COMMENTS

6 responses to “The New York Times: “Recognize Misinformation on the Internet””

1. For those who think they can spot disinformation and deepfakes, you may have a sharper eye than I do, but I recommend learning more about this disturbing technology and testing yourselves at Spotdeepfakes.org. That website also has a list of resources where you can learn more about it. You might be surprised!

   Reply to Elaine Olsen

   1. Thank you for your recommendation. I followed the link and looked at the sponsors.
      This was enough for me to KNOW that I have no interest in this fake institution.
      I am pretty sure that not only sharp eyes are needed (I personally have well trained) but also solid educational background/training. I glanced at the qualifications of one of this organization’s sponsor – Center for the Informed Public. It looks like all people are far left and have only “computational” technical knowledge. It looks like together they didn’t have a second of history in their lives. Sorry, but sorry. I’ll continue to use my knowledge (a Ph.D. and some three and a half masters – all in history or with a significant history component) to judge facts/events. I don’t need Microsoft’s or this Center’s manipulations.

      Reply to anna

      1. On the other hand, I would like to know how the Seattle based Center evaluates this local information which seems to be as charming as everything what comes out this city now:

         “A man who had led violent protests in Seattle, Washington [Andre Taylor -a], and who was convicted of running a prostitution operation — including pimping underage girls — now has an office in the city’s municipal building and a paycheck of $150,000 a year to act as a “street czar” to advise on “reforming” police.”

      2. I agree completely that we need to know history! This is not a substitute for that knowledge and its application. My purpose was in pointing out a disturbing technology that is being used all over the world to manipulate media, including film, videos, photos, sound, etc. to misrepresent actual recordings, especially on the Internet, to mislead people. Some faked material has become shockingly difficult to detect (no matter the topic) prompting several groups, including the one I mentioned, to develop technology to uncover other misused technology. So, you were correct that this is a technology based group out of the University of Washington, although they have no purpose other than detecting whether something has been TECHNOLOGICALLY manipulated (with no historical, political or sociological commentary). When I looked at some manipulated material next to the real thing, I was surprised how difficult it was to pick out which was which. My purpose was to make people more aware of the pervasiveness of the AI fakes and how realistic they are. So, I also agree that we should be discerning and use our knowledge but awareness that such advanced disinformation exists might be a first step in recognizing the problem for many people. Again, the aforementioned group’s only purpose is in identifying TECHNOLOGICALLY MANIPULATED information without any additional comment or input. They are not evaluating or judging through any additional filters.

2. I have no trouble recognizing misinformation online and that’s why I won’t touch Der Neue Stuermer (for unknown reasons call The New York Times). This rag’s misinformation possibly cost the lives of some of my relatives whether during the Holodomor or the Holocaust.
   dr anna

   Reply to anna

   1. correction: for unknown reasons called

      Reply to anna