Editing Footage For Commercial - Ok? (1 Viewer)

[Ilov80s]

This video is being compared to one of these deepfakes where they actually change words and alter faces?

Not directly. I was just extending the conversation. I took the main theme being about altering video and it’s political implications. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That dog video

We need more fake ads like that in politics and fewer fake ads like this:

Paul Ryan pushing grandma off a cliff

Woah, hold on there a second.  Are you saying that that isn't actual footage of Paul Ryan shoving a wheelchair-bound grandma off a cliff?  I was totally fooled!  If only we had Washington Post fact-checkers back then.  

 

[The General]

Not directly. I was just extending the conversation. I took the main theme being about altering video and it’s political implications. 

Thanks. This video is more akin to a commercial where they show someone drink a soda and then run across water or something. 

Deepfakes are truly frightening and political ones will no doubt show up on social media to influence people moving forward.

If any candidate were to be tied directly to one they should automatically get the boot. There shouldn’t be any playing around there. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Thanks. This video is more akin to a commercial where they show someone drink a soda and then run across water or something. 

Deepfakes are truly frightening and political ones will no doubt show up on social media to influence people moving forward.

If any candidate were to be tied directly to one they should automatically get the boot. There shouldn’t be any playing around there. 

Agreed but there’s a middle ground where the editing can be slick and not so easy to pickup on. We are really dropping the ball imo.

 

[Ilov80s]

This latest attempt to censor free speech in the name of "protecting our democracy" will backfire.

Special panels made up of members of the very groups people already distrust labeling content as "fake/disinformation" will just draw more eyeballs to it and reinforce the narrative that they are trying to control the masses through censorship.

We don’t need that. Just a giant warning that the video has been altered.

 

[The General]

Agreed but there’s a middle ground where the editing can be slick and not so easy to pickup on. We are really dropping the ball imo.

I guess I don’t think this one falls even close into that category for me but agreed this is an important topic and needs to be discussed.

 

[toshiba]

Let me put it this way.  About 2 months ago I said I would vote for any of the current democratic candidates over Trump.  Now I will say, I will not vote for Trump.    I highly doubt I would vote for Bloomberg either.

 

[Rove!]

Nothing wrong with this

 

[parasaurolophus]

Woah, hold on there a second.  Are you saying that that isn't actual footage of Paul Ryan shoving a wheelchair-bound grandma off a cliff?  I was totally fooled!  If only we had Washington Post fact-checkers back then.  

They were too busy catching ryan in his 14er climbing scandal. 

 

[TheMagus]

I only watched a single 60-second or so clip from the debate -- the part where Warren stands in front of Bloomberg, rips his still-beating heart from his chest, and drops him screaming into a flaming pool of lava.  I hadn't seen the thing about whether anybody had started a business.  I instantly realized that this video was intended as a joke and that the network did not actually pan from candidate to candidate showing them with funny expressions and looking gob-smacked.

I say that not to lavish praise on myself for my worldly sophistication, but because I can't wrap my mind around the idea that any normal person would not see this as an obvious joke.  I understand that there are people out there who don't understand how humor works, like folks with autism.  For people like that, I do get it, but that's the language equivalent of a person being color-blind -- we don't remove color from society just because a small subset of the population can't tell green from red.  

For other people, though, I guess I'm just not seeing how a cognitively normal person could watch this video and walk away with the impression that that's really how the debate went down.  I'm pretty much 100% convinced that this is just people hating Bloomberg and talking themselves into the proposition that a large number of Democratic voters are really, really gullible.  I don't think they really believe that, but it plays into a pre-existing narrative of "Bloomberg is bad."

If somebody was willing to step and say "I personally was deceived by this video -- I thought that was unedited CNN footage!" then maybe I would reconsider.  But I can't help but notice that nobody anywhere has admitted to this.  It's always some hypothetical third party who got tricked by the video, never the person complaining about the video.  I think I'm drawing a pretty reliable inference from that.

(For the record, I've spent most of my adult life hating Michael Bloomberg.  I'm just good at uncoupling stuff like this). 

I think I may disagree with you because I don't think the intention of the ad was humor. Looking at it from that lens makes it more understandable. But I wasn't getting a humor vibe from it... more just another campaign promotion to put on the pile. That line was obviously planned by the Bloomberg campaign regarding "who has owned a business." I just disagree that this was meant to be funny and not a serious campaign ad. I totally get where you are coming from though. 

 

[TheMagus]

I think what is being missed in the bigger picture around this fake/parody video is that it was such a cartoonishly Republican talking point in the first place.

The video is misleading because it makes it seem as if the other candidates on the stage got "owned" or were at a loss for words by bringing up the fact that they had never run a business when that isn't something that would be in the realm of a disqualifying attribute to the Democratic base.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think what is being missed in the bigger picture around this fake/parody video is that it was such a cartoonishly Republican talking point in the first place.

The video is misleading because it makes it seem as if the other candidates on the stage got "owned" or were at a loss for words by bringing up the fact that they had never run a business when that isn't something that would be in the realm of a disqualifying attribute to the Democratic base.  

This is a fair point, but "misleading" is definitely not the right term to use.  Bloomberg very obviously thinks that business experience should be an important qualification to hold higher office.  I don't agree with that, neither do you, and neither do most voters.  But that's just a difference of opinion, not an attempt to mislead anybody.

That sounds pedantic, but there are people in this thread arguing that we need to massively overhaul our electoral system to combat misleading or deceptive ads, and several candidates are calling for regulating social media platforms for the same reason.  If we can't tell the difference between "an ad that is attempting to deceive" and "an ad that makes a point that I disagree with," then folks like me who oppose all of this stuff get an easy win.

 

[Ilov80s]

This is a fair point, but "misleading" is definitely not the right term to use.  Bloomberg very obviously thinks that business experience should be an important qualification to hold higher office.  I don't agree with that, neither do you, and neither do most voters.  But that's just a difference of opinion, not an attempt to mislead anybody.

That sounds pedantic, but there are people in this thread arguing that we need to massively overhaul our electoral system to combat misleading or deceptive ads, and several candidates are calling for regulating social media platforms for the same reason.  If we can't tell the difference between "an ad that is attempting to deceive" and "an ad that makes a point that I disagree with," then folks like me who oppose all of this stuff get an easy win.

This video is not the driving force that  makes me feel like major campaign reform is necessary. It’s a small part of a very long list. And it isn’t this video, it’s about addressing widespread fake political information and trying to get ahead of the ruinous potential of technology where even the video we see can not be trusted and can not be easily validated.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We are largely in agreement on the problem.  My solution would be to have the government invest more resources into educating people better.  Your solution is to disenfranchise people.

This is how I see it as well. 

I have to admit, and I fully confess much of this is because I've got a soft spot for the underdog and I've seen first hand how income status can be linked to education. But the idea of the self proclaimed smart people deciding where the bar will be where they can exclude people they deem not smart enough to be worthy of casting a vote in America just feels legitimately gross to me. 

I know IK is a good guy and I realize he says he's talked about this before. I guess I just don't read the board closely enough because this sort of take honestly surprised me. 

Is this a thing where the anonymity of a message board gives the freedom to say what you really think?  @IvanKaramazov  is this a position you would you attach your real name to and talk about it in real life with your friends and people in your community? 

Can you unpack in detail: "overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites."?

 

[parasaurolophus]

This is how I see it as well. 

I have to admit, and I fully confess much of this is because I've got a soft spot for the underdog and I've seen first hand how income status can be linked to education. But the idea of the self proclaimed smart people deciding where the bar will be where they can exclude people they deem not smart enough to be worthy of casting a vote in America just feels legitimately gross to me. 

I know IK is a good guy and I realize he says he's talked about this before. I guess I just don't read the board closely enough because this sort of take honestly surprised me. 

Is this a thing where the anonymity of a message board gives the freedom to say what you really think?  @IvanKaramazov  is this a position you would you attach your real name to and talk about it in real life with your friends and people in your community? 

Can you unpack in detail: "overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites."?

I dont believe the idea that people that cant even name the current vice president shouldnt be able to vote is new or unique.  

A very popular quote that has been around for a long time. 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " 

It is attributed to Churchill, but I dont think thats actually accurate. Regardless it is a quote that has been thrown around for many years and the intent is fairly obvious. 

Not trying to speak for IK just sharing that it isnt some crazy far out there thing. 

 

[TheMagus]

This is a fair point, but "misleading" is definitely not the right term to use.  Bloomberg very obviously thinks that business experience should be an important qualification to hold higher office.  I don't agree with that, neither do you, and neither do most voters.  But that's just a difference of opinion, not an attempt to mislead anybody.

That sounds pedantic, but there are people in this thread arguing that we need to massively overhaul our electoral system to combat misleading or deceptive ads, and several candidates are calling for regulating social media platforms for the same reason.  If we can't tell the difference between "an ad that is attempting to deceive" and "an ad that makes a point that I disagree with," then folks like me who oppose all of this stuff get an easy win.

I said misleading because it shows the candidates as reacting to his "zinger" like they had just gotten owned when that was not what happened during the debate. Pete and Amy were laughing and it looked like they may have said something to each other in the spirit of "Did this guy sign up for the right primary?"

I just also find it interesting that he used that particular point as one of the key moments from the Democratic debate in an ad and I am wondering myself if he accidentally signed up for the wrong primary.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is how I see it as well. 

I have to admit, and I fully confess much of this is because I've got a soft spot for the underdog and I've seen first hand how income status can be linked to education. But the idea of the self proclaimed smart people deciding where the bar will be where they can exclude people they deem not smart enough to be worthy of casting a vote in America just feels legitimately gross to me. 

I know IK is a good guy and I realize he says he's talked about this before. I guess I just don't read the board closely enough because this sort of take honestly surprised me. 

Is this a thing where the anonymity of a message board gives the freedom to say what you really think?  @IvanKaramazov  is this a position you would you attach your real name to and talk about it in real life with your friends and people in your community? 

Can you unpack in detail: "overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites."?

Sure.  I don't think my position is particularly weird.  Our constitution was deliberately written in a way to frustrate the will of the majority.  I wouldn't call it anti-democratic, but it places serious restrictions on the ability of a majority to govern.  Several constitutional amendments really are anti-democratic in the sense that they take certain topics off the table for democratic determination.  For example, it doesn't matter if 95% of the electorate wants to declare Christianity the official religion of the United States -- no piece of legislation to that effect will survive judicial review.

Technically, if 95% of voters wanted to create a national religion, they would probably be able to enact an amendment to that effect, but you get the idea.  On some topics, we tell voters that this is how it's going to be and we don't care if you disagree.  

What I'm arguing is that on many topics, a large number of voters just don't know enough to have an intelligent opinion.  International trade is a pretty good example.  Lots of people walk around thinking of international trade as a realm where one country competes against another, where some countries "win" somehow and other countries "lose."  That's totally wrong, in the sense that it's more like the opposite of the truth.  This is not some strange libertarian position that is any serious dispute -- Paul Krugman has been one of its most vocal advocates.  When voters elect candidates who start trade wars, they are actively making the country worse off, and their ignorance is harming the rest of us.  This is one example of an area where it would worthwhile to have a strong policy apparatus with institutions controlled by intellectual elites that would prevent voters from making this sort of error.  It's okay if the passengers vote in favor of buzzing the air traffic control tower, but we need pilots who disregard their opinions.

Don't know if that helps or not.       

 

[rockaction]

 It's okay if the passengers vote in favor of buzzing the air traffic control tower, but we need pilots who disregard their opinions.

Extremely well-played, Iceman. lol.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have to admit, and I fully confess much of this is because I've got a soft spot for the underdog and I've seen first hand how income status can be linked to education. But the idea of the self proclaimed smart people deciding where the bar will be where they can exclude people they deem not smart enough to be worthy of casting a vote in America just feels legitimately gross to me. 

This is a slightly different argument than the one I addressed in my last post, but yeah I openly admit to friends and relatives that it would be nice if there were a way of being more selective about who gets to vote.  In practice, I think it's very difficult and maybe impossible to do so in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves.  But very large swaths of the electorate know pretty much nothing about the government they're participating in, and I console myself with the knowledge that in most cases their votes just cancel out.

For instance, surveys consistently show that a huge number of voters don't know which party controls the house or senate.  Here's one link, but there are others out there.  Keep in mind that if voters were perfectly ignorant and just guessed at random, they would guess right about 50% of the time.  That's the perfect-ignorance baseline.  Actual survey respondents somehow manage to do worse than that.  Folks who are operating on this sort of level can't legitimately hold elected officials accountable for anything, because they don't know who's in charge.  This is just one example of the type of person who would best serve society by sitting most elections out.   

 

[dutch]

What topics, subjects, issues will potential voters be tested on and is a pass/fail on any of the above automatic disqualification or is it an in toto grade?

 

[Ilov80s]

This is a slightly different argument than the one I addressed in my last post, but yeah I openly admit to friends and relatives that it would be nice if there were a way of being more selective about who gets to vote.  In practice, I think it's very difficult and maybe impossible to do so in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves.  But very large swaths of the electorate know pretty much nothing about the government they're participating in, and I console myself with the knowledge that in most cases their votes just cancel out.

For instance, surveys consistently show that a huge number of voters don't know which party controls the house or senate.  Here's one link, but there are others out there.  Keep in mind that if voters were perfectly ignorant and just guessed at random, they would guess right about 50% of the time.  That's the perfect-ignorance baseline.  Actual survey respondents somehow manage to do worse than that.  Folks who are operating on this sort of level can't legitimately hold elected officials accountable for anything, because they don't know who's in charge.  This is just one example of the type of person who would best serve society by sitting most elections out.   

Don't they already mostly sit the elections out since voter turnout around 50%?

 

[JAA]

This is a slightly different argument than the one I addressed in my last post, but yeah I openly admit to friends and relatives that it would be nice if there were a way of being more selective about who gets to vote.  In practice, I think it's very difficult and maybe impossible to do so in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves.  But very large swaths of the electorate know pretty much nothing about the government they're participating in, and I console myself with the knowledge that in most cases their votes just cancel out.

For instance, surveys consistently show that a huge number of voters don't know which party controls the house or senate.  Here's one link, but there are others out there.  Keep in mind that if voters were perfectly ignorant and just guessed at random, they would guess right about 50% of the time.  That's the perfect-ignorance baseline.  Actual survey respondents somehow manage to do worse than that.  Folks who are operating on this sort of level can't legitimately hold elected officials accountable for anything, because they don't know who's in charge.  This is just one example of the type of person who would best serve society by sitting most elections out.   

You realize we already tried this in the US. The purpose was to suppress the black vote. Are you recommending we try it again?  Should we repeal The Voting Rights Act of 1965?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You realize we already tried this in the US. The purpose was to suppress the black vote. Are you recommending we try it again?  Should we repeal The Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Of course not.  

Incidentally, the US has never -- to my knowledge -- actively discouraged poorly-informed folks from voting.  As you note, it suppressed voting based on race, but has never done so based on actual competence.  Literacy tests, for example, were just a charade for screening out black voters as opposed to actual attempts to assess voter literacy.  So your first sentence is technically wrong.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is a slightly different argument than the one I addressed in my last post, but yeah I openly admit to friends and relatives that it would be nice if there were a way of being more selective about who gets to vote.  In practice, I think it's very difficult and maybe impossible to do so in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves.  But very large swaths of the electorate know pretty much nothing about the government they're participating in, and I console myself with the knowledge that in most cases their votes just cancel out.

For instance, surveys consistently show that a huge number of voters don't know which party controls the house or senate.  Here's one link, but there are others out there.  Keep in mind that if voters were perfectly ignorant and just guessed at random, they would guess right about 50% of the time.  That's the perfect-ignorance baseline.  Actual survey respondents somehow manage to do worse than that.  Folks who are operating on this sort of level can't legitimately hold elected officials accountable for anything, because they don't know who's in charge.  This is just one example of the type of person who would best serve society by sitting most elections out.   

Thanks for the honestly. But I couldn't disagree more. 

The idea of people who think they're smarter being able to deny a United States citizen the right to vote because they feel they don't measure up to their desired level of intelligence feels gross to me. 

Honestly, outside of a country club locker room, I can't imagine ever hearing someone saying this in real life where people knew who you were. 

 

[Zegras11]

This is how I see it as well. 

I have to admit, and I fully confess much of this is because I've got a soft spot for the underdog and I've seen first hand how income status can be linked to education. But the idea of the self proclaimed smart people deciding where the bar will be where they can exclude people they deem not smart enough to be worthy of casting a vote in America just feels legitimately gross to me. 

this x 100000000000000000

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Thanks for the honestly. But I couldn't disagree more. 

The idea of people who think they're smarter being able to deny a United States citizen the right to vote because they feel they don't measure up to their desired level of intelligence feels gross to me. 

Honestly, outside of a country club locker room, I can't imagine ever hearing someone saying this in real life where people knew who you were. 

Do you think it's gross to deny a US citizen the right to practice medicine because they don't measure up to our desired level of medical knowledge?  Because that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

Admittedly, I am way in the minority on this one, but I don't see anything special about the right to vote.  What I ultimately want is a government that functions effectively and respects the rights of its citizens.  I mostly don't care how we get there. If I thought that a benevolent dictatorship would produce the kind of government I'd like (I don't), then I would support a benevolent dictatorship (I don't).  I support democracy only to the extent that it functions better than other forms of government.  If some other form of government worked better than democracy, then of course I would want to switch over to that other alternative.

In other words, I'm in favor of democracy only to the degree that it works.  It seems obvious and self-evident to me that this is the standard we should use, but I know that this is a contested view.  I'm not a utilitarian, but they tend to say the same thing -- "utilitarianism is obvious and it's hard to even entertain other worldviews" -- and that's kind of where I am with this.  If there were some way to make society function better by disenfranchising one person (extreme example), that would be an easy trade-off IMO. 

This is sort of an academic discussion because in real life there is no chance of my view on this issue being adopted.  For me, this is more about pushing back on the idea that more voter participation is automatically good (it probably isn't) and that laws that inhibit voter participation, like voter ID laws, are automatically bad (they aren't).  It's also an affirmative argument in favor of institutions like the Federal Reserve, that take important policy decision more or less out of the hands of voters.   

 

[Joe Bryant]

Admittedly, I am way in the minority on this one, but I don't see anything special about the right to vote. 

I think this is the fundamental difference we have on this. 

Could not disagree more. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think this is the fundamental difference we have on this. 

Could not disagree more. 

No worries.  I understand that most people disagree with me on this one.

 

[JAA]

Of course not.  

Incidentally, the US has never -- to my knowledge -- actively discouraged poorly-informed folks from voting.  As you note, it suppressed voting based on race, but has never done so based on actual competence.  Literacy tests, for example, were just a charade for screening out black voters as opposed to actual attempts to assess voter literacy.  So your first sentence is technically wrong.

.02 I think you are nitpicking. I think the literacy were in fact for suppression of black, but they were also socioeconomic suppressors. 

 

[Zow]

The US has a god-awful history with literacy tests, and I don't trust the government to devise a test that would accurately weed out folks who shouldn't be voting. 

That said, a very large proportion of voters are incompetent.  Not in the sense that they have any mental disabilities like autism or Down syndrome, but more in the sense that they just aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to rightly exercise coercive power over the rest of us.  (Quick disclosure -- my wife works with high-functioning autistic and Down's folks.  That isn't what I'm talking about here).  What I'm talking about are folks who don't know who the current VP is, or who can't identify the Speaker of the House.  People who can't name a single Supreme Court Justice.  These are people are so completely disconnected from the government as it actually exists that I don't trust their judgement and don't want them voting.

On a higher level, people who have no working understanding of basic government and basic economics worry me.  People who fly coach should not be voting for who gets to fly the plane.

The best argument I have run across for this viewpoint is Against Democracy by Jason Brennan.  I don't find this book completely persuasive because it requires that you buy in to a series of philosophical parlays, but it gets the overall point across. 

It really is one of the few areas in life where we give equal say to all to do something very important. I mean imagine if we put it to a vote by the general public whether a patient needs surgery. 

 

[Zow]

No worries.  I understand that most people disagree with me on this one.

Just me, you, and Aristotle. 

 

[Zow]

This is how I see it as well. 

I have to admit, and I fully confess much of this is because I've got a soft spot for the underdog and I've seen first hand how income status can be linked to education. But the idea of the self proclaimed smart people deciding where the bar will be where they can exclude people they deem not smart enough to be worthy of casting a vote in America just feels legitimately gross to me. 

I know IK is a good guy and I realize he says he's talked about this before. I guess I just don't read the board closely enough because this sort of take honestly surprised me. 

Is this a thing where the anonymity of a message board gives the freedom to say what you really think?  @IvanKaramazov  is this a position you would you attach your real name to and talk about it in real life with your friends and people in your community? 

Can you unpack in detail: "overall we should opt for a little less direct democracy and a little bit more rule-by-our-intellectual-elites."?

Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, etc all took this position. In theory, it’s a logical one.