YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
But I do think there's a space for communicating with impactful re-enactment and tasteful "redaction" (censor blurs, keeping things off scene, or jumping forward allowing implication to tell the story).
As with all laws, and rules, the enforcement story will tell what the policy actually means.
I'm pretty sure that's what the person you are replying to was commenting on.
If you're just continuing the discussion and talking about whether or not the policy is a good move on YouTube's part, fair enough. But it kind of reads like you're shifting the goal post.
My opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it "matters" or not. YouTube has every right to make their content policies according to whatever drives them, be it business forces or their own values. As an adult consumer of YouTube I would personally prefer if there were a "as long as it is legal" policy, but I get why YouTube may have reasons to adopt different policies and it's not up to me. I recognize their right to do what they think is best with their business and product.
A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family.
In that specific case the digital recreation - if you can even call it that - was quite off and far from depicting what the real victim looked like. It would certainly have been possible to do an reenactment which more closely matched what the actual victim looked like. Therefore I think any argument along the lines that an exact digital recreation might evoke feelings that a reenactment could not does - at least in this specific case - not apply.
Otherwise I have really no opinion on the entire matter. Putting children into an oven is certainly in the range of things that you could find in horror movies. Context of course matters and also the presentation and intention and target audience, but I just do not know anything besides skimming three articles about this phenomenon to properly judge this.
or for that matter popular children's fairy tales
These things happen not only in horror movies. They happen today, in real life.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/28/parent...
This is a hard thing to figure out. I'm against true crime repros that are disgusting and pandering, but that's completely personal and ambiguous.
You can make such videos all day long, but you would have to deliver them yourself, which is consistent with how free speech works in America.
They're "banned" on youtube, which many people would argue is a monopoly. Certainly banning specific types of content on the largest and most popular video platform will have a massive impact on how many people will ever see that kind of content
I don't think it's unreasonable to raise concerns about censorship on platforms that have a disproportionate impact on what most people will or won't see.
But it is unreasonable and against the core free market principles of our capitalist society for you to be too concerned about what I publish with my web site. I have a first amendment right and you can’t force me, my company, or my property to carry speech.
Which isn’t to say you can’t be concerned about lack of visibility for content that’s banned by big platforms. You can. You probably should! But compelled private speech is not the answer, which is why you will, for example, frequently get pushback against the idea that this is even censorship. (I’m pedantic, but not enough so to adopt that view).
I mean it is a bit strange that copyright is protected decades after someone died, but privacy is pretty much gone the moment someone breathes their last.
I disagree. If I were in charge, I would encourage factually correct reenactments and ban fake news.
An example is the long time Hollyweird trend of replacing ugly historical figures with beautiful keading people. Bonnie Parker (likely a relative of mine) was not a hottie. Pretending she was distorts the story. Ugly girls who are prodigies live different lives than pretty girls. The current fashion of replacing people of one race with people of another race distorts history. If you want a black leading lady, there are many stories to chose from.
It's also cool to see the rightsholder (Cineflix?) of Mayday/Air Crash Investigation put everything up on YouTube for free as well. (https://www.youtube.com/@MaydayAirDisaster)
Be Right Back
Black Mirror: Season 2, Episode 1
This is also how https://replika.ai started [2].
1. https://news.yahoo.com/ai-takes-on-grief-and-loss-with-new-c...
2. https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-nature-of-things/after-...
It's also is an eerily accurate prediction of things now (about 10 years after release) very much possible.
I was thinking that it is most stupid law, but now I don't. Oh boy how right these lawmakers were in light of this new development.
I think every camera manufacturer should implement auto blur on photos (legislate it). Then an opt-in system unblurs the faces of the people that approve.
(Or just replace the faces with AI random faces instead of blur)
Point being, society has fallen into an opt-out system naturally - But I don't think there is good reason for it to be a necessary thing for the common good. I want privacy, and the tech is there to do it.
Manufacturers are meddling with raw images for proof of non-tampering, and if the horse has bolted there then I want my proposal above folded in at the same level.
Like I get that it’s a gross practice that can be used exploitatively, but… using AI to create media that depicts a murdered child telling the story of their own death is a compelling work of art.
Yes, i.e. I am thinking of a story that would make a nice children's book, with some keywords (forest, cave, fire, marshmallows, squirrel, etc.) It would be GREAT if I can get some AI machine (currently using Midjourney) to describe a scene, to find an image that would 'improve' the story.
I understand that others above mention "the law", but until the makers of laws react (globally) to prevent from this sh*t happening, we have to use basic human decency.
Also, we don't need to make movies for people who don't want movies to be made. And yes that is a thin line (i.e. we MUST make movies about the holocaust so we never forget - and not listen to people who want this avoided). But the tragedy of a family is a whole different game (and it requires a human with a soul to tell them apart - apparently).
"My Only Story" - an adult man notices with horror that the man who secretly raped him as a school boy in South Africa is still working as a teacher. He quits his job and starts a podcast about how grooming works and how the school system is letting pupils down. All the while he is trying to expose this man for who he is without being sued - so he has to dance around the man's name. It is riveting. The story unfolds live as he finds more and more fellow students who were victimized willing to go on the record. This leads to naming names.
"The Root Of Evil" which features (in part) a retired Los Angeles homicide detective who believes his surgeon father was behind the famous Black Dahlia murder. He brings receipts. An astonishing amount of historical material is unearthed including cassette tape audio from the 70's.
Story telling is such an integral part of the social experience. Like everything it can be corrupted by greed and bad incentives. Not every True Crime podcast falls into this trap.
True crime has a similar problem to, say, commerical fishing. Some of the early stuff was quite good, because the first shows to do it had their pick of complex and narratively satisfying events to be based on. But once the low-hanging fruit was plucked, subsequent shows had no choice but to begin trawling, in the same way that fishermen do when populations run thin. The demand for true crime has considerably outpaced the supply, and hence why newer shows essentially can't not be bad and dangerous: they have to either invent predators out of thin air or otherwise make mountains out of molehills.
There needs to be like a 30-year moratorium on true crime, to let the "fish stocks" replenish.
Soon it will go meta: a serial killer hosts a true crime show to create interesting episodes, and then other true crime shows have an episode on that!
Imagine surviving a serial killer, and knowing there are good odds you're going to die at the hands of another copycat killer before you die of old age.
Nothing got you today. But something might have! And something definitely will sooner or later. It's always lurking, it doesn't rest, it's relentless in its mission, and it can strike at any time. If it hasn't taken someone you love, just wait, it will—in fact, it'll take everyone you love, eventually, if you stick around long enough.
You see similar use of the unstoppable-killer with marked victims (achieved via copycats and other trickery in Scream, but it's the same idea) for the purpose of representing other fears, traumas, or threats that have a degree of universality and don't tend to entirely go away, as in It Follows. You see this whole thing made perhaps a bit too on-the-nose in works like Final Destination—which is why, I think, you can have endless unstoppable-knife-guy movies and they may retain some appeal, but a little bit of a "cute" very-literal twist on the formula like Final Destination goes a long way; the world only needs so much of that, much as a joke that subverts a particular standard joke-form only works once or twice before it stops being amusing.
The fun thing about the Scream series, when the movies remember it, is that the killer's emulating this fictional trope of an unstoppable and possibly-supernatural-but-not-omnipotent killer on purpose, in "real life", which is good fodder for creative narrative, twists, and well-earned winks at the camera. The movies are meta not because they've arbitrarily chosen to be (though they do choose to lean into it, of course) but because they aren't about these kinds of fictional unstoppable-personification-of-death killers directly, but about "real people" doing the unstoppable-personification-of-death thing in "real life", in imitation of film (even in the first one, before the idea of copycats hunting the survivors entered the picture, there's a particular thing done in order to imitate not just a human knife-wielding killer, but specifically this kind of wholly fictional, unkillable death-dealer).
Actually, as with Final Destination, this is another thing the world only needs so much of, for similar reasons—I'm not sure the market would support a much greater rate of release for this kind of film than we already see. It's not as immediately-played-out, though, less of a one trick pony.
I actually just watched the earlier movie about this case.
All Good Things
Which led Durst into doing his first ever interview with the creator who then went on to create The Jinx which led to his arrest.