India Gives Social Media Platforms 36 Hours to Remove Deepfakes

[Anderton]

Yup. If a social media platform is informed that a deepfake has been posted, they have 36 hours to remove it or they're liable for it being on the platform.

 

I like this idea, but I can imagine it might be difficult to enforce. What if bots upload hundreds of thousands of deepfake videos per second? Who's going to remove them? How fast can they actually be removed? What about clearing caches?

 

Social media seemed so promising. But the rosy predictions didn't take into account that it would be run, and used, by humans. Once those pesky humanoid bipeds get involved, there's always trouble ahead.

[o0Ampy0o]

Banning deepfake content seems fairly basic and not unlike banning political content or pornographic content. If someone/something were to upload hundreds of thousands of these videos per second the plug would be pulled and the website would be shut down indefinitely. It would constitute a cyber attack. Most corporations have protocols to deal with varying degrees of compromises in security. They will have to come up with ways to screen more effectively to spot deepfakes before they can be uploaded.

 

 

[Greg Mein]

Who cares what India does?

[nursers]

8 minutes ago, Greg Mein said:

Who cares what India does?

Because they are one of the largest countries / populations in the world and in 20-30 years will potentially (alongside China) be one of the two world superpowers.....

[Anderton]

8 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

Who cares what India does?

 

Because I think they're the first country to do this, but they won't be the only one.

[Greg Mein]

2 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

Because I think they're the first country to do this, but they won't be the only one.

Well, other than banning the platform in their country what do they actually think they can accomplish?

[analogika]

 

13 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

Who cares what India does?

 

 

2 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

Well, other than banning the platform in their country what do they actually think they can accomplish?

 

These are two completely different questions. 

I'm sure that social media companies, for example, give more than a small f*ck about what the world's most populous country does. Being the biggest upcoming market and all, you know. 

 

And are you asking why "banning the platform in their country" (of 1.4 BILLION people) isn't actually a threat a business might consider? 

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

Well, other than banning the platform in their country what do they actually think they can accomplish?

 

When I hear the word "liable for" I instantly think "fines" and a source of revenue. It might also force the platforms to be more diligent about being on the lookout for bots etc.

[David Emm]

Its just the next stage of the inevitable battle against our own tech, which is really a battle against our more scurvy fellow citizens.

 

My heart goes out to the brave parents who accept the wrath of kids whose Net access is doled out cautiously. Its daunting to see the number of things from which your kids need protection. Its not as if parenting didn't already have a long enough to-do list.

[RABid]

Ummm ... India has already passed China to become the most populous country in the world. 

 

I do wish there was a "Digitally created content" notice on YouTube videos with an option to filter it out. I hate searching for reviews on a product, only to have to wade through so many digitally created reviews. Voices are getting better but they can still be noticed. What's worse are the miss used words and promoting products that they have never tested. It is always the same. Glowing review, link in the comments for purchasing the item. I always click thumbs down and hope YouTube takes that into account and filters them from my future searches.

[Greg Mein]

Can someone share a link to or point out a "deep fake" that would cause the leaders/politicians/dictators or whatever they are of India to be so concerned that they feel they need to take some kind of action against an internet business based in a country where they have no jurisdiction?

The whole thing seems absurd to me on the surface, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[Anderton]

4 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

The whole thing seems absurd to me on the surface, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

 

Links are at the end, but first, some background. Deepfake Putin and Zelensky videos were accepted as real by many people, until proven otherwise. Think Orsen Welles' "War of the Worlds" and how people reacted to fictional material they thought was real. And actresses are rightfully getting bent out of shape that their faces are being used in porn movies ("Wow, I never knew Natalie Portman got her career started by doing p*rn movies with Stevie Nicks").

 

On a more personal level, what happens when someone says "Your honor, I have video proof that Greg Mein assaulted the waitress at Zigby's Bar" because he has enough images of your face to put it in place of the friend of his who really did assault the waitress? And the waitress is terrified to testify against the person who did it, so she won't contradict the video "proof"? 

 

Public figures are particularly easy targets because so many images are available. It would be easy to make a video that shows a politician accepting a cash bribe from the CEO of some corporation. Then they have to prove that it didn't happen, which would depend on finding experts who could find errors in the deepfake that would show it wasn't real ("I don't think Senator Blurfle really has seven fingers, so it's probably a fake.") But deepfakes are only going to get more and more accurate in the future.

 

Deepfakes of Biden, Putin, etc. are mostly easy enough to debunk in a short amount of time. But videos of random atrocities made to boost someone's agenda would be harder to catch, and could sway people's opinions if not debunked. And when there's a flood of them, we won't know what's true and what's not. Just look at how many people are willing now to accept misinformation as factual, as long as it agrees with their worldview. And if they see it in a video, well, "seeing is believing"...right?

 

The deepfakes in the disinformation war – DW – 03/18/2022

Russia TV Airs Apparent Deepfake Video of Putin Ordering Martial Law (businessinsider.com)

A horrifying new AI app swaps women into porn videos with a click | MIT Technology Review

Zelensky, Putin videos provide glimpse of evolving deepfake threat, experts say | CBC News

Faked videos shore up false beliefs about Biden's mental health

Nonconsensual deepfake porn puts AI in spotlight | CNN Business
A Doctored Biden Video Is a Test Case for Facebook’s Deepfake Policies | WIREDDeepfakes porn has serious consequences - BBC News

I Shouldn’t Have to Accept Being in Deepfake Porn - The Atlantic

Deepfake videos could destroy trust in society – here’s how to restore it (theconversation.com)

[KenElevenShadows]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:37 PM, Greg Mein said:

Who cares what India does?

 

I do. It almost functions as my second home as well as the home of considerable tech and the largest country in the world, with 1.2 billion people. 

 

 

[Greg Mein]

19 hours ago, analogika said:

I'm sure that social media companies, for example, give more than a small f*ck about what the world's most populous country does. Being the biggest upcoming market and all, you know. 

 

And are you asking why "banning the platform in their country" (of 1.4 BILLION people) isn't actually a threat a business might consider? 

 

In a normal world I might typically agree, however, I'm losing count of the major artists that have stepped onto a political stump to such a degree as to alienate large sections of their audience seemingly without a care in the world. They've apparently achieved a level of sustained wealth where it no longer matters. And what's worse, those people are small potatoes compared to the ones who own large internet based enterprises. People at that level don't just speak the language, they create and define it for the all too willing masses to absorb.

 

Politicians, wealthy elitists and the establishment have always been a "deep fake" to me so I'll never be able to share in any outrage over this, it's just more of the same.

[analogika]

I don’t think we have a real common basis for discussion here, so I’ll just leave it at that. 

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

Politicians, wealthy elitists and the establishment have always been a "deep fake" to me so I'll never be able to share in any outrage over this, it's just more of the same.

 

It's so much more than that, like the video I mentioned of you assaulting the waitress. I saw it with my own two eyes  

 

Deepfakes attack the concept of veracity itself, which long-term, affects everyone - not just politicians and artists. 

[Greg Mein]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

 

It's so much more than that, like the video I mentioned of you assaulting the waitress. I saw it with my own two eyes  

This will never happen, main reason being chain of evidence, without it a prosecutor is going to laugh at you and the judge will not allow it to be entered. This type of evidence has to be collected at the crime scene, documented and securely stored. Furthermore, If someone at my level is capable of making such a video than I'd also have access to the same tools and can create a video of the prosecutor having sex with the judge while flying with the president on Air Force One. My lawyer is going to have a field day!

[KuruPrionz]

2 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

This will never happen, main reason being chain of evidence, without it a prosecutor is going to laugh at you and the judge will not allow it to be entered. This type of evidence has to be collected at the crime scene, documented and securely stored. Furthermore, If someone at my level is capable of making such a video than I'd also have access to the same tools and can create a video of the prosecutor having sex with the judge while flying with the president on Air Force One. My lawyer is going to have a field day!

Deepfake does not exist to engage a prosecutor, judge or jury. It exists to falsely persuade the persuadable, a different but much larger population. None of us are immune but most of us are ignored. 

[Anderton]

2 hours ago, Greg Mein said:

This will never happen, main reason being chain of evidence, without it a prosecutor is going to laugh at you and the judge will not allow it to be entered. 

 

You have a lot more faith in people than I do! But before addressing your points, the main reason I brought this topic up is because it's germane to the entertainment industry. What started this movement was actresses feeling totally exploited from deepfake videos portraying them as p*rn stars. In our world, could John Fogerty go back to the old CCR videos and replace the rhythm section with his current touring band? Of course that's not a life-or-death situation, but it just goes to show how easily history in any of several areas could be erased or rewritten. 

 

I'll concede the court scenario, but YouTube, Facebook, X, and others will allow the bogus video to be posted, and it will get out to the court of public opinion and live forever on the internet. Meanwhile, five years later, you're at a job interview where they did some poking around on social media, and they find this disturbing video involving you. If you're lucky, they'll ask you about it and give you a chance to explain yourself. But that probably won't happen. HR will just say "I don't care what his resume says, we can't hire someone who beats up waitresses."

 

Also, imagine what would be possible during a messy divorce if someone wanted to ruin someone else's reputation via social media. How do you defend yourself against that? It would just go into the same "he said, she said" category as the rest of the divorce.

 

I'm happy you have faith in people, but I think deepfakes could do serious damage in ways we haven't even thought of yet. If someone is being damaged by a provably false video and alerts the platform, then damn straight it needs to be taken down. If someone posted horrible things about you that were provably false and you wanted me to delete the posts and ban the person who posted them, I would do so without one millisecond of hesitation.

 

 

[David Emm]

 "Years ago, authors predicted that information would become so plentiful that we would no longer pay for it...
    instead... we'd pay to be shielded from it."
        ~ Paul Lehrman

[Greg Mein]

2 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

You have a lot more faith in people than I do! 

 

Also, imagine what would be possible during a messy divorce if someone wanted to ruin someone else's reputation via social media.

 

I'm happy you have faith in people

 

 

You gotta have faith, haha, well ok then, I will!

 

The divorce part reminds me of the city I previously lived in for many years. Speed cameras had been installed on the interstate that went through downtown. In one instance I'd heard about a woman on the outs with her husband that drove his car at a high rate of speed numerous times along that section knowing that all those tickets would be mailed to him. A valiant effort but at the end of the day those tickets aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

 

This is a topic i really shouldn't have stepped into on this particular forum. I only wish everyone here the best of success!

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, Greg Mein said:

This is a topic i really shouldn't have stepped into on this particular forum. I only wish everyone here the best of success!

 

No problem. Probably if the topic had been phrased "should social media platforms remove deepfakes if asked, and if not, should they be liable" the responses would have been different. I like tying topics into things that are happening currently in the real world, but there's no need to do that, we can just speculate about topics.

[Stokely]

I see Social Media as, overall, a very harmful blight.  Deepfakes are no worse than the platforms themselves, they are just an evolution.  All of it chiefly serves to spread misinformation and false "knowledge" and "news".   Personally I think we as a species of glorified plains apes we have finally found a stick bigger than nukes, but unlike nukes (so far) we've decided to push the button down.   

Obviously it could be seen as ironic that I'm posting on a forum with such an attitude, but there's a big difference:  active, effective moderation.  All of the forums I bother with have this.   I have made the mistake of joining in other places like youtube comments and regretted it every single time.   

If Social Media, which generally is a cesspool of fake bullshit, can manage to moderate deep fakes effectively...well, good luck with that.  I put the chances at somewhere between nil and none.   And the idea that any government (not exactly known for swift, effective and technologically-savvy action) is going to identify these fakes is laughable.   I'm sure crack teams of interns will be right on it, but don't forget to turn in the forms to the next desk up and so on... More likely they'll just go after videos (fake or not) that are negative to the powers that be.

[Anderton]

21 minutes ago, Stokely said:

And the idea that any government (not exactly known for swift, effective and technologically-savvy action) is going to identify these fakes is laughable.

 

FWIW in the referenced story, the government isn't the one that identifies the fakes. The government says that if platforms are informed of deepfakes and don't remove them within 36 hours, they'll be liable for any consequences of the deepfake being posted.

 

What the government would need to do is have a subset of whatever bureaucracy handles telcom regulation. This subset would handle complaints that deepfakes weren't removed after 36 hours.

 

I imagine it would work like this: a-holes.com posts a deepfake video of me saying that guitars are responsible for all evils on earth. I ask a-holes.com to remove the deepfake. If they do, done. If not done within 36 hours, I file a complaint with the telcom regulators. 

[Nowarezman]

As to "why bother" trying to fix something that looks so hopelessly broken, I'm put in mind of a Chesterton quote - "anything worth doing is worth doing poorly."

 

Otherwise, the things worth doing get flushed down the drain of fatalism.

 

nat

 

[Notes_Norton]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:55 PM, Anderton said:

Social media seemed so promising. But the rosy predictions didn't take into account that it would be run, and used, by humans. Once those pesky humanoid bipeds get involved, there's always trouble ahead.

Perhaps the main problem is that there is no positive identification of the person posting. The poster can be anonymous.

 

I can make an account under a fictitious name with a gmail account and post anything I want. And someone (not me, I'm not that savvy) can make a bot that can spit out zillions of them.

 

The reality is this, "Seeing is no longer believing."

 

Notes ♫

[BluMunk]

I think that this is a problem, and will only become a larger problem as the tools to create such content become cheaper and easier to use without expertise.

I also don't think that we (India, US, or whoever) can legislate or tech their way out of this issue. When it comes down to it, eventually all images and video and audio will only be as reliable as the faith you have that the person or organization posting it can be trusted (or whoever they got it from can be trusted).

Not to be a pessimist, but for all the good things that the internet and mobile computing power has done, the ability for some random person to generate content and reach millions around the globe puts society at risk. The ability to automate that content generation (AI) accelerates that risk to an unprecedented degree.

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, BluMunk said:

the ability for some random person to generate content and reach millions around the globe puts society at risk. The ability to automate that content generation (AI) accelerates that risk to an unprecedented degree.

 

Agree 100%. It used to be the crazy people stood on street corners with megaphones. Now they have the world's largest and least critical megaphone, and they're not just standing on a street corner - they can work their way into every corner of the globe. What's worse is it's hard to see the crazy in people's eyes when they post anonymously on a level playing field.

[Shamanzarek]

Somewhat relating to India. A bandmate of mine died in September. Within a day of his death there were at least three videos on YouTube of Indian news commentators as well as websites reporting his death with a very detailed history of his life. He was not known in India at all so it is a mystery how this came to be especially so quickly after his death. Anybody know anything about this?

 

[analogika]

That last one has THOUSANDS of auto-generated „obituaries“, 32-35 seconds in length (just above the monetisation threshold), uploaded every twelve hours. Most with no views, many with a handful. 
 

if this is one of many automated channels run by that business, I’m sure there’s some income generated there.