White House Posts Altered Photo Showing Arrested Minnesota Protester Crying

Posted by nicpottier 1 day ago

Counter115Comment46OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by epistasis 1 day ago

> “Enforcement of the law will continue. The memes will continue.”

The Whitehouse thinks digitally altering photos of people it arrests is a "meme"?

That's just as perverted an understanding of a "meme" as their understanding of "law". Namely: the law protects but does but bind the in-group, and binds but does not protect those in the out-group. Thus the January 6 insurrectionists get pardons, and the killer of Renee Good has the automatic internal investigation cancelled.

"Meme" my ass.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> Whitehouse thinks digitally altering photos of people it arrests is a "meme"?

It’s made to go viral. They’re signaling intent. This is where algorithmic, ad-fueled social media leads a republic.

Comment by dinfinity 1 day ago

> This is where algorithmic, ad-fueled social media leads a republic.

Only if we keep repeating things like this.

People have agency and there are many people who are not led by or actively abusing social media. You don't tell a heroin addict it's not their fault, that the presence and malice of dealers made their fate inevitable.

Comment by davkan 23 hours ago

You’re asking for a hundred million people to personally overcome engineered manipulation rather than addressing the manipulators. What you say is true for the individual but it’s not a solution at scale for our societal issues.

It’s much akin to suggesting that poor people should not blame the system that keeps them poor and instead should focus on their education and getting themselves out of their current situation. Sure it’s accurate for the individual but, it’s not an actual solution to the problem at scale.

Heroin addicts quit aided by the intense and direct efforts and support of the people around them. Whether that’s hospital staff or family. And you often do tell heroin addicts it’s not their fault. You tell them addiction is a disease. That their addiction is not a moral failing.

Comment by epistasis 23 hours ago

There's room for a yes-and approach, it's not either-or.

Some people can make the change, and since social media is social, that small vanguard causes others to switch as well.

One can blame the system for keeping them poor, while also doing as much as possible to change their own position within the current system, those are not in opposition to each other! In fact, discouraging people from getting educated because of the system is its own form of oppression.

Highlighting people's own agency to make changes for themselves also highlights how the engineered manipulation of social media is not inevitable. These are complimentary things to do.

Comment by davkan 21 hours ago

> In fact, discouraging people from getting educated because of the system is its own form of oppression.

Who is doing this? Did I suggest that addressing the systemic issues with the cycle of poverty precludes individuals pursuing education? No, I said it doesn’t on its own resolve the issue of poverty as a whole.

> Only if we keep repeating things like this.

I still think the answer to this problem will not hinge on individuals choosing to interact with social media less and more intelligently. The vast majority of us know social media is manipulating and dividing the population. We all know we should use it less. We already have these discussions and have been for years and it shows to have very little actual effect on the overall situation we find ourselves in.

You are right in that it can be a yes-and type situation but my worry is that bringing personal responsibility to the forefront of the conversation mostly serves to diminish the responsibility we face as a society to reign in these monstrous (in both ways) companies that are actively destroying our social fabric in pursuit of profits in the most charitable view, or in pursuit of bringing us into a hellscape of a new world order, re Thiel et al.

Comment by epistasis 1 day ago

We also need to leave platforms with highly manipulated and unclear algorithms. Especially the former Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok.

This is one of the great things about BlueSky, you can make your own feeds. The bad thing about BlueSky is that the default algorithms are pretty bad (except for the simple "following" feed). But choosing your own sets of feeds, each with their own algorithms, is a great way to keep up with highly focused news and also allow discovery of new information, without as much manipulation as you'll get on the past generation of social media.

Comment by spwa4 1 day ago

Well if they're altered photos ... then it's really more like "lying will continue", isn't it?

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

During France’s Reign of Terror, executions by guillotine were public. It was considered distinguished for victims to go stoically, and many did, which left the crowds to have their fun.

I recall, however, and this may be apocryphal, that one woman went to the stand screaming and crying and begging for mercy. This humanized her. The crowds, soured to their revelry, went home.

I am curious if her pleas were heard because those people were better than we are today, or because social media amplifies our cruelty beyond even that of our darkest modern histories.

Comment by spwa4 1 day ago

During France's Reign of Terror, the line towards the guillotine is rumored to have been over 4 kilometers long. 30% of Paris died. This done to kill the bourgeoisie, despite that over 90% of those executed didn't hold any titles. It turned into a massacre, and was replicated across France. The son of the king was locked up at age 8, alone, until he died, before his 11th birthday. The youngest person actually guillotined was 13 years old.

... I don't think there was much "humanizing" going on at all.

Comment by touwer 1 day ago

Bs. I live in Paris. There is no evidence at all of 4 km or your other claims. The total number of executions in France during the Reign of Terror is estimated at around 16,000 to 40,000, with about 2,600 to 3,000 executions in Paris alone. Paris's population at the time was roughly 600,000, so the percentage of Parisians who died by execution was closer to 0.5%, not 30%.

Comment by kjsingh 22 hours ago

Likely so - when executions expand to 30% of the population, they are no longer fun

Comment by throwaway91827 1 day ago

Revolutionary terror in 1789 wasn't about killing the Bourgeisie- the French Revolution was a Bourgeois revolution- the Revolution was about overthrowing the Aristocracy, the nobles, the people with, as you say, titles- Being Bourgeois generally meant that you're common-born but well-educated and moneyed.

The fact that the Bourgeois of France were growing in real power, but completely unrepresented in the formal political systems in France, was one of the major pressure points that caused the entire system to explode into Revolutionary violence.

I think you're right to point out the irony that revolutionary violence mostly affected the common man, and not the aristocracy, but the "enemies of the revolution" were nobles, clergy, and their sympathizers (perceived or otherwise), not "the bourgeoisie".

Proletarian revolutions against the Bourgeois don't really happen until there IS an urban proletariat in the first place- in pre-industrial 1789, the bourgeois and the sans-culottes were grouped together socially in the "Third Estate".

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

Oh I don’t mean to humanize the Reign. I’m just saying that even in those depths of depravity, tears were recognized for what they were, at least once, perhaps, again, apocryphally. The notion that tears would inflame an audience to more violence is interesting juxtaposed against that.

Comment by justonceokay 1 day ago

Social media makes things further away. It allows the callous of the inner city to grow over the heart of the most rural peasant. It democratizes a kind of mental illness that used to only affect famous Hollywood stars.

But this is all irrelevant to the article at hand

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> this is all irrelevant to the article at hand

I don’t think it is. The White House describes the image as a meme because it’s designed to go viral. It’s made for the algorithms to boost to specific audiences.

Comment by Havoc 1 day ago

It’s the likely intent here that is most alarming.

Don’t think anyone would care if they photoshopped something ugly or inconvenient out of a picture.

This is signally more “look we’re traumatising people” which means they think there is an audience that wants to see that. Dark AF

Comment by myrmidon 1 day ago

Having the government manipulate mass-media material is frankly insane.

Everyone involved in something like this should be sacked immediately, but I have very little hope that voters are going to punish egregious misbehavior like this as long as it's "their" side doing it.

If you had told republican voters in 2016 that within the decade, there were going to be widespread searches/arrests by federal agents without warrant or trial, unapologetic image falsification by the White House and even killings of unarmed civilian protesters: They would have gone absolutely ballistic- rightfully so.

Comment by NickC25 1 day ago

>They would have gone absolutely ballistic- rightfully so

Sadly, I disagree here. They would have qualified their reaction by asking who would be in power. If it was a GOP held white house, they'd probably rationalize it and say it's good.

Partisanship rot goes very deep on the republican side. Granted, the democrats suck, but the republicans fall in line every time without question.

Comment by mysterydip 1 day ago

As someone who has a largely republican family, ironically they say the same thing: “the republicans suck, but the democrats fall in line every time without question.”

Comment by HaZeust 1 day ago

While a generalization has the flaws of being, well, a generalization; I've noticed that this trope is at least more true than not when you qualify what TYPE of Democrats and Republicans you're talking about.

I think one is true of the representatives - Democrat constituents generally fall in line without question; whereas I think the other is true of the people - Republican voters generally fall in line without question.

The rot is deep for the constituents on either side, however. There's a LOT of incentive to preserve party/ideological status quo regardless of where you land.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by Someone 1 day ago

> Having the government manipulate mass-media material is frankly insane.

It’s repeating history. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So... with, for example

“On May 5, 1920, Lenin gave a famous speech to a crowd of Soviet troops in Sverdlov Square, Moscow. In the foreground were Leon Trotsky and Lev Kamenev. The photo was later altered and both were removed by censors.”

Comment by jameskilton 1 day ago

No, they wouldn't, because they didn't care when this happened during Trump's first term, Trump said this would happen during his 2nd term, AND THEY STILL VOTED FOR HIM.

This is what America voted for.

Comment by dfxm12 1 day ago

The situation we're in today has obvious roots in the aftermath of 9/11 and the PATRIOT act, and the relative lack of voter outcry after the Snowden leaks. Voters seem all too glad to trade in freedom for fear of boogiemen & have a reverence for LEO that is wholly unearned. I honestly think the reaction would be closer to something like, "well, what did they do to deserve it?" (until it happens exactly to them, of course)

Comment by RugnirViking 1 day ago

https://archive.ph/HgdAn

Comment by oceansky 1 day ago

Duplicated from here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46725268

Comment by deepfriedchokes 21 hours ago

Would this count as libel? It’s a publication of a false, damaging statement in a fixed form (writing, print, picture, broadcast) that harms a person's reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.

Comment by nomilk 1 day ago

(very) Important to note this doesn't appear to be an attempt at passing off a digitally altered (/AI generated) image as real, but rather the creation of a digitally altered image with the intent of mocking the individual. When I stumbled across the altered photo I immediately knew it was a joke (i.e. had been created using AI), although I didn't notice it was created by the White House (although that wouldn't have made a difference).

Comment by nicpottier 1 day ago

This photo did not scream AI to me but I'm not deep into internet trolling culture.

I would love to be able to take photos that our government posts at face value.

I find any defense of this kind of wild. These are the people in power? Even if it is a joke is this how we want the powerful treating us?

Comment by nomilk 1 day ago

Rule of law is so important, and society (especially the vulnerable) suffers when weak leaders fail to enforce the law. That said, we can have our cake and eat it too - strong law enforcement (a la Singapore style) can occur without mocking wrong doers.

Comment by mingus88 1 day ago

I hope you understand that you have never been able to take photos the gov releases at face value.

But today, we know this administration will openly lie, and double down in the face of any refutable proof. Literally since DAY ONE they tried to push a crowd size narrative that we all saw in real time was a lie.

Comment by shitter 1 day ago

Call me a relic of a bygone era of seriousness and decency, but I don't think the White House should be in the business of mocking individuals online, either. But I know we're well past that point.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by phillipseamore 1 day ago

Isn't this the admin that fought for the TAKE IT DOWN act?

Comment by muwtyhg 22 hours ago

Feels like everyone completely forgot about this. The White House made a big stink about AI deepfakes in their first couple of months and then proceeds to publish them at blinding speed. No hint of irony or self-awareness.

Comment by ChrisArchitect 1 day ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46725268

Comment by pseudalopex 1 day ago

Your comment was duplicative.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46733341

Comment by Noaidi 1 day ago

I just thought of a crazy analogy. I was on the internet in the mid 90's, using gopher and usenet, etc. It was great then because only the smart people knew how to get on. Then in the mid 00's it all went to sht.

Now we come to graphic design. It used to be only smart people knew how to use photoshop to manipulate images, but now we have given any idiot the power to manipulate images with AI and this is where we are.

Comment by josefritzishere 1 day ago

The people in power are mentally ill.

Comment by krapp 1 day ago

The cruelty is and has always been the point.

Comment by mingus88 1 day ago

If you have read anything about Fred Trump and how he ran the family that Donald grew up in, it’s clear that cruelty is the only thing Donald really understands.

In fact, his rise to power in the Republican Party was primarily due to his ability to demean his opponents. He’s an insult comic, and enough people were fed up that they wanted this to happen.

Comment by jrm4 1 day ago

Honestly, this should give hope for people worried about it. Not the fact that it was done, but the fact that the New York Times immediately posts about it. That's about the best you can ask for now that this tech is ubiquitous and not going back in the can.

Comment by nicpottier 1 day ago

Yes, it was good this was caught and reported on. But this will become normalized and we seem to be sprinting full speed towards not being able to know what to believe. That the State is engaging in this is concerning to say the least.

Comment by acdha 1 day ago

The problem is that the NYT won’t post about everything and a large number of people won’t see it when they do or will immediately dismiss it as “fake news” because it’s politically inconvenient.

This is kind of like the difference between not polluting water and hoping that people will use filters.

Comment by LightBug1 1 day ago

Replying to this as a quadruple upvote ...

Any lawyers in the USA getting off their assess to fight stuff like this? (Sorry if you are). There's the Good Law Project in the UK that takes up causes.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by zingababba 1 day ago

Not really surprising. Boomers are finally going away. New order brings new way of doing things. 4chan tactics have gone mainstream.

Comment by mingus88 1 day ago

Boomers seem to be the most susceptible to AI fakes, from what I’ve seen

Comment by bradgranath 1 day ago

[dead]