10-18-2018, 11:51 PM
An interesting further point of Chesney and Citron relates to the LIAR'S DIVIDEND, a phenomenon probably already ongoing in the wake of the Russian Fake News attacks on the US election, and Trump's (and others) wholesale application of the term to legitimate news.
The liar's dividend emerges as uncertainty about the media veracity enable politicians to denounce factually accurate accounts as "Fake News."
Deep fakes will prove useful in escaping the truth in a second and equally pernicious way. Ironically, this second approach will become more plausible as the public becomes more educated about the threats posed by deep fakes. Imagine a situation in which an accusation is supported by genuine video or audio evidence. As the public becomes more aware of the idea that video and audio can be convincingly faked, some will try to escape accountability for their actions by denouncing authentic video and audio as deep fakes.
Put simply: a skeptical public will be primed to doubt the authenticity of real audio and video evidence. This skepticism can be invoked just as well against authentic as against adulterated content.
Hence the liar’s dividend: this dividend flows, perversely, in proportion to success in educating the public about the dangers of deep fakes. The liar’s dividend would run with the grain of larger trends involving truth skepticism. Most notably, recent years have seen mounting distrust of traditional sources of news. That distrust has been stoked relentlessly by President Trump and like-minded sources in television and radio; the mantra “fake news” has thereby become an instantly recognized shorthand for a host of propositions about the supposed corruption and bias of a wide array of journalists, and a useful substitute for argument when confronted with damaging factual assertions.Whether one labels this collection of attitudes postmodernist or nihilist,133 the fact remains that it has made substantial inroads on public opinion in recent years.
Against that backdrop, it is not difficult to see how “fake news” will extend to “deep-fake news” in the future. As deep fakes become widespread, the public may have difficulty believing what their eyes or ears are telling them
—even when the information is real. In turn, the spread of deep fakes threatens to erode the trust necessary for democracy to function effectively.134
The combination of truth decay and trust decay creates greater space for authoritarianism. Authoritarian regimes and leaders with authoritarian tendencies benefit when objective truths lose their power.135 If the public loses faith in what they hear and see and truth becomes a matter of opinion, then power flows to those whose opinions are most prominent—empowering authorities along the way.136
Cognitive bias will reinforce these unhealthy dynamics.
The liar's dividend emerges as uncertainty about the media veracity enable politicians to denounce factually accurate accounts as "Fake News."
Deep fakes will prove useful in escaping the truth in a second and equally pernicious way. Ironically, this second approach will become more plausible as the public becomes more educated about the threats posed by deep fakes. Imagine a situation in which an accusation is supported by genuine video or audio evidence. As the public becomes more aware of the idea that video and audio can be convincingly faked, some will try to escape accountability for their actions by denouncing authentic video and audio as deep fakes.
Put simply: a skeptical public will be primed to doubt the authenticity of real audio and video evidence. This skepticism can be invoked just as well against authentic as against adulterated content.
Hence the liar’s dividend: this dividend flows, perversely, in proportion to success in educating the public about the dangers of deep fakes. The liar’s dividend would run with the grain of larger trends involving truth skepticism. Most notably, recent years have seen mounting distrust of traditional sources of news. That distrust has been stoked relentlessly by President Trump and like-minded sources in television and radio; the mantra “fake news” has thereby become an instantly recognized shorthand for a host of propositions about the supposed corruption and bias of a wide array of journalists, and a useful substitute for argument when confronted with damaging factual assertions.Whether one labels this collection of attitudes postmodernist or nihilist,133 the fact remains that it has made substantial inroads on public opinion in recent years.
Against that backdrop, it is not difficult to see how “fake news” will extend to “deep-fake news” in the future. As deep fakes become widespread, the public may have difficulty believing what their eyes or ears are telling them
—even when the information is real. In turn, the spread of deep fakes threatens to erode the trust necessary for democracy to function effectively.134
The combination of truth decay and trust decay creates greater space for authoritarianism. Authoritarian regimes and leaders with authoritarian tendencies benefit when objective truths lose their power.135 If the public loses faith in what they hear and see and truth becomes a matter of opinion, then power flows to those whose opinions are most prominent—empowering authorities along the way.136
Cognitive bias will reinforce these unhealthy dynamics.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
