China Seeks To Root Out Fake News and Deepfakes With New Online Content Rules (reuters.com) 45
Chinese regulators have announced new rules governing video and audio content online, including a ban on the publishing and distribution of "fake news" created with technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality. From a report: Any use of AI or virtual reality also needs to be clearly marked in a prominent manner and failure to follow the rules could be considered a criminal offense, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) said on its website. The rules, effective Jan. 1, were published publicly on its website on Friday after being issued to online video and audio service providers last week. In particular, the CAC highlighted potential problems caused by deepfake technology, which uses AI to create hyper-realistic videos where a person appears to say or do something they did not. Deepfake technology could "endanger national security, disrupt social stability, disrupt social order and infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others," according to a transcript of a press briefing published on the CAC's website.
Exceptions for government-owned sources (Score:5, Insightful)
Exceptions surely to be made to the government-controlled publications — for the Greater Good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Exceptions for government-owned sources (Score:4, Informative)
I think you've missed the bigger picture. To the Chinese government, "Fake News" is explicitly "anything they don't like". Oh, they'll use language like "socially disharmonious" or whatever, but no one should think that "truth" is even the smallest consideration.
We need to be more aware of this tendency here in the US. Our first instinct when anyone says "we're banning fake news" should be to hear "we're banning stuff we disagree with". I think people have this reaction when it's Trump saying it, maybe because he's such a blowhard, to question "well, is it actually fake, or is it just something that hurts him", and maybe look deeper if we actually care. But we need to react the same way to e.g. Facebook or Google.
But oddly the Slashdot groupthink gets very upset when I point out that yes, really, Google does hide search some results simply because they don't like them. Why that should be shocking, I don't know, humans gonna human, after all.
But above all else, if we have any hope of democracy and freedom in the future, we must not let our government get into the business of banning "fake news".
Re: Exceptions for government-owned sources (Score:2)
"But oddly the Slashdot groupthink gets very upset when I point out that yes, really, Google does hide search some results simply because they don't like them."
Really? I thought the usual response would be, "yeah, everyone knows that."
Re: (Score:2)
2019 Freedom of speech is far more complex then ever.
We have technologies that can spread lies and false information at a rapid pace, much faster then reliable sources can filter it out and say this is true or not. To make it worse many of these lie spreaders spend most of their time discrediting the reliable sources as blocking the truth.
So this creates a condition where the general public doesn't know what is true or not.
The government works as both reliable source and creator of lies. Which is why the US
Re: (Score:2)
Romny made some comment about packing his camping gear and his dog on top of the car. Which was just a minor misspeak,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not unique to our times. Mark Twain wrote about this in 1871 [loa.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, just like anywhere else. Find any country where the law is applied to everybody equally. We only govern the countries we live in. Let's make sure we don't do the same thing to ourselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that it's from the country that has banned Winnie the Pooh because that character looks too much like their glorious leader you have a pretty low threshold when it comes to "deepfakes".
Oh, rules (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, so some "rules" will keep this shit in check? Really?
Why didn't someone think of these magical "rules" before? Think of all the trouble that could have been avoided.
Re:Oh, rules (Score:4, Insightful)
You do know how laws work don't you?
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, that fake Obama speech didn't scare us enough last year... so they gotta keep talking about it. Make us wonder, for EVERY video we watch, "is this real?"
The technology has been around for a while. Not really getting better.... getting cheaper. Used to be you needed a Hollywood movie budget to put someone else's face on your head, but now anony
Re: (Score:3)
Well, after China arrests their "fake news" criminals (Uighurs and pro-democracy advocates) and divests them of their assets (internal organs), there will be a noticeable reduction in "fake news" that China is concerned about.
That rule/punishment combo tends to work.
Mixed feelings (Score:3)
On the other hand, the reason China can do this is that they have no protections on free speech, and they are not a free society; they are a top-down controlled authoritarian government. It would be nice to have fakes clearly labelled, but I don't know how we can do this in a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case I don't agree that this is anything new as far as free speech. The US for example has plenty of laws and precedent pertaining to fraud, these are generally seen as necessary limitations on free speech.
U.S. laws against fraud do not cover spreading on the internet, unless that lie is narrowly crafted to deceive people to take their money. Fraud laws most certainly do not cover posting deepfake videos of politicians.
"Lying" may be the popular definition of fraud, but it's not the legal definition.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. laws against fraud do not cover spreading on the internet, unless that lie is narrowly crafted to deceive people to take their money. Fraud laws most certainly do not cover posting deepfake videos of politicians. "Lying" may be the popular definition of fraud, but it's not the legal definition.
Yeah, it would be more like defamation and slander. Not that photoshopping fake nudes of celebrities is new, you could create "deepfake" videos using a good imitator, prosthetics, make-up and a movie budget too. I don't mind it being its own crime though, if you want to do name-calling that's one thing but if you pretend to be me that's more like forgery. And the right time is now, I just read a paper that took photo-realistic face generation to another level with much more realistic skin and better express
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...That's why it takes an informed society to know fact from BS..
Yeah.
We desperately need that... and I don't have any idea of how to implement that.
There are actually two errors: people believing stuff that's fake, and people not believing stuff that's true. A problem with the garbage spreading out using new fake technologies is that debunking these doesn't make people any better at detecting truth, it simply gives them tools to discredit all information coming their way (except for information supporting what they already believe.)
Re: (Score:2)
Deepfake technology (Score:1)
"Deep Fakes" is buzzword nonsense (Score:1)
This is hilarious (Score:5, Funny)
Let us trust the Chinese government and their dictator, Winnie the Pooh.
China and the truth? (Score:3)
Those two things are never the same thing.
This isn't news... (Score:1)
Deep Fake Flag (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Janitor in a storage closet. That's Roger Wilco [wikipedia.org]. But I doubt he ever was kissed.
Now come Leisure Suit Larry.
Trust China? Yeah sure, no problem (Score:3)
Uighurs and their supporters decry Chinese ‘concentration camps,’ ‘genocide’ after Xinjiang documents leaked [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:1)
They are killing Hong Kong Protestors & Muslim (Score:3, Informative)
Does ANYBODY in their right f-ing mind believe "China" will do the right thing towards humanity?
China is nothing but a bunch of thug murderers. Case closed!
Virtual reality? (Score:2)
Not sure what virtual reality has to do with this. It's not like you don't notice you're in it.
Ehmm (Score:2)
I wonder, what can you do if you can photoshop Mao's face onto yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, what can you do if you can photoshop Mao's face onto yourself?
Get arrested?
Yup, I believe everything from the CCP! (Score:2)
https://pen.org/sites/default/... [pen.org]
https://umexpert.um.edu.my/fil... [um.edu.my]
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018... [foreignpolicy.com]
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/artic... [asahi.com]
https://www.scmp.com/video/chi... [scmp.com]
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a... [buzzfeednews.com] http://www.chinalaborwatch.org... [chinalaborwatch.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
http://www.filmsforfreedom.com... [filmsforfreedom.com]
Household Registration System
https://thediplomat.com/2017/0... [thediplomat.com]
https://www.thoughtco.com/chin... [thoughtco.com]
Communists (Score:1)
In the USA people get the freedom to publish.
A rule? (Score:1)
Is that like when Boeing detects a fatal flaw in a plane design and it decides the solution is to send a memo?