Techdirt's think tank, the Copia Institute, is working with the Trust & Safety Professional Association and its sister organization, the Trust & Safety Foundation, to produce an ongoing series of case studies about content moderation decisions. These case studies are presented in a neutral fashion, not aiming to criticize or applaud any particular decision, but to highlight the many different challenges that content moderators face and the tradeoffs they result in. Find more case studies here on Techdirt and on the TSF website.

Content Moderation Case Study: Dealing With 'Cheap Fake' Modified Political Videos (2020)

from the political-moderation dept

Summary: For years now there have been concerns raised about the possibility of “deep fake” videos impacting an election. Deep fakes are videos that have been digitally altered, often to insert someone’s face onto another person’s body, to make it appear that they were somewhere they were not or did something they did not. To date, most of the more sophisticated deep fake videos have been mainly for entertainment purposes but there has been a concern that they could lead to faked accusations against politicians or other public figures. However, so far, there has been little evidence of deep fake videos being used in elections. This may be because the technology is not yet good enough or because such videos have been easy to debunk through other evidence.

Meanwhile, there has been increasing concern about something slightly different: cheap fake or shallow fake videos, which are just slight modifications and adjustments to real videos—less technically sophisticated, but also potentially harder to combat.

One of the most high profile examples of this was a series of videos that went viral on social media of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that were modified by slowing down the video to 75% of the original speed. The modified videos were spread with false claims that they showed Pelosi slurring her words, possibly indicating intoxication. Various media organizations fact checked the claims, noting that the videos were altered and therefore presented a very inaccurate picture of Pelosi and her speech patterns.

Social media companies were urged by some to delete these videos, including by Speaker Pelosi herself, who argued that Facebook in particular should remove them. Both Facebook and Twitter refused to take down the video, saying that it did not violate their policies. YouTube removed the video.

In response to concerns raised by Pelosi, some highlighted that it would be impossible to expect social media to remove every misleading political statement that either took the words of an opponent out of context or presented them in a misleading way, while others suggested that there’s a clear difference when it comes to manipulated video as compared to manipulated text.

Others highlighted that it would be difficult to distinguish manipulated video from satire or other attempts at humor.

Company Considerations:

  • Where should companies draw the line between misleading political content and deliberate misinformation?
  • Under what conditions would a misleading cheap fake video separately violate other policies, such as harassment?
  • What should the standards be for removing political content that could be deemed misleading?
  • Does medium matter? Should there be different rules for manipulated videos as compared to other types of content, such as taking statements out of context? 
  • Should there be exceptions for parody/satire?
  • Are there effective ways for distinguishing videos that are manipulated to mislead vs. those that are manipulated for humor or commentary? 
  • Should the company have different standards if the subject of a cheap fake video was not a political or public figure? 
  • What are other alternative approaches, beyond blocking, that could be used to address manipulated political videos?
Issue Considerations:
  • What are the possible unintended consequences if all “manipulated video” is deemed a policy violation?
  • What, if any, is the value of not removing videos of political or public figures that are clearly misleading? Would there be any unintended consequences of such a policy?
  • What are the implications for democracy if manipulated political videos are allowed to remain on a platform, where they may spread virally?
  • Are misleading “cheap fake” videos about politicians considered political speech?
  • Who should decide when “cheap fake” political speech is inaccurate and inappropriate—should it be social media platforms, a general public consensus, or a third body??
  • How might “cheap fake” videos be used for harassment and bullying of non-public figures, and what are the potential implications for real life harm? 
  • If the cheap fake video didn’t originate from a public source (as in the Pelosi video) but a private video, how could a company determine that those videos were manipulated?   
Resolution: After public demands that Twitter, YouTube and Facebook do something about the modified Pelosi video, the three major social media platforms each responded differently. YouTube took the video down, saying that it violated its policies. YouTube also noted that unlike the other platforms, the modified Pelosi video did not appear to go viral or spread widely on its platform. Facebook kept the video up but, in accordance with its fact-checking policies, once the video was deemed “false” Facebook de-ranked the video in its news feed, limiting its spread.

Twitter left the video up. However, by the time a very similar event happened a few months later, Twitter announced a new plan for dealing with such content, saying that it would begin adding labels to “manipulated media,” offering context for people who came across such videos so they would understand that the video is not being shown in its original context. One of the first examples of Twitter applying this “manipulated media” label was to a comedy segment by late night TV entertainer Jimmy Kimmel who used some manipulated video to make fun of former Vice President Mike Pence.

Originally posted to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cheap fakes, content moderation, deep fakes, modified content, nancy pelosi, politics, shallow fakes, social media
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 9:28pm

    All this "Copia" stuff is just Maz with another front.

    Take the link to the "Copia" site. Look around. last "white paper" is from Nov 2018! Like so much of Maz, Copia is nothing but a fiction.

    And it's openly Silicon Valley propaganda:

    https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2021 @ 9:31pm

      Re: All this "Copia" stuff is just Maz with another fr

      That didn't go in until "Resend". The "spam filter" is another lie here -- kept vague and mysterious -- because more likely explaination is blocked by Admin, then new IP address got around it. So in addition to malice, looks (to me, seeing what happens out of sight to you) like Techdirt is incompetent too, bad combination, except for amusement.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 1:01am

        Re: Re: All this "Copia" stuff is just Maz with anothe

        "The "spam filter" is another lie here -- kept vague and mysterious "

        Vague and mysterious to you. Everyone else just rolls your eyes and laughs at you every time you do things to trigger it, followed by spamming the site to complain about your first bit of spam being filtered.

        "then new IP address got around it"

        Wow... so you post anonymously until the spam filter is triggered for your current IP. You then switch to another IP where it's initially not blocked, then gets blocked after you've spammed from it a few times.

        What could possibly be going on here... it's a mystery lol

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2021 @ 3:08pm

        Re: Re: All this "you're still an ignorant motherfucker

        Nothing quite makes my day like watching you lose another fight to a spam filter blue balls

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 12:59am

      Re: All this "Copia" stuff is just Maz with another front.

      It's propaganda! It's also not published anything recently enough to make it relevant!

      I'll take a break from my usual question of what control you think the MacArthur Foundation and Automattic have, as I always do when you post the freely and publicly available image as if it's proof of something nefarious, and laught at the fact that even your own internal logic is less effective than normal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 2:40am

    Leaving the video up, clearly marked as false and preferably with an explanation of exactly what about it is false, is the best solution. The public needs to be exposed to video manipulations, to learn what's possible, so less people will be fooled by it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 4:44am

      Re:

      A fine idea... until you understand that the target audience for this laughable propaganda will reject the warnings as "fake news" and believe the fabrication.

      This is what happened with Trump - when his tweets were left up and Twitter fact checked the tweets, the reaction wasn't people reading the fact checks and learning from them. It was Trump and his cult whining about liberal bias because the fact checks appeared.

      Leaving this stuff up only leaves the more gullible morons they're aimed at in the first place being able to watch them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2021 @ 3:59pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes, well, the problem with declaring the general public "gullible morons" that need some higher authority to do all the thinking for them is that most of us are inevitably members of the general public and there is no guarantee the authority that would make our decisions for us is going to agree with us.

        This is why democracy, despite all its failings, is still the best form of governance ever implemented.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 9 Jul 2021 @ 11:16am

    Fakes, long have they been around.

    Want a Suggestion,
    Lets make things easy.
    The Creator and the TRUE persons who paid for them, MUST be admitted to. Have to be even a 1 frame acknowledgment.
    If this requires the Gov/state to Dig up that info, then it should be prosecuted.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.