were Leon Trotsky and Lev Kamenev. The photo was later altered and both were removed by censors.”

    • jameskilton15 days ago
      No, they wouldn't, because they didn't care when this happened during Trump's first term, Trump said this would happen during his 2nd term, AND THEY STILL VOTED FOR HIM.

      This is what America voted for.

  • Noaidi15 days ago
    I just thought of a crazy analogy. I was on the internet in the mid 90's, using gopher and usenet, etc. It was great then because only the smart people knew how to get on. Then in the mid 00's it all went to sht.

    Now we come to graphic design. It used to be only smart people knew how to use photoshop to manipulate images, but now we have given any idiot the power to manipulate images with AI and this is where we are.

  • deepfriedchokes15 days ago
    Would this count as libel? It’s a publication of a false, damaging statement in a fixed form (writing, print, picture, broadcast) that harms a person's reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
  • nomilk15 days ago
    (very) Important to note this doesn't appear to be an attempt at passing off a digitally altered (/AI generated) image as real, but rather the creation of a digitally altered image with the intent of mocking the individual. When I stumbled across the altered photo I immediately knew it was a joke (i.e. had been created using AI), although I didn't notice it was created by the White House (although that wouldn't have made a difference).
    • nicpottier15 days ago
      This photo did not scream AI to me but I'm not deep into internet trolling culture.

      I would love to be able to take photos that our government posts at face value.

      I find any defense of this kind of wild. These are the people in power? Even if it is a joke is this how we want the powerful treating us?

      • nomilk15 days ago
        Rule of law is so important, and society (especially the vulnerable) suffers when weak leaders fail to enforce the law. That said, we can have our cake and eat it too - strong law enforcement (a la Singapore style) can occur without mocking wrong doers.
      • mingus8815 days ago
        I hope you understand that you have never been able to take photos the gov releases at face value.

        But today, we know this administration will openly lie, and double down in the face of any refutable proof. Literally since DAY ONE they tried to push a crowd size narrative that we all saw in real time was a lie.

    • shitter15 days ago
      Call me a relic of a bygone era of seriousness and decency, but I don't think the White House should be in the business of mocking individuals online, either. But I know we're well past that point.
    • 15 days ago
      undefined
  • phillipseamore15 days ago
    Isn't this the admin that fought for the TAKE IT DOWN act?
    • muwtyhg15 days ago
      Feels like everyone completely forgot about this. The White House made a big stink about AI deepfakes in their first couple of months and then proceeds to publish them at blinding speed. No hint of irony or self-awareness.
  • krapp15 days ago
    The cruelty is and has always been the point.
    • mingus8815 days ago
      If you have read anything about Fred Trump and how he ran the family that Donald grew up in, it’s clear that cruelty is the only thing Donald really understands.

      In fact, his rise to power in the Republican Party was primarily due to his ability to demean his opponents. He’s an insult comic, and enough people were fed up that they wanted this to happen.

  • josefritzishere15 days ago
    The people in power are mentally ill.
  • jrm415 days ago
    Honestly, this should give hope for people worried about it. Not the fact that it was done, but the fact that the New York Times immediately posts about it. That's about the best you can ask for now that this tech is ubiquitous and not going back in the can.
    • nicpottier15 days ago
      Yes, it was good this was caught and reported on. But this will become normalized and we seem to be sprinting full speed towards not being able to know what to believe. That the State is engaging in this is concerning to say the least.
    • acdha15 days ago
      The problem is that the NYT won’t post about everything and a large number of people won’t see it when they do or will immediately dismiss it as “fake news” because it’s politically inconvenient.

      This is kind of like the difference between not polluting water and hoping that people will use filters.

    • LightBug115 days ago
      Replying to this as a quadruple upvote ...

      Any lawyers in the USA getting off their assess to fight stuff like this? (Sorry if you are). There's the Good Law Project in the UK that takes up causes.

      • 15 days ago
        undefined
  • zingababba15 days ago
    Not really surprising. Boomers are finally going away. New order brings new way of doing things. 4chan tactics have gone mainstream.
    • mingus8815 days ago
      Boomers seem to be the most susceptible to AI fakes, from what I’ve seen
  • bradgranath15 days ago
    [dead]