> “Enforcement of the law will continue. The memes will continue.”
The Whitehouse thinks digitally altering photos of people it arrests is a "meme"?
That's just as perverted an understanding of a "meme" as their understanding of "law". Namely: the law protects but does but bind the in-group, and binds but does not protect those in the out-group. Thus the January 6 insurrectionists get pardons, and the killer of Renee Good has the automatic internal investigation cancelled.
During France’s Reign of Terror, executions by guillotine were public. It was considered distinguished for victims to go stoically, and many did, which left the crowds to have their fun.
I recall, however, and this may be apocryphal, that one woman went to the stand screaming and crying and begging for mercy. This humanized her. The crowds, soured to their revelry, went home.
I am curious if her pleas were heard because those people were better than we are today, or because social media amplifies our cruelty beyond even that of our darkest modern histories.
During France's Reign of Terror, the line towards the guillotine is rumored to have been over 4 kilometers long. 30% of Paris died. This done to kill the bourgeoisie, despite that over 90% of those executed didn't hold any titles. It turned into a massacre, and was replicated across France. The son of the king was locked up at age 8, alone, until he died, before his 11th birthday. The youngest person actually guillotined was 13 years old.
... I don't think there was much "humanizing" going on at all.
Social media makes things further away. It allows the callous of the inner city to grow over the heart of the most rural peasant. It democratizes a kind of mental illness that used to only affect famous Hollywood stars.
Having the government manipulate mass-media material is frankly insane.
Everyone involved in something like this should be sacked immediately, but I have very little hope that voters are going to punish egregious misbehavior like this as long as it's "their" side doing it.
If you had told republican voters in 2016 that within the decade, there were going to be widespread searches/arrests by federal agents without warrant or trial, unapologetic image falsification by the White House and even killings of unarmed civilian protesters: They would have gone absolutely ballistic- rightfully so.
>They would have gone absolutely ballistic- rightfully so
Sadly, I disagree here. They would have qualified their reaction by asking who would be in power. If it was a GOP held white house, they'd probably rationalize it and say it's good.
Partisanship rot goes very deep on the republican side. Granted, the democrats suck, but the republicans fall in line every time without question.
The situation we're in today has obvious roots in the aftermath of 9/11 and the PATRIOT act, and the relative lack of voter outcry after the Snowden leaks. Voters seem all too glad to trade in freedom for fear of boogiemen & have a reverence for LEO that is wholly unearned. I honestly think the reaction would be closer to something like, "well, what did they do to deserve it?" (until it happens exactly to them, of course)
“On May 5, 1920, Lenin gave a famous speech to a crowd of Soviet troops in Sverdlov Square, Moscow. In the foreground were Leon Trotsky and Lev Kamenev. The photo was later altered and both were removed by censors.”
No, they wouldn't, because they didn't care when this happened during Trump's first term, Trump said this would happen during his 2nd term, AND THEY STILL VOTED FOR HIM.
I just thought of a crazy analogy. I was on the internet in the mid 90's, using gopher and usenet, etc. It was great then because only the smart people knew how to get on. Then in the mid 00's it all went to sht.
Now we come to graphic design. It used to be only smart people knew how to use photoshop to manipulate images, but now we have given any idiot the power to manipulate images with AI and this is where we are.
Would this count as libel? It’s a publication of a false, damaging statement in a fixed form (writing, print, picture, broadcast) that harms a person's reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
(very) Important to note this doesn't appear to be an attempt at passing off a digitally altered (/AI generated) image as real, but rather the creation of a digitally altered image with the intent of mocking the individual. When I stumbled across the altered photo I immediately knew it was a joke (i.e. had been created using AI), although I didn't notice it was created by the White House (although that wouldn't have made a difference).
Call me a relic of a bygone era of seriousness and decency, but I don't think the White House should be in the business of mocking individuals online, either. But I know we're well past that point.
Feels like everyone completely forgot about this. The White House made a big stink about AI deepfakes in their first couple of months and then proceeds to publish them at blinding speed. No hint of irony or self-awareness.
If you have read anything about Fred Trump and how he ran the family that Donald grew up in, it’s clear that cruelty is the only thing Donald really understands.
In fact, his rise to power in the Republican Party was primarily due to his ability to demean his opponents. He’s an insult comic, and enough people were fed up that they wanted this to happen.
Honestly, this should give hope for people worried about it. Not the fact that it was done, but the fact that the New York Times immediately posts about it. That's about the best you can ask for now that this tech is ubiquitous and not going back in the can.
Yes, it was good this was caught and reported on. But this will become normalized and we seem to be sprinting full speed towards not being able to know what to believe. That the State is engaging in this is concerning to say the least.
The problem is that the NYT won’t post about everything and a large number of people won’t see it when they do or will immediately dismiss it as “fake news” because it’s politically inconvenient.
This is kind of like the difference between not polluting water and hoping that people will use filters.
Any lawyers in the USA getting off their assess to fight stuff like this? (Sorry if you are). There's the Good Law Project in the UK that takes up causes.
epistasis|1 month ago
The Whitehouse thinks digitally altering photos of people it arrests is a "meme"?
That's just as perverted an understanding of a "meme" as their understanding of "law". Namely: the law protects but does but bind the in-group, and binds but does not protect those in the out-group. Thus the January 6 insurrectionists get pardons, and the killer of Renee Good has the automatic internal investigation cancelled.
"Meme" my ass.
JumpCrisscross|1 month ago
It’s made to go viral. They’re signaling intent. This is where algorithmic, ad-fueled social media leads a republic.
spwa4|1 month ago
JumpCrisscross|1 month ago
I recall, however, and this may be apocryphal, that one woman went to the stand screaming and crying and begging for mercy. This humanized her. The crowds, soured to their revelry, went home.
I am curious if her pleas were heard because those people were better than we are today, or because social media amplifies our cruelty beyond even that of our darkest modern histories.
spwa4|1 month ago
... I don't think there was much "humanizing" going on at all.
justonceokay|1 month ago
But this is all irrelevant to the article at hand
Havoc|1 month ago
Don’t think anyone would care if they photoshopped something ugly or inconvenient out of a picture.
This is signally more “look we’re traumatising people” which means they think there is an audience that wants to see that. Dark AF
myrmidon|1 month ago
Everyone involved in something like this should be sacked immediately, but I have very little hope that voters are going to punish egregious misbehavior like this as long as it's "their" side doing it.
If you had told republican voters in 2016 that within the decade, there were going to be widespread searches/arrests by federal agents without warrant or trial, unapologetic image falsification by the White House and even killings of unarmed civilian protesters: They would have gone absolutely ballistic- rightfully so.
NickC25|1 month ago
Sadly, I disagree here. They would have qualified their reaction by asking who would be in power. If it was a GOP held white house, they'd probably rationalize it and say it's good.
Partisanship rot goes very deep on the republican side. Granted, the democrats suck, but the republicans fall in line every time without question.
dfxm12|1 month ago
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
Someone|1 month ago
It’s repeating history. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So... with, for example
“On May 5, 1920, Lenin gave a famous speech to a crowd of Soviet troops in Sverdlov Square, Moscow. In the foreground were Leon Trotsky and Lev Kamenev. The photo was later altered and both were removed by censors.”
jameskilton|1 month ago
This is what America voted for.
Noaidi|1 month ago
Now we come to graphic design. It used to be only smart people knew how to use photoshop to manipulate images, but now we have given any idiot the power to manipulate images with AI and this is where we are.
RugnirViking|1 month ago
deepfriedchokes|1 month ago
oceansky|1 month ago
ChrisArchitect|1 month ago
pseudalopex|1 month ago
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46733341
nomilk|1 month ago
nicpottier|1 month ago
I would love to be able to take photos that our government posts at face value.
I find any defense of this kind of wild. These are the people in power? Even if it is a joke is this how we want the powerful treating us?
shitter|1 month ago
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
phillipseamore|1 month ago
muwtyhg|1 month ago
krapp|1 month ago
mingus88|1 month ago
In fact, his rise to power in the Republican Party was primarily due to his ability to demean his opponents. He’s an insult comic, and enough people were fed up that they wanted this to happen.
josefritzishere|1 month ago
jrm4|1 month ago
nicpottier|1 month ago
acdha|1 month ago
This is kind of like the difference between not polluting water and hoping that people will use filters.
LightBug1|1 month ago
Any lawyers in the USA getting off their assess to fight stuff like this? (Sorry if you are). There's the Good Law Project in the UK that takes up causes.
zingababba|1 month ago
mingus88|1 month ago
bradgranath|1 month ago
[deleted]