This is easy, just also circulate deep fakes with ultra positive things about the good politicians, like they're the only one to ever win 4 noble prizes etc
maybe that wasn't that good of an Idea either then?
I would argue that this kind of interference is in every way problematic, especially when the outset goal is to erode trust in democratic institutions, which it is in this case.
add-sub-mul-div 29 days ago [-]
Why are you putting that in quotes when it was a real thing that resulted in indictments against 34 people and 3 organizations and siezed tens of millions of dollars of assets? Is your argument that we shouldn't have enforced the law?
dumbledoren 24 days ago [-]
> "indictments"
An indictment is a formal charge or accusation. You can formally accuse or charge anyone with anything. It doesn't mean that any of the charges has any merit or are proven. And normally, nothing has come out of it.
> siezed tens of millions of dollars of assets
You can seize 'assets worth millions' from anyone. That doesn't mean anything either. The US constantly keeps doing that to its competitors' companies.
All that the russiagate stampede produced was proof that a Russian media outlet paid for $150,000 worth of bad Facebook ads that pointed to actual American mainstream media news pieces about Hillary Clinton's laptop. Nothing fake, nothing illegal.
But the russiagate excuse did allow the consultants and companies that advised the Clinton campaign to create the election disaster it suffered. They weren't the reason why the campaign flopped. It was Russia. Then the same clique of consultants sank Harris campaign just last year. This time it wasn't possible to blame Russia.
throwaway290 29 days ago [-]
"openly funding opposition" is better than "deepfakes and invasion"
dumbledoren 24 days ago [-]
No 'deepfake' was revealed by the russiagate stampede. What they found was that a Russian media company paid for $150,000 worth of Facebook ads pointing to NYT or WSJ or whichever American mainstream media outlet news about Hillary Clinton's laptop. Other than that there was no proof of anything but a lot of accusations.
d0mine 29 days ago [-]
The first weaponized deepfake I might've seen was with Julian Assange. No idea who created it but it exceeded SOTA at the time (a few years ago).
throwaway290 29 days ago [-]
We have original secret technology that beats state of the art but we can't tell that deepfake is detectable with naked eye? Likely
Anyway, can't find anything about it so it obviously did not make enough news.
An indictment is a formal charge or accusation. You can formally accuse or charge anyone with anything. It doesn't mean that any of the charges has any merit or are proven. And normally, nothing has come out of it.
> siezed tens of millions of dollars of assets
You can seize 'assets worth millions' from anyone. That doesn't mean anything either. The US constantly keeps doing that to its competitors' companies.
All that the russiagate stampede produced was proof that a Russian media outlet paid for $150,000 worth of bad Facebook ads that pointed to actual American mainstream media news pieces about Hillary Clinton's laptop. Nothing fake, nothing illegal.
But the russiagate excuse did allow the consultants and companies that advised the Clinton campaign to create the election disaster it suffered. They weren't the reason why the campaign flopped. It was Russia. Then the same clique of consultants sank Harris campaign just last year. This time it wasn't possible to blame Russia.
Anyway, can't find anything about it so it obviously did not make enough news.