Technology

60114 readers

2373 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

643

The White House wants to 'cryptographically verify' videos of Joe Biden so viewers don't mistake them for AI deepfakes (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s to c/technology

260 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The White House wants to 'cryptographically verify' videos of Joe Biden so viewers don't mistake them for AI deepfakes::Biden's AI advisor Ben Buchanan said a method of clearly verifying White House releases is "in the works."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] General_Effort 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What makes the original comment legally problematic (IMHO), is that it is expected and intended to have a chilling effect pre-publication. Effectively, it would end internet anonymity.

It's not necessarily unconstitutional. I would have made the argument if I thought so. The point is rather that history teaches us that close control of publications is a terrible mistake.

The original comment wants to make sure that there is always someone who can be sued/punished, with obvious consequences for regime critics, whistleblowers, and the like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We need to take history into account but I think we'd be foolish to not acknowledge the world has indeed changed.

Freedom of the press never meant that any old person could just spawn a million press shops and pedal whatever they wanted. At best the rich could, and nobody was anonymous for long at that kind of scale.

Personally I'm for publishing via proxy (i.e. an anonymous tip that a known publisher/person is responsible for) ... I'm not crazy about "anybody can write anything on any political topic and nobody can hold them accountable offline."

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So your suggestion is that libel, defamation, harassment, et al are just automatically dismissed when using online anonymous platforms? We can't hold the platform responsible, and we can't identify the actual offender, so whoops, no culpability?

I strongly disagree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's not what the commenter said and I think you are knowingly misrepresenting it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I am not. And if that's not what's implied by their comments then I legitimately have no idea what they're suggesting and would appreciate an explanation.