Weekend Herald

Voter manipulato­rs ramp up election fakery

Simple video tweaks of presidenti­al hopeful Joe Biden’s words make him appear to spew racism

- Chris Keall Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, meets Jacinda Ardern last September.

Facebook’s New Year resolution is to take more aggressive action against realisticl­ooking-but-fake videos or “deepfakes” — such as last year’s effort that made Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi seem like she was slurring her words, which spread like wildfire for 24 hours over the social network before limited action was taken against it.

But while deepfakes have hogged the headlines, it’s much more simple tweaks that have caused the most damage.

On January 1, a 20-second clip of Joe Biden appearing to make a racist comment went viral.

The Democratic presidenti­al hopeful told an Iowa audience, “Folks, this is about changing the culture, our culture, our culture, it’s not imported from some African nation or some Asian nation. It is our English jurisprude­ntial culture, our European culture that says it is all right”.

A few words were snipped out of the middle to create an out-of-context video where Biden simply says:

“Our culture is not imported from some African nation or some Asian nation.”

Twitter, did take action, but not until after 24 hours — by which time the clip had been retweeted by various verified accounts, and by supporters of rival Bernie Sanders.

The Washington Post saw the Biden episode as a harbinger of things to come. “If you thought the 2016 election was awash in disinforma­tion and lies, get ready: The 2020 election is going to make that affair look like a knitting session.”

And it’s hundreds of small things that confuse debate, from National’s creative proportion­s with graphs to fake photos and fake claims about environmen­tal action harming firefighti­ng efforts across the Tasman. So what to do?

Late last year, an NZ Law Commission-funded study found that deepfakes and other deceptive online content was a problem, and was likely to become more of a problem.

But authors Tom Barracloug­h and Curtis Barnes also argued that any new legislatio­n to clamp down on deepfakes could be abused by politician­s — for example, to suppress satire (which is exempt from Facebook’s new crackdown, incidental­ly). They also feared that any legislatio­n targeting deepfakes would hinder the ability of oppressed groups to find a multimedia voice on social media.

Barracloug­h said we already have multiple laws and guidelines that cater to the risk — primarily the Crimes Act, which covers when deception is used for gain, the Harmful Digital Communicat­ions Act, which covers when it’s used for malice and the Privacy Act because “the wrong personal informatio­n is still personal informatio­n”.

Getting tough

My take is that government agencies need to stand up and hold the likes of Facebook, Google and Twitter to the same legal standards as traditiona­l publishers.

I know some tech-industry types like to say this is an old-world view and that social-media services are neutral platforms. But Twitter and

Facebook don’t provide you with a neutral feed. They have human staff and algorithms that decide which posts and news stories you see, and when, which makes them publishers.

I think politician­s should lean on enforcemen­t authoritie­s to go on the front-foot. But I also accept that it’s very unlikely to happen — because MPs from both parties are addicted to their own use of social media, and government department­s spend more on Facebook advertisin­g than regulating the social network.

Getting real

Barracloug­h went easier on Facebook and Co when I talked to him about his report.

He said the ever-evolving nature makes it difficult for the likes of Facebook to trace and police deepfakes.

“We have in-built biological trust in the data derived by our eyes and ears,” he says.

But he also said the public needed to be credited with more nous.

“People understand the limits to which what they see and hear through video and audio recording is only a partial representa­tion of reality,” he said.

The biggest danger the researcher said, “is probably over-scepticism”.

If something akin to the Jami-Lee Ross audio recordings of Simon Bridges was released in future, people might not believe it was true, he said.

Meanwhile, keep an eye out for more instalment­s in the Herald’s factchecke­r series as our election approaches.

If you thought the 2016 election was awash in disinforma­tion and lies, get ready: The 2020 election is going to make that affair look like a knitting session.

 ?? Photo / File ??
Photo / File
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand