by Summary:
Those slight alterations in perspective can be dangerous. As Jonathan Albright, the research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, put it to the Washington Post, “The most dangerous type of fake news and reporting and evidence is when you get into the fine details, the nuanced things that are shaped to present a certain viewpoint or decision or news a certain way.” He added, “It’s not AI-generated or completely false. It’s something that’s real but has been literally stretched … and molded into weaponized evidence.”Those slight alterations in perspective can be dangerous. As Jonathan Albright, the research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, put it to the Washington Post, “The most dangerous type of fake news and
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Jim Acosta
This could be interesting, too:
Those slight alterations in perspective can be dangerous. As Jonathan Albright, the research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, put it to the Washington Post, “The most dangerous type of fake news and reporting and evidence is when you get into the fine details, the nuanced things that are shaped to present a certain viewpoint or decision or news a certain way.” He added, “It’s not AI-generated or completely false. It’s something that’s real but has been literally stretched … and molded into weaponized evidence.”Those slight alterations in perspective can be dangerous. As Jonathan Albright, the research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, put it to the Washington Post, “The most dangerous type of fake news and
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Jim Acosta
This could be interesting, too:
Those slight alterations in perspective can be dangerous. As Jonathan Albright, the research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, put it to the Washington Post, “The most dangerous type of fake news and reporting and evidence is when you get into the fine details, the nuanced things that are shaped to present a certain viewpoint or decision or news a certain way.” He added, “It’s not AI-generated or completely false. It’s something that’s real but has been literally stretched … and molded into weaponized evidence.”Those slight alterations in perspective can be dangerous. As Jonathan Albright, the research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, put it to the Washington Post, “The most dangerous type of fake news and reporting and evidence is when you get into the fine details, the nuanced things that are shaped to present a certain viewpoint or decision or news a certain way.” He added, “It’s not AI-generated or completely false. It’s something that’s real but has been literally stretched … and molded into weaponized evidence.”A video editor's assessment.
Slate
The White House’s Acosta Video Looks Different From the Original. Does That Mean It’s “Manipulated”?
Aymann Ismail
Darwin Holmstrom
See also
“When private corporations that control Google, Twitter, and Facebook, along with the government that is under control of corporate capitalism, can determine the range and content of information you are exposed to,” Ajamu Baraka tweeted, “there is a term for that: totalitarianism.” The Ministry of Truth soon proved Baraka correct. In early October Facebook announced that it was removing more than 800 pages from its platform because of some vague “inauthentic behavior” that it claimed involved using “sensational political content—regardless of its political slant—to build an audience and drive traffic to their websites.” In reality the pages, mostly progressive-leaning independent media sites like The Free Thought Project, Antimedia, Cop Block, and Police the Police, were removed for publishing content that wasn’t sanctioned by the Ministry of Truth. Twitter followed suit, banning many of the same sources deleted by Facebook.
On the night before the 2018 midterm elections Facebook blocked 115 accounts, claiming they’d committed “coordinated inauthentic behavior.” As to what constitutes such behavior, Facebook only said that the accounts “may be linked to foreign entities.” A meaningless charge, but it sounded vaguely nefarious.
The ruling elite seems to be just getting started in its efforts to regain control of the narrative. Whether its blatant attempts at censorship will put the social media toothpaste back in the tube and stifle the spread of information not approved of by Ministry of Truth remains to be seen, but one thing is certain; the ruling elite resorting to such heavy-handed tactics for controlling the peasantry indicates a high level of desperation on their part.
Maybe the very rich should be worried about an awakening peasantry....The Greanville Post