• In the Age of A.I., Is Seeing Still Believing ? | The New Yorker

    In a media environment saturated with fake news, such technology has disturbing implications. Last fall, an anonymous Redditor with the username Deepfakes released a software tool kit that allows anyone to make synthetic videos in which a neural network substitutes one person’s face for another’s, while keeping their expressions consistent. Along with the kit, the user posted pornographic videos, now known as “deepfakes,” that appear to feature various Hollywood actresses. (The software is complex but comprehensible: “Let’s say for example we’re perving on some innocent girl named Jessica,” one tutorial reads. “The folders you create would be: ‘jessica; jessica_faces; porn; porn_faces; model; output.’ ”) Around the same time, “Synthesizing Obama,” a paper published by a research group at the University of Washington, showed that a neural network could create believable videos in which the former President appeared to be saying words that were really spoken by someone else. In a video voiced by Jordan Peele, Obama seems to say that “President Trump is a total and complete dipshit,” and warns that “how we move forward in the age of information” will determine “whether we become some kind of fucked-up dystopia.”

    “People have been doing synthesis for a long time, with different tools,” he said. He rattled off various milestones in the history of image manipulation: the transposition, in a famous photograph from the eighteen-sixties, of Abraham Lincoln’s head onto the body of the slavery advocate John C. Calhoun; the mass alteration of photographs in Stalin’s Russia, designed to purge his enemies from the history books; the convenient realignment of the pyramids on the cover of National Geographic, in 1982; the composite photograph of John Kerry and Jane Fonda standing together at an anti-Vietnam demonstration, which incensed many voters after the Times credulously reprinted it, in 2004, above a story about Kerry’s antiwar activities.

    “In the past, anybody could buy Photoshop. But to really use it well you had to be highly skilled,” Farid said. “Now the technology is democratizing.” It used to be safe to assume that ordinary people were incapable of complex image manipulations. Farid recalled a case—a bitter divorce—in which a wife had presented the court with a video of her husband at a café table, his hand reaching out to caress another woman’s. The husband insisted it was fake. “I noticed that there was a reflection of his hand in the surface of the table,” Farid said, “and getting the geometry exactly right would’ve been really hard.” Now convincing synthetic images and videos were becoming easier to make.

    The acceleration of home computing has converged with another trend: the mass uploading of photographs and videos to the Web. Later, when I sat down with Efros in his office, he explained that, even in the early two-thousands, computer graphics had been “data-starved”: although 3-D modellers were capable of creating photorealistic scenes, their cities, interiors, and mountainscapes felt empty and lifeless. True realism, Efros said, requires “data, data, data” about “the gunk, the dirt, the complexity of the world,” which is best gathered by accident, through the recording of ordinary life.

    Today, researchers have access to systems like ImageNet, a site run by computer scientists at Stanford and Princeton which brings together fourteen million photographs of ordinary places and objects, most of them casual snapshots posted to Flickr, eBay, and other Web sites. Initially, these images were sorted into categories (carrousels, subwoofers, paper clips, parking meters, chests of drawers) by tens of thousands of workers hired through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Then, in 2012, researchers at the University of Toronto succeeded in building neural networks capable of categorizing ImageNet’s images automatically; their dramatic success helped set off today’s neural-networking boom. In recent years, YouTube has become an unofficial ImageNet for video. Efros’s lab has overcome the site’s “platform bias”—its preference for cats and pop stars—by developing a neural network that mines, from “life style” videos such as “My Spring Morning Routine” and “My Rustic, Cozy Living Room,” clips of people opening packages, peering into fridges, drying off with towels, brushing their teeth. This vast archive of the uninteresting has made a new level of synthetic realism possible.

    In 2016, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched a program in Media Forensics, or MediFor, focussed on the threat that synthetic media poses to national security. Matt Turek, the program’s manager, ticked off possible manipulations when we spoke: “Objects that are cut and pasted into images. The removal of objects from a scene. Faces that might be swapped. Audio that is inconsistent with the video. Images that appear to be taken at a certain time and place but weren’t.” He went on, “What I think we’ll see, in a couple of years, is the synthesis of events that didn’t happen. Multiple images and videos taken from different perspectives will be constructed in such a way that they look like they come from different cameras. It could be something nation-state driven, trying to sway political or military action. It could come from a small, low-resource group. Potentially, it could come from an individual.”

    As with today’s text-based fake news, the problem is double-edged. Having been deceived by a fake video, one begins to wonder whether many real videos are fake. Eventually, skepticism becomes a strategy in itself. In 2016, when the “Access Hollywood” tape surfaced, Donald Trump acknowledged its accuracy while dismissing his statements as “locker-room talk.” Now Trump suggests to associates that “we don’t think that was my voice.”

    “The larger danger is plausible deniability,” Farid told me. It’s here that the comparison with counterfeiting breaks down. No cashier opens up the register hoping to find counterfeit bills. In politics, however, it’s often in our interest not to believe what we are seeing.

    As alarming as synthetic media may be, it may be more alarming that we arrived at our current crises of misinformation—Russian election hacking; genocidal propaganda in Myanmar; instant-message-driven mob violence in India—without it. Social media was enough to do the job, by turning ordinary people into media manipulators who will say (or share) anything to win an argument. The main effect of synthetic media may be to close off an escape route from the social-media bubble. In 2014, video of the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner helped start the Black Lives Matter movement; footage of the football player Ray Rice assaulting his fiancée catalyzed a reckoning with domestic violence in the National Football League. It seemed as though video evidence, by turning us all into eyewitnesses, might provide a path out of polarization and toward reality. With the advent of synthetic media, all that changes. Body cameras may still capture what really happened, but the aesthetic of the body camera—its claim to authenticity—is also a vector for misinformation. “Eyewitness video” becomes an oxymoron. The path toward reality begins to wash away.

    #Fake_news #Image #Synthèse

  • Prix du carburant : huit « #fake_news » qui circulent sur le mouvement du #17_novembre - Libération

    Non, la récente hausse de la fiscalité sur les carburants n’explique pas à elle seule la hausse du prix à la pompe

    Si on met en rapport cette hausse avec la progression du prix depuis un an, on arrive à ce résultat : le litre de gazole est environ 29 centimes plus cher. Sur ce total, l’augmentation de la TICPE représente 7,6 centimes. Soit un gros quart (26 %). Concernant le sans-plomb, la hausse annuelle a été de 21,3 centimes. Sur ce total, 3,9 centimes sont dus à la hausse de la TICPE. Soit un peu moins de 20 %.

    Sur un an, l’augmentation des taxes n’a été qu’un facteur secondaire de la flambée des prix à la pompe. La principale raison de l’augmentation tient à l’accroissement du prix du carburant hors taxe, elle-même liée à la hausse du prix du pétrole.

    Pour autant, ces chiffres ne tiennent évidemment pas compte des augmentations fiscales à venir. Il est en effet prévu que la TCIPE augmente chaque année jusqu’à 2022. Au premier janvier 2019, elle entraînera une hausse de près de 3 centimes pour un litre de sans-plomb et de 6 centimes environ pour un litre de Gazole.

    8) Non, l’extrême droite n’est pas à l’origine du mouvement du 17 novembre

    • Il faut dire aussi, que l’opinion publique, c’est un investissement. Exemple, à cet instant, quelques titres sur le site du figaro.

      Les propriétaires des merdias se doivent de montrer leur capacité de nuisance à emmanuel macron, et par ailleurs cela permet de ne pas parler des vrais sujets qui fâcheraient : fermeture ses hôpitaux, destruction de la Sécurité Sociale, de la SNCF, bradage du patrimoine public ce bien commun, au profit des plus riches, rôle destructeur de l’union européenne, de la monnaie qui tue : l’euro, des banques, de l’environnement, du harcelement meurtrier au travail. . . .

      Philippe maintient et défend la hausse des taxes sur les carburants

      Siphonnages, agressions : la hausse du prix des carburants aiguise l’appétit des délinquants

      Édouard Philippe maintient et défend la hausse des taxes sur les carburants

      Première mobilisation contre la hausse du prix des carburants

      Les Français opposés à la hausse des taxes sur les carburants

      L’exécutif cherche des réponses à la colère des automobilistes

  • Opinion | Will Deep-Fake Technology Destroy Democracy? - The New York Times

    Both images are the result of digital manipulation, and what, in its most ominous form, is called deep fakes: technology that makes it possible to show people saying things they never said, doing things they never did.

    This technology has great potential both as art and snark: One set of deep fakes has cleverly inserted Nicolas Cage into a half-dozen movies he wasn’t involved with, including “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” You can watch that and decide for yourself whether Mr. Cage or Harrison Ford makes for the best Indiana Jones.

    But, as always, the same technology that contains the opportunity for good also provides an opening for its opposite. As a result, we find ourselves on the cusp of a new world — one in which it will be impossible, literally, to tell what is real from what is invented.

    But deep-fake technology takes deception a step further, exploiting our natural inclination to engage with things that make us angriest. As Jonathan Swift said: “The greatest liar hath his believers: and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it hath done its work, and there is no further occasion for it.”

    Consider the image of Emma Gonzalez, a survivor of the Parkland High School shooting in February who has become a vocal activist. A manipulated photo of her tearing up the Constitution went viral on Twitter among gun-rights supporters and members of the alt-right. The image had been digitally altered from another photo appearing in Teen Vogue. That publication’s editor lamented: “The fact that we even have to clarify this is proof of how democracy continues to be fractured by people who manipulate and fabricate the truth.”

    That fake was exposed — but did it really make a difference to the people who wanted to inhabit their own paranoid universe? How many people still believe, all evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or that he was born in Kenya?

    Now imagine the effect of deep fakes on a close election. Let’s say video is posted of Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat running for Senate in Texas, swearing that he wants to take away every last gun in Texas, or of Senator Susan Collins of Maine saying she’s changed her mind on Brett Kavanaugh. Before the fraud can be properly refuted, the polls open. The chaos that might ensue — well, let’s just say it’s everything Vladimir Putin ever dreamed of.

    There’s more: The “liar’s dividend” will now apply even to people, like Mr. Trump, who actually did say something terrible. In the era of deep fakes, it will be simple enough for a guilty party simply to deny reality. Mr. Trump, in fact, has claimed that the infamous recording of him suggesting grabbing women by their nether parts is not really him. This, after apologizing for it.

    #Infox #Fake_news #Manipulation_images

  • Digitaler Drogenkrieg auf den Philippinen: Wie #Duterte #Facebook als Waffe nutzt

    Mehr als 12.000 Tote in zwei Jahren: Auf den Philippinen führt Präsident Duterte einen brutalen Drogenkrieg. Auch in sozialen Netzwerken hetzen Duterte und seine Anhänger gegen suchtkranke Menschen und Dealer. Für Facebook sind die Philippinen ein Experiment, das außer Kontrolle geraten ist.

    Es ist ein Bild, das jeden Filipino wütend macht: Ein Mädchen liegt in einem Shirt und einer heruntergezogenen Shorts im Gras – eine Neunjährige, die vergewaltigt und getötet wurde. Der Täter: angeblich ein Drogensüchtiger aus den Philippinen. In dem südostasiatischen Inselstaat löst das Foto eine Empörungswelle gegen Drogenabhängige aus. Es wird tausende Male geteilt, auch von Peter Tiu Laviña, dem damaligen Sprecher von Präsident Duterte: „Unser gerechtfertigter Kampf gegen Drogen und Kriminalität ist unerbittlich, weil wir uns dem Teufel selbst entgegenstellen“, schreibt Laviña zu dem Foto. Doch das Bild des ermordeten Mädchens, das auf den Philippinen zur Propaganda gegen Süchtige missbraucht wird, kommt aus Brasilien – und selbst dort war der Mörder kein Drogensüchtiger, sondern ihr Großvater.


    #Philippines #réseaux_sociaux #fake_news #drogues #guerre_des_drogues #criminalisation

  • EXCLUSIVE : Meet the Reporters Whose Pages Were Shut Down By Facebook - Sputnik International

    C’est mon beau-frère américain qui m’a transmis l’info : sous couvert de lutte contre les #fake_news, les réseaux sociaux des #GAFA (Facebook et Twitter, notamment) ont fermé des centaines de pages et de comptes appartenant à des journalistes indépendants ou juste plutôt critiques sur la société américaine. À l’approche des #élections de mi-mandat, il s’agit d’une #censure brutale et inquiétante.

    Signalons que mon beau-frère est un Républicain plutôt progressiste, mais un Républicain quand même, même s’il n’a jamais pu blairer Trump.

    Facebook purged hundreds of pages from its platform on Thursday. But instead of the usual targets - namely Russia and Iran - Thursday’s ban shut down accounts operated by independent American reporters and activists, Sputnik News has learned.

    Facebook said the pages were “working to mislead others about who they are, and what they are doing,” but the co-founder of one of the pages, The Free Thought Project, tells Sputnik News Facebook’s claim couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Most of the pages that were banned and viewed by Sputnik News were independent media outlets and pages that advocated for marijuana legalization or shined a light on police brutality.
    Anti-Trump Facebook event posted by the Resisters page, which has been accused of being set up by the alleged Russian troll farm Internet Research Agency.
    The Kremlin Line? Facebook’s Latest Ban Nets Resistance Pages, Anti-Trump Events

    In total, Facebook removed 559 pages and 251 personal accounts “that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior,” the social media giant said. “Given the activity we’ve seen — and its timing ahead of the US midterm elections — we wanted to give some details about the types of behavior that led to this action,” Facebook said, going on to accuse the accounts of manipulating the platform to make their content appear more popular, hawking fake products or functioning as ad farms that tricked “people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.”

    — Jon Ziegler “Reb Z” (@Rebelutionary_Z) October 12, 2018

    The founder of one of the pages — The Anti-Media — said he had no knowledge of his page engaging in any such behavior. The Free Thought Project co-founder similarly denied Facebook’s accusations. Rachel Blevins, a reporter for RT America whose personal journalism page was nixed, also denied inauthentic behavior.

    Just hours after its ban from Facebook, Twitter suspended Anti-Media from its platform, following a pattern of social media companies successively banning users that has been demonstrated in the past. For example, Facebook, YouTube and Apple all banned the far-right conspiracy theory site InfoWars around the same time. And after the CIA-funded cybersecurity firm FireEye contacted Facebook, Google and Twitter, each company banned a number of accounts allegedly linked to Iran.

    — Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) September 6, 2018

    In the case of InfoWars, Twitter eventually followed suit.

    While many warned that the ban of InfoWars from social media would establish a slippery slope, they were often mocked and ridiculed. Thursday’s onslaught on independent media appears to have confirmed their suspicions, however.

    — Anya Parampil (@anyaparampil) August 6, 2018

    Facebook has been partnering with the Digital Forensics Lab, an arm of the Atlantic Council think tank — a neoconservative group funded by Gulf monarchies and defense giants like Raytheon — to weed out inauthentic users from its platform. Similarly, it has been partnering with the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine to fact check so-called fake news.
    Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif.
    © AP Photo / Ben Margot
    Facebook Bans Russia-Linked Social Media Firm for Alleged ’Scraping’ of Users’ Data

    Journalist Abby Martin, who hosts “The Empire Files” on TeleSur English, told Sputnik News after TeleSur’s page was temporarily removed from Facebook, “The shuttering of progressive media amidst the ‘fake news’ and Russiagate hysteria is what activists been warning all along — tech companies, working in concert with think tanks stacked with CIA officials and defense contractors, shouldn’t have the power to curate our reality to make those already rendered invisible even more obsolete.”

    Sputnik News contacted a number of journalists caught up in the ban. Below is what they had to say, edited extremely lightly for clarity.

    Independent reporter John Vibes, who contributes to The Free Thought Project and other websites:

    This signifies a re-consolidation of the media. Cable news media controlled the narrative for most of modern history, but the internet has lowered that barrier to entry and allowed the average person to become the media themselves. This obviously took market share and influence away from the traditional media, and it has allowed for a more diverse public conversation. Now it seems the platforms that have monopolized the industry are favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices. So now, instead of allowing more people to have a voice, these platforms are creating an atmosphere where only powerful media organizations are welcome, just as we had on cable news.

    People think that we are just providing an activist spin on the news, but they don’t see the families struggling to have their voice heard. For example, when someone is shot by police, mainstream media sources often just republish the press release from the police department, without presenting the victim’s side of the story. We give the victims and their families a voice, which is essential to keep power in check. This also goes for bigger issues like foreign policy as well; multiple full-scale invasions of Syria have been prevented because of information that the alternative media made viral.

    “Information exchange” activist Jason Bassler, who co-founded The Free Thought Project and solely founded Police the Police, both of which were banned:

    We were verified by Facebook with a little check mark next to our name, so they know we are a legitimate organization/outlet. They have seen our “Articles of Organization” which was issued by the state of Louisiana, which is where my partner and The Free Thought Project co-founder lives.

    We have even paid Facebook to boost our posts and for likes in the past, meaning they gladly took our money for a product that they ended up manipulating and backing out on. It wasn’t much, maybe $1,200 over the past 6 years. Do we get that money back now?

    We have already had the lawyers at Rutherford Institute (a nonprofit civil liberties organization) send them a letter late last month about unfair treatment by third-party “fact checkers,” which they ignored and never responded to.

    I was motivated [to start The Free Thought Project] by the injustices I saw on social media during Occupy Wall Street in 2011. I knew I had an obligation to get involved somehow and to share information critical for liberty and peace. I never thought I would have built fan pages of 5 million fans, nor did I ever think we would employ and give jobs to nine other activists (at one point), but I was inspired to do what I could to plant seeds and combat the mainstream media’s bullsh*t narratives, to keep police and government accountable, to make sure people knew their rights and how to interact with police.

    All that’s gone now with a click of a button. Six years of hard work, literally seven days a week, working our as*es off finding stories, researching them, writing them, making thumbnails and titles for them, making graphics and videos for them, sharing them on various social media outlets.

    What’s next? I will fight this until I am utterly exhausted. We will fight back tooth and nail. I don’t care if that means protesting in front of Facebook headquarters (which I’ve already considered doing many times in the past two years), I will make sure people know how corrupt and untrustworthy Facebook is if it’s the last thing I do. You can’t just steal years of hard work from someone and not expect there to be consequences. I will do everything I can to make their lives miserable. That’s a promise.

    Rachel Blevins, a correspondent for RT America:

    Today I was locked out of my Facebook account for four hours, and my public page was “unpublished.” There appears to be no explanation for this other than the vague claim from Facebook that my page was taken down because it was “administered by a fake account, misleading users or violating the Facebook spam policies.” I am the only person who publishes posts on my page; the only posts I publish are articles I have written or videos of my reports, and I only post one or two times a day — which rules out all of the claims that I have violated Facebook’s policies.

    My page had nearly 70,000 followers before it was taken down. I have poured the last four years into building my page as a journalist, and I have noticed recently that the reach seems to have been stifled and that the engagement on my posts was down significantly. I know that I am not the only one who has become a victim of this purge, and there are hundreds of other pages — many of which had millions of followers — that have been taken down with no warning and no explanation.

    Ford Fischer, the founder of the media startup News2Share, had a number of his live streams removed during the purge, although they were later restored:

    This attack was a long time coming. Facebook has been slowly clamping down on independent media. First, they removed more extreme pages and made it harder for the surviving ones to make a living by hurting their algorithms (unless they paid, of course!). Then they started purging those that didn’t quickly respond to their ID requests. Today, hundreds of pages belonging to the family of independent media, especially those that question state authority, were removed without explanation. This is just one step further toward the total state and corporate takeover of what you’re allowed to think.

    Nicholas Bernabe, founder of The Anti-Media:

    Our approach generally is to cover stories and angles that corporate media underreport or misreport and to amplify activist and anti-war voices and stories. All of our content is professionally fact-checked and edited.

    I got into this line of work because I felt there was a need for media that challenged mainstream assumptions and biases in politics. I wanted to shed light on corruption and wrongdoing against oppressed peoples and cover the harsh truth about American foreign policy.

    Over the last 28 days, we reached 7,088,000 people on Facebook.

    The timing of this purge is rather dubious in my view, coming shortly before the midterm elections. This could be an attempt by Facebook itself to affect the outcome of the coming elections. The Twitter suspension caught me by surprise. I can only speculate that these suspensions were a coordinated effort to stifle our message ahead of the coming elections.

    By Alexander Rubinstein.


  • « Fake news » se dira « infox » en français

    Comment traduire l’expression chère à Donald Trump ? La commission d’enrichissement de la langue française a finalement tranché, après plusieurs mois, pour traduire « fake news » par le terme « information fallacieuse » ou par le néologisme « infox », forgé à partir des mots « information » et « intoxication ». Des traductions qui vont s’imposer à toutes les autorités administratives.

    Le terme est défini comme une information « mensongère ou délibérément biaisée », servant par exemple « à défavoriser un parti politique, à entacher la réputation d’une personnalité ou d’une entreprise, ou à contrer une vérité scientifique établie », précise le Journal officiel, jeudi 4 octobre.

    Chargée de franciser certains termes avec des experts et des représentants de l’Académie française, la commission « se réjouit de soutenir la création d’un néologisme susceptible de plaire au grand public », selon des documents préparatoires auxquels le site français consacré aux nouvelles technologies Next INpact a eu accès.

    « Infox » avait été suggéré dans la boîte à idées de FranceTerme le 25 janvier 2017. Il a été préféré aux traductions alternatives comme « craque, fallace, infaux, infausse, intox ».

    #Fake_news #Infox

  • Sur Twitter, des députés LREM réclament l’arrêt d’un compte parodique (et ce n’est pas bon signe)

    « Depuis des semaines, un compte prétendument parodique inonde Twitter faisant croire à des déclarations que des membres d’En Marche auraient prononcées », s’étrangle la porte-parole des députés LREM Aurore Bergé, particulièrement en pointe sur la dénonciation des « fake news » qui circulent sur les réseaux sociaux.

    « Fake news », « officine partisane », « comique du dimanche », « malhonnête »... Les élus macronistes ne sont pas tendres envers ce compte anonyme. Celui-ci se revendique pourtant comme « très parodique » dans sa bio Twitter. Et sa capacité de nuisance demeure faible en comparaison avec celle de son grand frère Le Gorafi : moins de 6000 followers contre 1,17 millions pour le géant de la satire numérique.

    Ce qui agace les députés marcheurs, ce n’est pas tant les railleries que la crainte que ces fausses citations, souvent proches des éléments de langage en vogue chez LREM, ne soient prises pour argent comptant par des adversaires politiques ou des utilisateurs sur les réseaux sociaux où la viralité l’emporte facilement sur la rigueur. « Avec captures d’écran de médias à l’appui... Ces tweets circulent, polluent, et nous prêtent des propos mensongers. Stop », réclame Aurore Bergé.


  • Retour sur la journée d’étude : Lutte contre les fake news – quels défis pour l’information scientifique, les bibliothèques et les journalistes ? | ADBU – Association des directeurs et des personnels de direction des bibliothèques universitaires

    Le 5 juin 2018, l’ADBU organisait en partenariat avec TheConversationFrance, La Croix, le CARISM et France Info une journée d’étude sur le thème de la lutte contre les fake news. Cet événement a attiré près de 170 participants au profil varié : professionnels des bibliothèques, professeurs-documentalistes, sociologues, chercheurs, enseignants universitaires et du secondaire, journalistes.

    Le jour même a été annoncée la publication de l’ouvrage gratuit et en ligne coordonné par Arnaud Mercier pour The Conversation France https://theconversation.com/fake-news-et-post-verite-20-textes-pour-comprendre-et-combattre-la-

    Devant l’avalanche d’information de toutes provenance, face à la diversité et à la multiplicité des ressources et canaux de documentation, les rapports à l’information sont aujourd’hui bouleversés, les repères sont brouillés. Les informations parcellaires, erronées ou volontairement fausses foisonnent. Le défi posé par la prolifération de la désinformation et du brouillage parfois volontaire de l’information touche le monde académique de plein fouet, avec l’arrivée de nouvelles générations d’étudiants qui peinent à se repérer dans la masse d’information indiscriminée et parfois invérifiable qui les entoure.

    Cette journée d’étude visait donc à aborder le sujet de la valeur de l’information en croisant les regards de pédagogues et de bibliothécaires.

    #Fake_news #Bibliothèques

  • Les 20 propositions du rapport contre la haine sur Internet

    Le rapport Avia relatif à la lutte contre la haine sur Internet a été remis aujourd’hui au Premier ministre. Fustigeant des « zones de non-droit » en ligne, il préconise vingt pistes touchant notamment à la responsabilité des intermédiaires en ligne ou aux pouvoirs du CSA.

    Comment lutter contre la haine antisémite, raciste sur Internet ? Dans son plan présenté en juin 2017 avec Theresa May, jugeant insuffisants les engagements et les obligations des opérateurs en ligne, Emmanuel, Macron plaidait déjà pour un tour de vis « afin de supprimer les contenus qui promeuvent, dans tout type de média, la haine et le terrorisme ».

    En mars 2018, le premier ministre confiait à la députée LREM Laetitia Avia, l’écrivain Karim Amellal et Gil Taïeb, vice-président du Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France (Crif) une mission sur la lutte contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme. « Nous ne tolérons pas la haine dans la rue, pourquoi devrions-nous la laisser prospérer sur Internet ? » se demande le site dédié.

    Le document de 70 pages, dont une version de juillet 2018 a été révélée hier soir par nos confrères de Contexte, contient une série de mesures pour « faire d’Internet un espace plus apaisé, moins haineux, où chacun peut s’exprimer à condition de respecter les autres ».

    #Plateformes #Haine #Terrorisme #Fake_news

  • La « salle de crise » de Facebook contre la désinformation AFP - 19 Septembre 2018 - Le Devoir

    Facebook est en train de mettre sur pied une « salle de crise » (war room) installée au siège du groupe, destinée à déjouer « en temps réel » les tentatives de manipulation des élections, ont annoncé des responsables du groupe américain.

    « Nous construisons une war room à Menlo Park [où est situé le siège de Facebook, au sud de San Francisco] pour les élections au Brésil et aux États-Unis », a expliqué mercredi Samidh Chakrabarti, responsable « élections et engagement civique » lors d’une conférence téléphonique consacrée aux mesures prises par Facebook pour sinon empêcher, du moins limiter la manipulation politique de scrutins via des publications circulant sur la plateforme.

    Cloué au pilori depuis deux ans pour ne pas avoir su combattre ces campagnes de désinformation en particulier pendant la présidentielle américaine de 2016, Facebook n’en finit plus de promettre de faire mieux désormais et détaille régulièrement ses différentes initiatives.

    Facebook est « en permanence » à l’affût de ces campagnes de désinformation dans le monde entier et passe son temps à supprimer faux comptes et contenus litigieux, mais ce « centre de commandement » sera en mesure « de prendre des décisions en temps réel » en cas de « pire des scénarios », comme des afflux de messages trompeurs à l’approche des élections ou le jour même du scrutin, a expliqué M. Chakrabarti.

    Il a cité comme exemple des messages erronés indiquant que l’on pouvait voter par SMS, comme cela s’est produit lors de scrutins précédents.

    La salle devrait être opérationnelle pour l’élection présidentielle au Brésil, dont le premier tour est prévu le 7 octobre. Les élections de mi-mandat aux États-Unis doivent se dérouler le 6 novembre.

    Des campagnes de manipulation politiques, prenant le plus souvent la forme de publications sur des sujets polémiques dans le but de diviser encore davantage la société, ont été attribuées par Facebook à une officine russe, elle-même liée au Kremlin, selon les services de renseignements américains.

    Facebook a aussi récemment détecté des tactiques similaires venant d’Iran.

    Le réseau est « mieux préparé » contre les tentatives de manipulation d’élections, avait une nouvelle fois assuré son patron Mark Zuckerberg dans un long texte sur le sujet diffusé la semaine dernière.

    Pour autant, avait-il poursuivi, « nous faisons face à des adversaires sophistiqués et bien financés. Ils ne lâcheront pas et ils vont continuer à évoluer ».

     #désinformation #médias #propagande #manipulation #fake_news #information #facebook #manipulation #réseaux_sociaux #élections #etats-unis #USA #Brésil #gafa

  • 27 villes du C40 auraient atteint le pic d’émissions. Pourquoi à ce stade je me méfie de cette annonce ?

    27 of the world’s greatest cities, representing 54 million urban citizens and $6 trillion in GDP have peaked their greenhouse gas emissions. New analysis reveals that the cities have seen emissions fall over a 5 year period, and are now at least 10% lower than their peak. City Halls around the world have achieved this crucial milestone, whilst population numbers have increased and city economies have grown. These 27 cities have continued to decrease emissions by an average of 2% per year since their peak, while populations grew by 1.4% per year, and their economies by 3% per year on average.
    The cities are: Barcelona, Basel, Berlin, Boston, Chicago, Copenhagen, Heidelberg, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, New Orleans, New York City, Oslo, Paris, Philadelphia, Portland, Rome, San Francisco, Stockholm, Sydney, Toronto, Vancouver, Warsaw, Washington D.C.

    Comme c’est beau ! Comme par hasard, aucune ville des pays actuellement en voie d’industrialisation, tel que la Chine par ex. n’est dans ce groupe. On peut se demander comme sont calculées ces émissions. Mon hypothèse est que ces données ne prennent pas en compte le cycle de vie des matières et des services produits dans les villes en question, seulement les émissions locales. Ce qui est sale est aujourd’hui en Chine, au MO, etc. Merci la mondialisation...
    D’autre part, des questions se posent également sur les contours des villes prises en considération, par ex. est-ce uniquement Paris intra muros ou bien la Métropole, voire l’IdF ? Probablement la première option. A ce stage les informations disponibles ne répondent pas à ces questions de base.
    Pour aller plus loin sur la question des méthodes de calcul, et notamment la différence entre la méthode territoriale et celle basée sur la consommation des ménages prenant en compte le cycle de vie, voir par ex. Pichler, Peter-Paul, Timm Zwickel, Abel Chavez, Tino Kretschmer, Jessica Seddon, and Helga Weisz, ‘Reducing Urban Greenhouse Gas Footprints’, Scientific Reports, 7 (2017), 14659 <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15303-x>

    #changement_climatique #fake_news_possible

  • Rapport conjoint CAPS/IRSEM - Les manipulations de l’information : Un défi pour nos démocraties (04.09.18) - France-Diplomatie - Ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères

    Communiqué de presse

    Les manipulations de l’information ne sont pas nouvelles mais ont pris une dimension sans précédent en raison des capacités inédites de diffusion et de viralité offertes par internet et les réseaux sociaux, ainsi que de la crise de confiance que vivent nos démocraties. Ce phénomène s’est manifesté par plusieurs ingérences électorales ces dernières années ; il menace les démocraties et la souveraineté de leurs institutions. Le CAPS et l’IRSEM ont donc uni leurs forces pour l’étudier.

    Ce rapport est le fruit d’une enquête de terrain (une centaine d’entretiens menés dans une vingtaine de pays) pour mieux saisir la nature du problème et identifier les bonnes pratiques mises en œuvre par les États et les sociétés civiles. Il s’appuie également sur l’abondante littérature scientifique disponible. Il examine les causes, les conséquences et les réponses aux manipulations de l’information d’origine étatique et visant les populations d’autres États, avant de formuler 50 recommandations d’action.

    #fake_news #rt #sputnik #France_diplomatie #manipulations

  • La #France débordée par les demandes d’asile

    Le nombre de dossiers présentés a augmenté de plus de 17 % depuis janvier. L’opposition dénonce le dévoiement d’un système initialement destiné à accueillir les personnes persécutées dans leur pays.

    Dure rentrée sur le front de l’immigration. La pression au guichet de l’asile en France a augmenté de près de plus 17 % sur les sept premiers mois de l’année, comparés à la même période de 2017. Pas moins de 67.306 dossiers ont ainsi été présentés à l’Office français pour la protection des réfugiés et des apatrides (Ofpra) depuis le 1er janvier.

    #statistiques #asile #réfugiés #préjugés #invasion #afflux

    Outre ces magnifiques chiffres (argghhh), j’adore le début du chapeau : « EXCLUSIF » !!!

    • Je trouve cette stratégie bien xénophobe et hypocrite, le figaro voudrait faire croire qu’il y a une hausse extraordinaire des demandes et que pour 70000 dossiers (c’est rien), l’administration Française va se noyer dans ses propres paperasses. Si il n’y a plus personnes pour répondre aux demandes c’est aussi que les politiques et le figaro veulent la mort des fonctionnaires.

      Rien que pour faire un passeport français après 6 semaines d’attente pour le rdv de ce matin il faut encore ajouter 8 semaines de fabrication ce qui mène donc à 3 mois le délai d’obtention du dit passeport. Imagine quand tu as même pas encore de titre de séjour …

    • Ne pas diffuser la propagande xénophobe et mensongère du Figaro sans contrepoint :

      La France prend elle vraiment sa part de l’accueil des migrants ?
      Parmi les riches pays européens, la France est 26ème sur 28 pays pour le taux d’accueil des réfugiés.


      En plus les pays riches comme l’Europe reçoivent très peu de migrants qui sont essentiellement accueillis dans les pays pauvres. Voir message suivant.

      #migration #migrants #Union-européenne

    • Vous pouvez aussi regarder la « loterie de l’asile », carte de @reka publiée dans Vivre Ensemble :


      Ce % très bas de reconnaissance de la France s’explique aussi en partie par l’origine des demandeurs d’asile, qui ne proviennent en majorité pas de pays pour lequel l’asile est reconnu, hélas (notamment pays ouest-africains).

    • « La France est le pays qui accueille le plus de réfugiés » dixit Wauquiez. Vrai ou faux ?


      Jeudi 27 septembre, c’était la rentrée de L’Emission Politique, sur France 2. Le Premier ministre Edouard Philippe était confronté au président du parti Les Républicains, Laurent Wauquiez. Et quand le sujet des migrations et des demandeurs d’asile arrivent sur la table, il commet plusieurs erreurs de chiffres.

      La France est le pays de l’Union européenne qui maîtrise le moins bien sa politique migratoire. Prenons un exemple très simple, ce n’est pas une question de croyance, c’est une question de chiffres : c’est la France aujourd’hui qui est un des pays de l’Europe qui accueille le plus de réfugiés. C’est pas l’Italie, c’est pas l’Autriche, c’est pas l’Espagne, c’est pas le Portugal, c’est pas la Pologne.

      Relancé pour plus de précisions, Wauquiez explique qu’il parle de « ceux qui demandent le droit d’asile ».

      En quelques instants, le président de la région Rhône-Alpes, en plus de balancer une intox, mélange migrants, demandeurs d’asile et réfugiés. CheckNews fait le point (et les comptes).
      Un demandeur d’asile n’est pas un réfugié…

      Nous utiliserons ici (comme nous l’avions fait précédemment) les chiffres d’Eurostat, l’organisme statistique de l’Union européenne. Mais avant d’en venir aux chiffres, regardons les définitions des concepts que Wauquiez mélange.

      Selon Eurostat, « un immigrant est une personne qui vient ou revient de l’étranger pour établir sa résidence dans un pays donné pendant un certain temps, après avoir eu précédemment sa résidence habituelle dans un autre pays. » Pour comparer les politiques migratoires européennes, nous avons observé le nombre de titres de séjour délivrés par les pays à des personnes qui ne sont pas citoyennes européennes.

      Un demandeur d’asile est une personne qui a engagé des procédures pour obtenir une protection internationale. En France, c’est à l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et des apatrides, l’OFPRA, que les demandeurs d’asile déposent leur demande. Il n’est pas « réfugié », au sens administratif.

      Au terme de la procédure administrative, le demandeur peut se voir, ou non, accorder un statut de réfugié, une protection subsidiaire, ou une protection pour des raisons humanitaires. Pour quantifier ces populations, on regarde le nombre de protections accordées.
      Faux dans l’absolu… et en relatif

      Puisque Laurent Wauquiez parle d’abord de contrôle des flux migratoires au sens large, regardons d’abord le nombre global de titre de séjours accordés.

      Dans l’absolu, en 2017, la France est le quatrième pays de l’UE qui accorde le plus de titres de séjours, derrière la Pologne (qui a notamment enregistré un afflux de travailleurs ukrainiens, fuyant le conflit avec la Russie), l’Allemagne et le Royaume-Uni.

      Mais donner des chiffres en valeur absolue n’a guère de sens sans les rapporter à la population totale. Ce serait comme comparer le nombre de chômeurs de pays de taille différente plutôt que de comparer les taux de chômage.

      Si on rapporte donc le nombre de titres de séjours à la population des pays de l’UE au 1er janvier 2017, la France se situe… à la 17e place. Difficile, donc de dire qu’elle est le pays qui « maîtrise le moins » sa politique migratoire, comme le fait Wauquiez.

      Procédons à la même comparaison à propos des demandeurs d’asile. Dans l’absolu, la France est le troisième pays à recevoir le plus de demandes, derrière l’Italie et l’Allemagne. Mais encore une fois, si l’on rapporte le nombre de demandes d’asile à la population, la France est… dixième. Pour 100 habitants au 1er janvier 2017, la France a reçu, sur l’année, 0,15 demande d’asile. La moyenne de l’UE est à 0,23.

      En moyenne, par rapport à sa population, la France accorde deux fois moins de protections ses voisins

      Enfin, la déclaration de Laurent Wauquiez ne se vérifie pas plus à propos des réfugiés. Certes, est la France est le deuxième pays qui a accordé le plus de protection en 2017 : plus de 40 000. L’Allemagne, largement en tête, en a elle accordé plus de 320 000.

      Mais une lecture de ce chiffre rapportée à la population donne un tout autre classement. Relativement à sa population, l’Allemagne reste en tête, légèrement devant l’Autriche. Pour 100 habitants, l’Allemagne a accordé une protection à 0,39 personne, contre 0,06 pour la France. La moyenne européenne est deux fois plus élevée : 0,12.

      La France est le neuvième pays de l’UE à accorder le plus de protections, relativement à sa population. Elle est bien loin de mener le classement, comme le dit le président de la région Rhône-Alpes.
      Wauquiez s’est aussi trompé sur l’immigration économique en France

      Lors de son face-à-face avec le Premier ministre dans l’émission, Laurent Wauquiez – qui était pourtant arrivé avec force fiches sur le sujet migratoire — s’est également trompé sur le nombre d’immigrés pour motif économique reçus par la France en 2017. Le patron des Républicains a évoqué le chiffre de 80 000. C’est trois fois plus que la réalité (un peu plus de 27 000).


  • Ces photos d’archive détournées pour faire de l’intox


    Partager une photo historique hors de son contexte, c’est une méthode fréquente sur les réseaux sociaux pour désinformer. Voici quelques exemples, récents ou plus anciens, qui montrent que les photos en noir et blanc sont elles aussi utilisées pour désinformer.

    #manipulation #intox #fake_news

  • Detecting ’deepfake’ videos in the blink of an eye

    What’s a ‘deepfake,’ anyway?

    Making a deepfake video is a lot like translating between languages. Services like Google Translate use machine learning – computer analysis of tens of thousands of texts in multiple languages – to detect word-use patterns that they use to create the translation.

    Deepfake algorithms work the same way: They use a type of machine learning system called a deep neural network to examine the facial movements of one person. Then they synthesize images of another person’s face making analogous movements. Doing so effectively creates a video of the target person appearing to do or say the things the source person did.
    How deepfake videos are made.

    Before they can work properly, deep neural networks need a lot of source information, such as photos of the persons being the source or target of impersonation. The more images used to train a deepfake algorithm, the more realistic the digital impersonation will be.
    Detecting blinking

    There are still flaws in this new type of algorithm. One of them has to do with how the simulated faces blink – or don’t. Healthy adult humans blink somewhere between every 2 and 10 seconds, and a single blink takes between one-tenth and four-tenths of a second. That’s what would be normal to see in a video of a person talking. But it’s not what happens in many deepfake videos.
    A real person blinks while talking.
    A simulated face doesn’t blink the way a real person does.

    When a deepfake algorithm is trained on face images of a person, it’s dependent on the photos that are available on the internet that can be used as training data. Even for people who are photographed often, few images are available online showing their eyes closed. Not only are photos like that rare – because people’s eyes are open most of the time – but photographers don’t usually publish images where the main subjects’ eyes are shut.

    Without training images of people blinking, deepfake algorithms are less likely to create faces that blink normally. When we calculate the overall rate of blinking, and compares that with the natural range, we found that characters in deepfake videos blink a lot less frequent in comparison with real people. Our research uses machine learning to examine eye opening and closing in videos.

    This gives us an inspiration to detect deepfake videos. Subsequently, we develop a method to detect when the person in the video blinks. To be more specific, it scans each frame of a video in question, detects the faces in it and then locates the eyes automatically. It then utilizes another deep neural network to determine if the detected eye is open or close, using the eye’ appearance, geometric features and movement.

    We know that our work is taking advantage of a flaw in the sort of data available to train deepfake algorithms. To avoid falling prey to a similar flaw, we have trained our system on a large library of images of both open and closed eyes. This method seems to work well, and as a result, we’ve achieved an over 95 percent detection rate.

    This isn’t the final word on detecting deepfakes, of course. The technology is improving rapidly, and the competition between generating and detecting fake videos is analogous to a chess game. In particular, blinking can be added to deepfake videos by including face images with closed eyes or using video sequences for training. People who want to confuse the public will get better at making false videos – and we and others in the technology community will need to continue to find ways to detect them.

    #Fake_news #Fake_videos #Intelligence_artificielle #Deep_learning

    • Nous nous sommes déjà penchés sur le cas particulier d’#Idriss_Aberkane pour montrer à travers lui un certain nombre de dérives médiatiques et éditoriales en lien avec la culture scientifique du public (ou son absence). À ce travail, on a reproché de ne pas s’intéresser au fond, au contenu du travail présenté par ce monsieur. L’auteur du billet ci-dessous nous a contacté pour nous proposer sa longue et laborieuse analyse, exemple vivant du principe d’asymétrie de Brandolini. Vous pourrez constater qu’il faut du temps, de l’énergie et beaucoup de détermination pour douter suffisamment des propos d’Idriss Aberkane, et pour les vérifier ; tout cela pour constater à quel point le contenu est au diapason du pedigree en toc que nous avons œuvré à révéler.

      À la vérité, Idriss Aberkane n’aurait jamais dû pouvoir faire illusion, et il ne faut pas voir dans notre travail un acharnement, mais une étude de cas qui a la prétention d’être utile pour que d’autres cas du même genre soient reconnus comme tel beaucoup plus rapidement, afin que la vraie parole scientifique retrouve dans les médias la place qu’elle mérite.

      #médias #journalisme #presse #fact-checking #fake_news

  • Arabia Saudita, l’odiosa fake news sull’attivista decapitata e le notizie vere – e terribili – dei continui arresti – Articolo21

    Una pericolosa fake news che rischia di fare il gioco di chi vuole portare Esra sul patibolo.
    “Quanto fanno male le notizie infondate, come quella di una esecuzione non ancora avvenuta, corredate di immagini di altre esecuzioni e di foto che ritraggono un’altra persona! E quanto aiutano coloro che hanno annunciato l’intenzione di metterla a morte!” il commento di Riccardo Noury, portavoce di Amnesty Italia.

  • The Fake-News Fallacy | The New Yorker

    Not so very long ago, it was thought that the tension between commercial pressure and the public interest would be one of the many things made obsolete by the Internet. In the mid-aughts, during the height of the Web 2.0 boom, the pundit Henry Jenkins declared that the Internet was creating a “participatory culture” where the top-down hegemony of greedy media corporations would be replaced by a horizontal network of amateur “prosumers” engaged in a wonderfully democratic exchange of information in cyberspace—an epistemic agora that would allow the whole globe to come together on a level playing field. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest attained their paradoxical gatekeeper status by positioning themselves as neutral platforms that unlocked the Internet’s democratic potential by empowering users. It was on a private platform, Twitter, where pro-democracy protesters organized, and on another private platform, Google, where the knowledge of a million public libraries could be accessed for free. These companies would develop into what the tech guru Jeff Jarvis termed “radically public companies,” which operate more like public utilities than like businesses.

    But there has been a growing sense among mostly liberal-minded observers that the platforms’ championing of openness is at odds with the public interest. The image of Arab Spring activists using Twitter to challenge repressive dictators has been replaced, in the public imagination, by that of ISIS propagandists luring vulnerable Western teen-agers to Syria via YouTube videos and Facebook chats. The openness that was said to bring about a democratic revolution instead seems to have torn a hole in the social fabric. Today, online misinformation, hate speech, and propaganda are seen as the front line of a reactionary populist upsurge threatening liberal democracy. Once held back by democratic institutions, the bad stuff is now sluicing through a digital breach with the help of irresponsible tech companies. Stanching the torrent of fake news has become a trial by which the digital giants can prove their commitment to democracy. The effort has reignited a debate over the role of mass communication that goes back to the early days of radio.

    The debate around radio at the time of “The War of the Worlds” was informed by a similar fall from utopian hopes to dystopian fears. Although radio can seem like an unremarkable medium—audio wallpaper pasted over the most boring parts of your day—the historian David Goodman’s book “Radio’s Civic Ambition: American Broadcasting and Democracy in the 1930s” makes it clear that the birth of the technology brought about a communications revolution comparable to that of the Internet. For the first time, radio allowed a mass audience to experience the same thing simultaneously from the comfort of their homes. Early radio pioneers imagined that this unprecedented blurring of public and private space might become a sort of ethereal forum that would uplift the nation, from the urban slum dweller to the remote Montana rancher. John Dewey called radio “the most powerful instrument of social education the world has ever seen.” Populist reformers demanded that radio be treated as a common carrier and give airtime to anyone who paid a fee. Were this to have come about, it would have been very much like the early online-bulletin-board systems where strangers could come together and leave a message for any passing online wanderer. Instead, in the regulatory struggles of the twenties and thirties, the commercial networks won out.

    Corporate networks were supported by advertising, and what many progressives had envisaged as the ideal democratic forum began to seem more like Times Square, cluttered with ads for soap and coffee. Rather than elevating public opinion, advertisers pioneered techniques of manipulating it. Who else might be able to exploit such techniques? Many saw a link between the domestic on-air advertising boom and the rise of Fascist dictators like Hitler abroad.

    Today, when we speak about people’s relationship to the Internet, we tend to adopt the nonjudgmental language of computer science. Fake news was described as a “virus” spreading among users who have been “exposed” to online misinformation. The proposed solutions to the fake-news problem typically resemble antivirus programs: their aim is to identify and quarantine all the dangerous nonfacts throughout the Web before they can infect their prospective hosts. One venture capitalist, writing on the tech blog Venture Beat, imagined deploying artificial intelligence as a “media cop,” protecting users from malicious content. “Imagine a world where every article could be assessed based on its level of sound discourse,” he wrote. The vision here was of the news consumers of the future turning the discourse setting on their browser up to eleven and soaking in pure fact. It’s possible, though, that this approach comes with its own form of myopia. Neil Postman, writing a couple of decades ago, warned of a growing tendency to view people as computers, and a corresponding devaluation of the “singular human capacity to see things whole in all their psychic, emotional and moral dimensions.” A person does not process information the way a computer does, flipping a switch of “true” or “false.” One rarely cited Pew statistic shows that only four per cent of American Internet users trust social media “a lot,” which suggests a greater resilience against online misinformation than overheated editorials might lead us to expect. Most people seem to understand that their social-media streams represent a heady mixture of gossip, political activism, news, and entertainment. You might see this as a problem, but turning to Big Data-driven algorithms to fix it will only further entrench our reliance on code to tell us what is important about the world—which is what led to the problem in the first place. Plus, it doesn’t sound very fun.

    In recent times, Donald Trump supporters are the ones who have most effectively applied Grierson’s insight to the digital age. Young Trump enthusiasts turned Internet trolling into a potent political tool, deploying the “folk stuff” of the Web—memes, slang, the nihilistic humor of a certain subculture of Web-native gamer—to give a subversive, cyberpunk sheen to a movement that might otherwise look like a stale reactionary blend of white nationalism and anti-feminism. As crusaders against fake news push technology companies to “defend the truth,” they face a backlash from a conservative movement, retooled for the digital age, which sees claims for objectivity as a smoke screen for bias.

    For conservatives, the rise of online gatekeepers may be a blessing in disguise. Throwing the charge of “liberal media bias” against powerful institutions has always provided an energizing force for the conservative movement, as the historian Nicole Hemmer shows in her new book, “Messengers of the Right.” Instead of focussing on ideas, Hemmer focusses on the galvanizing struggle over the means of distributing those ideas. The first modern conservatives were members of the America First movement, who found their isolationist views marginalized in the lead-up to the Second World War and vowed to fight back by forming the first conservative media outlets. A “vague claim of exclusion” sharpened into a “powerful and effective ideological arrow in the conservative quiver,” Hemmer argues, through battles that conservative radio broadcasters had with the F.C.C. in the nineteen-fifties and sixties. Their main obstacle was the F.C.C.’s Fairness Doctrine, which sought to protect public discourse by requiring controversial opinions to be balanced by opposing viewpoints. Since attacks on the mid-century liberal consensus were inherently controversial, conservatives found themselves constantly in regulators’ sights. In 1961, a watershed moment occurred with the leak of a memo from labor leaders to the Kennedy Administration which suggested using the Fairness Doctrine to suppress right-wing viewpoints. To many conservatives, the memo proved the existence of the vast conspiracy they had long suspected. A fund-raising letter for a prominent conservative radio show railed against the doctrine, calling it “the most dastardly collateral attack on freedom of speech in the history of the country.” Thus was born the character of the persecuted truthteller standing up to a tyrannical government—a trope on which a billion-dollar conservative-media juggernaut has been built.

    The online tumult of the 2016 election fed into a growing suspicion of Silicon Valley’s dominance over the public sphere. Across the political spectrum, people have become less trusting of the Big Tech companies that govern most online political expression. Calls for civic responsibility on the part of Silicon Valley companies have replaced the hope that technological innovation alone might bring about a democratic revolution. Despite the focus on algorithms, A.I., filter bubbles, and Big Data, these questions are political as much as technical.

    #Démocratie #Science_information #Fake_news #Regulation

  • Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to 1

    Facebook has begun to assign its users a reputation score, predicting their trustworthiness on a scale from zero to 1. The previously unreported ratings system, which Facebook has developed over the past year, shows that the fight against the gaming of tech systems has evolved to include measuring the credibility of users to help identify malicious actors. Facebook developed its reputation assessments as part of its effort against fake news, Tessa Lyons, the product manager who is in (...)

    #Facebook #manipulation #web #surveillance


  • IPO of french SEENTHIS puts Facebook in difficult position

    Il est tellement facile de créer des news ...

    Following the IPO of french underground social network #SEENTHIS Faecebook shares drop to a historical low, european finance researchers say.

    While it’s nowhere near as bad as last week’s 20 plunge, Facebook is taking another beating on Wall Street early Monday.

    Shares were down almost 4 in early trading as investors continue to digest mixed earnings news that included warnings of slower future growth. And that’s continuing to chip away at both the company’s market cap and the personal fortune of founder Mark Zuckerberg.

    Thedcgazette.com - Fake news sites to watch out for - CBS News

    Don’t get fooled by these fake news sites

    #fake_news #wtf

  • The Islamic fundamentalist Jeremy Corbyn should be ashamed of himself – if only he’d behaved more like Margaret Thatcher | The Independent

    Un peu d’humour (anglais) ne fait jamais de mal en politique.

    It gets worse and worse for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour. There’s a rumour that photos have emerged of a courgette grown on his allotment which is a similar shape to a rocket propeller used by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    This comes on top of revelations that he has a beard, much like Palestinian terrorists, and his constituency is Islington, which starts with IS, or Islamic State. As a vegetarian he doesn’t eat pork, his friend John McDonnell’s initials are JM – that stands for Jihadist Muslim – and he travels on underground trains, that are under the ground, just like the basements in which Isis make their little films.

    The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and various others have also published a photo of him folding his thumb while holding up his fingers, in a way they describe as a salute to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. That settles it. If you don’t constantly check the shape of your thumb to make sure it’s not folded in a way similar to the way it’s folded by Muslim groups in Egypt, you might as well strap Semtex to your chest and get a bus to Syria.

    Thankfully there are some brave journalists who discovered the truth: that Corbyn laid a wreath in Tunisia at a memorial for civilians who were bombed, but also buried in that cemetery are the “Munich terrorists”. It turned out that the terrorists are not buried there at all, as they’re buried in Libya, but you can’t expect those journalists to get bogged down in insignificant details like that.

    We’ve all turned up for a funeral to be told we’re in the wrong country. “I’m afraid the service for your Uncle Derek is in Eltham Crematorium,” we’re told, “and you’ve come to Argentina.” It doesn’t make any difference to the overall story.

    Because there are Palestinian leaders who may have been terrorists in that cemetery. And when you attend a memorial service, you are clearly commemorating everyone in the cemetery, and the fact that you’ve probably never heard of most of them is no excuse.
    Corbyn takes on Margaret Thatcher over homelessness in Parliament in 1990

    If it’s possible to bring comfort to all those shocked by this outrage, it may be worth recalling that one of the first scandals about Corbyn after he became leader was that he wasn’t dressed smartly enough when he laid a wreath at the Cenotaph, which was an insult to our war dead. He’s just as scruffy in the pictures from Tunisia, so perhaps what he’s actually doing is insulting the terrorists, by laying a wreath near them while his coat is rumpled.

    I suppose it may just be possible that the wreath he laid at an event organised to mark the bombing of civilians in 1985 was actually put there to mark the bombing of civilians in 1985.

    But it’s much more likely that secretly, Jeremy Corbyn supports Palestinian terrorists who murder athletes. You may think that if you hold such an unusual point of view, it might have slipped out in conversation here and there. But the fact he’s never said or done anything to suggest he backs the brutal murder of civilians only shows how clever he is at hiding his true thoughts.

    This must be why he’s always been a keen supporter of causes beloved by Islamic jihadists, such as gay rights. For example, Jeremy Corbyn was a passionate opponent of Margaret Thatcher’s Section 28 law that banned the mention of homosexuality in schools. He supported every gay rights campaign at a time when it was considered extremist to do so. And the way he managed to be an extremist Islamic fundamentalist and an extremist gay rights fanatic at the same time only shows how dangerous he is.

    One person who appears especially upset by all this is Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it’s always distressing when someone that sensitive gets dragged into an issue.

    Sadly he’s going to be even more aghast when he reads about another event in which wreaths were laid for terrorists. Because a plaque was unveiled to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel, in which 91 people died, mostly civilians and 28 of them British. This was carried out by the Irgun, an Israeli terror gang, and one man, who by coincidence was also called Benjamin Netanyahu, declared the bombing was “a legitimate act with a military target”.
    The most ridiculous claims made about Jeremy Corbyn
    He called Hezbollah and Hamas ‘friends’
    ‘Jeremy Corbyn thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a tragedy’
    He is ‘haunted’ by the legacy of his ‘evil’ great-great-grandfather
    Jeremy Corbyn raised a motion about ‘pigeon bombs’ in Parliament

    When Benjamin Netanyahu hears about this other Benjamin Netanyahu he’ll be furious.

    The Labour MPs who pine for Tony Blair are even more enraged, and you have to sympathise. Because when Blair supported murderers, such as Gaddafi and Asad, he did it while they were still alive, which is much more acceptable.

    So you can see why Conservative politicians and newspapers are so disgusted. If you subjected the Conservative Party to a similar level of scrutiny, you’d find nothing comparable. There might be the odd link to torturers, such as their ex-leader Margaret Thatcher describing General Pinochet, who herded opponents into a football stadium and had them shot, as a close and dear friend. Or supporting apartheid because “Nelson Mandela is a terrorist”. But she was only being polite.

    We can only guess what the next revelation will be. My guess is “Corbyn supported snakes against iguanas in Attenborough’s film. Footage has emerged of the Labour leader speaking alongside a snake, and praising his efforts to catch the iguana and poison and swallow him. One iguana said he was ‘shocked and horrified’ at the story, told in this 340-page special edition, and one anti-Corbyn Labour MP said, ‘I don’t know anything about this whatsoever, which is why I call on Mr Corbyn to do the decent thing and kill himself.’”

    #Jeremy_Corbin #Fake_news #Calomnies #Violence

  • The Islamic fundamentalist Jeremy Corbyn should be ashamed of himself – if only he’d behaved more like Margaret Thatcher

    This comes on top of revelations that he has a beard, much like Palestinian terrorists, and his constituency is Islington, which starts with IS, or Islamic State. As a vegetarian he doesn’t eat pork, his friend John McDonnell’s initials are JM – that stands for Jihadist Muslim – and he travels on underground trains, that are under the ground, just like the basements in which Isis make their little films.

  • Deplatforming Works - Motherboard

    The dust is still settling after Alex Jones’s InfoWars was more-or-less simultaneously banned by YouTube, Spotify, Apple, and Facebook. The move has spawned thousands of takes about whether deplatforming Jones was the right move or a slippery slope toward more censorship. But just as important to consider: Will it work?

    This is called “deplatforming” or “no platform,”—social media companies (sans Twitter, which says he hasn’t broken its rules) have decided to stop being complicit in spreading Jones’s conspiracy theories and hate. And we’ve seen no indication Jones will stop. But will his business remain viable and will his influence wane?

    “The good that comes with deplatforming is, their main goal was to redpill or get people within mainstream communities more in line with their beliefs, so we need to get them off those platforms,” Robyn Caplan, a PhD student at Rutgers University and Data and Society affiliate, told me on the phone. “But now we’ve put them down into their holes where they were before, and they could strengthen their beliefs and become more extreme.”

    The question is whether it’s more harmful to society to have many millions of people exposed to kinda hateful content or to have a much smaller number of ultra-radicalized true believers.

    Donovan believes that, ultimately, it’s important to deplatform people when their rhetoric is resulting in negative, real-world consequences: “The way Jones activates his audiences has implications for people who have already been victimized,” she said. “We have always had groups of white supremacists, misogynists, and violent insurrectionists joining message boards. But social media has made these tools much more powerful. So yes, we must take away the kinds of coordinative power they’re able to gain on platforms.”

    #Deplateformisation #Fake_News

  • i24NEWS - Le ministère israélien des AE fustige la BBC après une Une sur Gaza

    Le porte-parole du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères, Emmanuel Nahshon, a publié jeudi au nom de l’Etat hébreu, une plainte cinglante contre les informations de la BBC concernant un article annonçant en Une la mort d’une femme gazaouïe enceinte et de sa fille dans des raids israéliens, sans mentionner les 150 roquettes tirées mercredi soir par l’organisation terroriste Hamas sur Israël.

    L’article en question, publié sur le fil Twitter du service d’information de la BBC World, titrait “Les frappes aériennes israéliennes tuent une femme enceinte et son bébé”, faisant référence à la mort d’Enas Khammash, 23 ans, et de sa fille Bayan dans une frappe qui a eu lieu jeudi soir à Jafarawi, dans le centre de Gaza.

    « Ce titre est une déformation délibérée de la réalité (ce qui est l’équivalent poli de “ceci est un MENSONGE”, si vous ne l’aviez pas compris) », s’est-il révolté dans un tweet.

    De l’art du #fake_news