Wow. The Future Of Deepfakes Is Here, Alabama Outrage, Google Censorship & Manipulation Allegations
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
calamitous squid
Regarding the Alabama case you shared, clearly the mother did not intend to shoot and kill her baby. Sometimes, the loss of a family member results in enough punishment in cases where someone acted negligently. Although I can see that Alabama is essentially saying she acted negligently, similar in logic to driving drunk with the baby in the car, I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision. The biggest issue continues to be that a baby is not alive until s/he is born. Extending this logic into the absurd, one could charge a mother if she was a passenger in a car and the car was in an accident resulting in the death of the baby, because she chose to ride in the car. The problem is, as was stated, this case indicates that a mother is prioritized as a vessel for a fetus instead of a living, independent person, and therefore a mother must make all decisions for the sake of the fetus. In truth, lets be honest, Alabama just wants someone to be held guilty for this shooting, so when the first trial did not work out for them, they stretched to then say that the victim was the fetus. I hope that this case is just shortsighted and not purposefully denigrating.
reply
Regarding the Alabama case you shared, clearly the mother did not intend to shoot and kill her baby. Sometimes, the loss of a family member results in enough punishment in cases where someone acted negligently. Although I can see that Alabama is essentially saying she acted negligently, similar in logic to driving drunk with the baby in the car, I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision. The biggest issue continues to be that a baby is not alive until s/he is born. Extending this logic into the absurd, one could charge a mother if she was a passenger in a car and the car was in an accident resulting in the death of the baby, because she chose to ride in the car. The problem is, as was stated, this case indicates that a mother is prioritized as a vessel for a fetus instead of a living, independent person, and therefore a mother must make all decisions for the sake of the fetus. In truth, lets be honest, Alabama just wants someone to be held guilty for this shooting, so when the first trial did not work out for them, they stretched to then say that the victim was the fetus. I hope that this case is just shortsighted and not purposefully denigrating.
reply
Chelsea B
all of y'all crying in the comments about Phil misreporting the Project Veritas story: WHY? He didn't try to debunk anything, yes his test wasn't completely objective because whoever did it was still signed in. While that part is flawed, and I'll give y'all that, there is nothing else about his reporting on the story that was heavily biased. For the most part I just saw him giving information FROM BOTH SIDES. He has been completely honest about his stance and openly discloses when he is giving his own personal opinion (did you even watch the video because at one point he literally says although this is my own personal opinion here, just to create some separation here's the timestamp - 20: 18 )The video in question IS edited, it IS cut together if it was done with the intention of making someone sound a certain way or to add fuel to their own fire we don't actually know - Phil is right though, we can't be completely sure until we see the FULL video. And why would you not want to see the full video? If everything about Project Veritas is right then the full video should only add some backbone to your case.
reply
all of y'all crying in the comments about Phil misreporting the Project Veritas story: WHY? He didn't try to debunk anything, yes his test wasn't completely objective because whoever did it was still signed in. While that part is flawed, and I'll give y'all that, there is nothing else about his reporting on the story that was heavily biased. For the most part I just saw him giving information FROM BOTH SIDES. He has been completely honest about his stance and openly discloses when he is giving his own personal opinion (did you even watch the video because at one point he literally says although this is my own personal opinion here, just to create some separation here's the timestamp - 20: 18 )The video in question IS edited, it IS cut together if it was done with the intention of making someone sound a certain way or to add fuel to their own fire we don't actually know - Phil is right though, we can't be completely sure until we see the FULL video. And why would you not want to see the full video? If everything about Project Veritas is right then the full video should only add some backbone to your case.
reply
macsnafu
I really don't see how they can 'regulate' deepfakes without a way to reliably distinguish the fake from the real. And if you can distinguish, then any regulations would seems redundant, or worse, like censorship. On the other hand, if deepfakes cannot be distinguished from the real, then ultimately the value of photos and videos will be greatly diminished, as people will assume that it's all fake unless additional supporting documentation is available to prove that it's real. Ironically, later in this video, you talk about not trusting the edited video released by Project Veritas, which is a perfect example of what's going to happen. People who want to believe that fakes are true will be burned over and over again until they realize that photos and videos are no longer trustworthy evidence any more. As for the mother in Alabama, charging her with manslaughter seems really crazy to me. Even if we assume she pursued the fight after her attacker had decided to quit, I can't see any charge more justifiable than endangerment, and even that makes me a bit uncomfortable.
reply
I really don't see how they can 'regulate' deepfakes without a way to reliably distinguish the fake from the real. And if you can distinguish, then any regulations would seems redundant, or worse, like censorship. On the other hand, if deepfakes cannot be distinguished from the real, then ultimately the value of photos and videos will be greatly diminished, as people will assume that it's all fake unless additional supporting documentation is available to prove that it's real. Ironically, later in this video, you talk about not trusting the edited video released by Project Veritas, which is a perfect example of what's going to happen. People who want to believe that fakes are true will be burned over and over again until they realize that photos and videos are no longer trustworthy evidence any more. As for the mother in Alabama, charging her with manslaughter seems really crazy to me. Even if we assume she pursued the fight after her attacker had decided to quit, I can't see any charge more justifiable than endangerment, and even that makes me a bit uncomfortable.
reply
Krynnymuffin
Phill: We kinda just googled these things after we read the article. Hardly an actual test. The Internet: YOU DIDN'T INCOGNITO YOU RESULT-SKEWING LIARSearch history exists, yeah, but what difference is logging out actually going to do when trying to determine if a change has been made to the algorithm if there is no way to also make an equally as controlled test before the algorithm was changed for comparison? Think about it for a second: If Veritas's screenshots were from incognito mode, all that you also googling things in incognito mode is going to do is simply ensure you get the same results they did. Yeah, checking if their claims are valid is a factor, but anyone who can go into incognito mode (Which is everyone) can and has already confirmed this, or they'd be in the comments refuting it. You morons should be searching with your profiles or a controlled test profile to see if the results are skewed towards what's said in the video, not repeatedly checking incognito mode and expecting a different result. Insane morons.
reply
Phill: We kinda just googled these things after we read the article. Hardly an actual test. The Internet: YOU DIDN'T INCOGNITO YOU RESULT-SKEWING LIARSearch history exists, yeah, but what difference is logging out actually going to do when trying to determine if a change has been made to the algorithm if there is no way to also make an equally as controlled test before the algorithm was changed for comparison? Think about it for a second: If Veritas's screenshots were from incognito mode, all that you also googling things in incognito mode is going to do is simply ensure you get the same results they did. Yeah, checking if their claims are valid is a factor, but anyone who can go into incognito mode (Which is everyone) can and has already confirmed this, or they'd be in the comments refuting it. You morons should be searching with your profiles or a controlled test profile to see if the results are skewed towards what's said in the video, not repeatedly checking incognito mode and expecting a different result. Insane morons.
reply
FIddlertheleper
On VeritasHow exactly are you checking anything when your searching the terms while signed into google (meaning your search results are being filtered due to your past behaviors/searches etc. If you are going to attempt to fact check this, you should have either gone to a location/computer not associated with your google account and done a search while not signed in, or at least used incognito mode)Literally all you did was show that you don't understand the topic(Also on Tim, what the insider said was his suggested videos (from ai suggestions on the sidebar) are being suppressed, something Tim's own analytics suggests is accurate. Though he is still recommended on the Youtube Home page according to his own analytics) Do you not have anyone with tech experience you can bring in if you want to do something like this in the future to make sure you aren't making such basic mistakes? You basically got every part of this particular story wrong.
reply
On VeritasHow exactly are you checking anything when your searching the terms while signed into google (meaning your search results are being filtered due to your past behaviors/searches etc. If you are going to attempt to fact check this, you should have either gone to a location/computer not associated with your google account and done a search while not signed in, or at least used incognito mode)Literally all you did was show that you don't understand the topic(Also on Tim, what the insider said was his suggested videos (from ai suggestions on the sidebar) are being suppressed, something Tim's own analytics suggests is accurate. Though he is still recommended on the Youtube Home page according to his own analytics) Do you not have anyone with tech experience you can bring in if you want to do something like this in the future to make sure you aren't making such basic mistakes? You basically got every part of this particular story wrong.
reply
KeepHerFeetCreamy
Is it bad that, what I'm more concerned about at the moment is, /because/ of Deep Fakes becoming an infinitely more accessible thing, legit nude photos (i. e. evidence) of your girlfriend wildin' out and thottin' it up in Cancuun or Mardi Gras will simply be dismissed by her like Oh no, that's not ME having my chocolate-drizzled ass eaten by. err, Enrique, or Ricardo whatever his name was while I grin from ear to ear in ecstasy. Someone toOoOoOotally Deep-Faked that, babe. It's so obvious By the way, honey, don't forget that the wedding photographer will need our (i. e. your) payment up front and at least 2 weeks in advance. In the meantime, Dana and I will be dropping by his penthouse studio to, uhh. pick out some frames Frames for the lovely photographs that'll be taken on our big, important day. Anyway, it might take a good while so don't wait up Don't bother calling either his suite has poor, terrible, downright AWFUL reception. Ciao
reply
Is it bad that, what I'm more concerned about at the moment is, /because/ of Deep Fakes becoming an infinitely more accessible thing, legit nude photos (i. e. evidence) of your girlfriend wildin' out and thottin' it up in Cancuun or Mardi Gras will simply be dismissed by her like Oh no, that's not ME having my chocolate-drizzled ass eaten by. err, Enrique, or Ricardo whatever his name was while I grin from ear to ear in ecstasy. Someone toOoOoOotally Deep-Faked that, babe. It's so obvious By the way, honey, don't forget that the wedding photographer will need our (i. e. your) payment up front and at least 2 weeks in advance. In the meantime, Dana and I will be dropping by his penthouse studio to, uhh. pick out some frames Frames for the lovely photographs that'll be taken on our big, important day. Anyway, it might take a good while so don't wait up Don't bother calling either his suite has poor, terrible, downright AWFUL reception. Ciao
reply
JustPassingThrough
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am VERY alarmed by deepfake potential, and that of related manipulative software. We are in the dawn of an age of web deception unlike anything we've seen before, and with implications and viewers of a VERY significant level. I utterly despise the thought of augmenting my online presence to appease anyone, but at this point, I'm not sure I can blame anyone for being cautious anymore. Until better regulations are put in place, social media is currently the wild west, and that fact will be more and more apparent to anyone with any sort of significant online presence. or the right enemies.
reply
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am VERY alarmed by deepfake potential, and that of related manipulative software. We are in the dawn of an age of web deception unlike anything we've seen before, and with implications and viewers of a VERY significant level. I utterly despise the thought of augmenting my online presence to appease anyone, but at this point, I'm not sure I can blame anyone for being cautious anymore. Until better regulations are put in place, social media is currently the wild west, and that fact will be more and more apparent to anyone with any sort of significant online presence. or the right enemies.
reply
Maceofblades
Phil, if you want more proof just look back on your own show how you were talking about Vox and Steven Crowder. YouTube (who is owned by Google) demonotized and even blocked Crowders videos even though they didn't come forward with any guide lines that Crowder broke. So I can see Google pulling this, another time that you were reporting on how conservatives that work at big tech companies were afraid to share their their opinion for fear of being singled out and fired for being a conservative, since most of Facebook, and Google at very liberal people. So the proof is just putting together your own videos Phil.
reply
Phil, if you want more proof just look back on your own show how you were talking about Vox and Steven Crowder. YouTube (who is owned by Google) demonotized and even blocked Crowders videos even though they didn't come forward with any guide lines that Crowder broke. So I can see Google pulling this, another time that you were reporting on how conservatives that work at big tech companies were afraid to share their their opinion for fear of being singled out and fired for being a conservative, since most of Facebook, and Google at very liberal people. So the proof is just putting together your own videos Phil.
reply
The Phoenix Emperor
They literally say they have algorithms to make sure another Trump 2016 can never happen, they LITERALLY said word for word without interruption that smaller search engine companies won't have the resources that Google has to prevent another Trump situation. and there's more, much more, NOT A SINGLE thing Veritas uncovered and released in the first video had edited out or selectively used and mixed and match sentences, it was FULL SENTENCES, UNINTERRUPTED, with COMPLETE CONTEXT. there's no other way to see that. Don't be afraid to go over this again and tell it how it actually is.
reply
They literally say they have algorithms to make sure another Trump 2016 can never happen, they LITERALLY said word for word without interruption that smaller search engine companies won't have the resources that Google has to prevent another Trump situation. and there's more, much more, NOT A SINGLE thing Veritas uncovered and released in the first video had edited out or selectively used and mixed and match sentences, it was FULL SENTENCES, UNINTERRUPTED, with COMPLETE CONTEXT. there's no other way to see that. Don't be afraid to go over this again and tell it how it actually is.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
14:23
19:58
13:47
14:24
17:20