The problem with these kinds of censorship actions is that there is literally no end to it, and it will never solve the real root cause of the problem. It will just suck up resources and people/institutions will keep complaining that they got into trouble because someone took a tweet as a truth...
I always chuckled at the idea that deepfakes are going to be the problem which a simple jpg already works today and is more effective than video because people will actually click it.
Its fake, just because I said it, doesn't make the content true.
If you tweet that you are Man of the Year 2020, you are fake, a phony. The tweet, on the other hand, is simply a lie.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but is it not valid in this context to correlate "lie" with "fake" ?
Your example, a correctly attributed but false announcement about yourself, is not itself "fake" in any way - it's just a lie. There's no question over what it is - an assertion made by you.
But the original example:
"You just need to take a picture of X candidate, stick a made up quote beneath them, and put it on Facebook...
...creeps into "fake" territory because the image is an object with an implicit lie about its origins and motivation. The implicit lie - "I was created in order to raise awareness of a disturbing truth about candidate X" - is distinct from the explicit lie (candidate X said <thing>). Hence the superficially superfluous act of putting the text on a picture, instead of just tweeting "candidate X said <thing>".
The distinction is even more stark with the followup addition: "the fake-ness is even more effective, if the said candidate is the originator and controls the narrative." Here the explicit lie remains identical, but the implicit lie deepens considerably ("look at the fibs the crazy opposition is spreading around").
They achieved a reasonable degree of success, so I suppose lulz were gained.
Alright, fine. What if the attribution is just plain mistaken in a misleading way? What if you put an inspirational quote next to someone it applies to, instead of the speaker? If the speaker couldn't possibly have said it, or the quote is famously from someone else, so the goal is comedy? Or the countless pictures misattributing that "...fire inside me..." quote which escaped from Fallout: New Vegas? (Is the deceptiveness different when it's shared as a mistake vs meme vs prank? Can your algorithm tell?)
Twitter's put at least some thought into that, thankfully. They talk about "significantly" altered content and whether it's "shared in a deceptive manner". But good lord is that a fuzzy thing to decide or automate.
Basically what most consider the famous words ever said by X person would fall under these rules.
This is so true! I was on twitter recently and one of the recommended tweets was a factual statement without any source. I was shocked that only maybe 1 or 2 out of hundreds of replies said anything about not being able to confirm the statement. The vast majority of replies were about what the statement did or didn't prove.
If you know anybody who's deeply into facts, evidence, and rational discourse, please point them toward my latest project, https://en.howtruthful.com/ and have them watch the introduction video linked at the bottom of the page. After looking at twitter I'm thinking it will be hard for me to find people like that.