As deepfake AI gets more realistic, worries of their implications on our politics are growing. The Senate recently passed legislation to research the threat deepfakes, edited videos that can give viewers the impression that a speaker is saying something different than what they really are, pose to society. But while the government makes moves to understand the new technology, AI developers have already begun to catch up with detection software.
Recently, Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard went on Tucker Carlson, defending her decision to sue Google for allegedly suspending her campaign ads. According to Gabbard, this move on behalf of Google constitutes “election interference.” Gabbard further went on to say that her lawsuit would underscore the extensive power of Big Tech, and shed light on its violation of free speech. Gabbard’s gripes are very reminiscent of the feelings many conservatives also have towards Big Tech.
Day by day, Big Tech companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, have been shutting down the accounts of various figures they deem “controversial”; among these are Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan. Like Gabbard, many conservatives proclaim that this is an infringement on the right to free speech and liken big tech companies onto monopolies. Thus, they assert that the solution is for the government to punish these companies.
Facebook is currently creating its own cryptocurrency, Libra. But before deciding whether to use it, we should first look at the big picture and think carefully why the Silicon Valley monopoly wants a piece of the cryptocurrency market. Are there good intentions? Or does Mark Zuckerberg only want to increase his profits while furthering his control over us? Those are important questions to ask before deciding if you should trust Big Tech with your hard-earned money. Ultimately, Libra doesn’t make the cut and doesn’t deserve our trust.
Mark Zuckerberg is a predator. Well, not actually, but in lieu of the recent Facebook policy changes, stating so on an online publication leaves him open to threats of violence on Facebook, via the site’s own policy.
Individuals from all corners of the political spectrum have been rilled up by the recent bannings of various figures from social media platforms including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan. Some have praised these bans for providing good restrictions on what they deem “fake news” or “hate speech”. Others have attacked these bans for being influenced by nefarious motives that are contra free speech. The debate regarding the extent to which social media sites may regulate speech has been going on for years now. Perhaps it is time for a reassessment.