The differences are not subtle
Coulter’s tweet criticized the media for, in her perception, shying away from immediately disclosing the racial identity of a shooter when that person is not a white male, the typical identity of mass shooters in the US. The idea is that, due to their liberal worldview, the mainstream media deny evidence that might confirm conservative fears of Islamic terrorism in the US.
Anne Coulter makes a tweet and you lot call it "Coulter's Law" as if that means anything. Come with credible evidence or fuck off to Reddit.
The WH using social media (X, Pravda Social) for official communication is highly deliberate - they get to declare post-hoc what is actually real communication and what is “just memes”. Of course it won’t make any difference to people amplifying the content. If the WH had to stick to traditional outlets for news they wouldn’t have this fig leaf to hide behind.
There is no "fake news" here. They're mocking her by making it look like she's crying when she wasn't crying.
This isn't a material misrepresentation of anything. It's not legally significant. She was apprehended and nobody disputes this; and there's video footage out there from multiple sources — including Don Lemon's Youtube channel — that makes the cause for arrest clear.
> they get to declare post-hoc what is actually real communication and what is “just memes”
No, it can clearly be determined what's a joke and what's literal by having a sense of humour and critical thinking skill.
But that's going to cost money to make and market all these new cameras and I just don't know how we incentivize or pay for this, so we're left unable to trust any images and video in the near future. I can only think of technical solutions and not the social changes that need to happen before the tech is wanted and adopted.
https://authenticity.sony.net/camera/en-us/index.html
https://www.sony.eu/presscentre/sony-launches-camera-verify-...
Ideally it'd become an open standard supported by all manufacturers. Which is what they're trying to do:
Ideally we would have a similar attestation from most people's cameras (on their smartphones) but that's a much harder problem to also support with 3p camera apps.
You will need camera DRM with a hardware security module down all the way to the image sensor, where the hardware is in the hands of the attacker. Even when that chain is unbroken, you'll need to detect all kinds of tricks where the incoming photons themselves are altered. In the simplest case: a photo of a photo.
If HDCP has taught anything, it's that vendors of consumer products cannot implement such a secure chain at all, with ridiculous security vulnerabilities for years. HDCP has been given up and has become mostly irrelevant, perhaps except for the criminal liability it places on 'breaking' it. Vendors are also pushed to rely on security by obscurity, which will make such vulnerabilities harder to find for researchers than for attackers.
If you have half of such a 'signed photos' system in place, it will become easier to dismiss photos of actual events on the basis that they're unsigned. If a camera model or security chip shared by many models turns out to be broken, or a new photo-of-a-photo trick becomes known, a huge amount of photos produced before that, become immediately suspect. If you gatekeep (the proper implementations of) these features only to professional or expensive models, citizen journalism will be disincentivized.
But even more importantly: if you choose to rely on technical measures that are poorly understood by the general public (and that are likely to blow up in your face), you erode a social system of trust that already is in place, which is journalism. Although the rise of social media, illiteracy and fascism tends to suggest otherwise, journalistic chain of custody of photographic records mainly works fine. But only if we keep maintaining and teaching that system.
First do a left-right on the link that Aurornis posted [1]. Notice the extra fat in the chin, the elongated ear, the enlarged mouth and nose, the frizzlier hair, the lower shirt cut.
You hate it. You think, intellectually, that this shouldn't work and surely no one would have the gall to so brazenly do this without the fear of being caught and shamed. And then you think, well once the truth is revealed that there will be some introspection and self-reflection on being tricked, and that maybe being tricked here means being tricked elsewhere.
Well someone, in an emotionless room, min-maxed the outcomes and computed that the expected value from such an action was positive.
And here we are.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-levy-armstrong-crying-...
Also, can someone explain to me why NOTHING of this is challenged in court or prosecuted? Where the hell is your judicial system?
What law do you suppose it violates?
Tens of thousands of people are protesting and some getting arrested, anyone with a voice is doing what they can to sway public opinion.
Our higher courts are compromised (and feckless at times even when used correctly), and the police help ICE. And a large number of Americans do, in fact, want this. Others don’t care until it hits them personally.
So what specifically are people to do, like myself, who live in an unaffected area and who’s politicians are in fact speaking out against this?
Vote better for a start. The amount of support this administration has is still way too high considering everything they've done and are doing. It's shaken my faith in humanity a bit to see how many of the people around me don't seem to actually value humanity.
With all the deepest respect toward the US citizens I know, have talked to, and those that don't support the current administration ...
Theres's now _zero_ respect for the US.
Yours sincerely, long time five eyes allies.
I get that it's distasteful, I just really don't care. It's not a big deal. Why do you care? If they post doctored photos for a giggle to slightly humiliate criminals or degenerates, why is that such a scandal in your eyes?
Sackable offence in many countries.
Principally those countries with a regard for law, order, fairness, transparency, justice, etc.
The question really is, why would this be acceptable in the USofA by any administration.
Would it really make a difference to you if they fired whatever social media person posted this? What would it change? Do you actually care that much about this?
They eventually (more or less) gave up, finding all their efforts at comfortable explanations unsupportable. Nope, it’s just luck, momentum, and the difficult of intentionally directing large chaotic systems keeping things tolerably sane. It’s, in fact, very scary and it’s astounding it works at all.
It no longer does. Social media was the tipping point.
Religion wasn't enough to break democracy, newspapers weren't enough, radio wasn't enough, TV was almost enough... but now, with social media as the proverbial last straw, the bug is fully exploited, completely unfixable, and likely fatal.
The medium is the message, and I think the “message” of the global Web + social media + (now) generative AI may not include liberal democracy.
In fairness, many people have been working hard for decades to turn as many people into illiterate dumb fucks as possible. We didn't get here accidentally.