Political misinformation is hitting the waves like no other. We are now bombarded with false political information that aims to mislead us into believing all is not well in the opposition ranks. Who is behind them, and what is expected to achieve? Planting discord and resentment or confusion?
The aims are unclear, but we know too well that whoever propagates lies is not in a better position but is roiled in deep insecurities. This article looks at the plight of political voyeurs obsessed with peeking at what others are doing or not doing and distorting it to make them look bad in the misplaced hope that their political party benefits.
Political voyeurs are content disruptors aiming to distort information from the rival side. They aim to make their rivals appear in turmoil or caught in an internal conflict, which is untrue. Another aim is to deflect any negativity on their side since everybody will be soaked in the opposition’s false exposè.
In specific situations, many shallow-fake videos and printed news are circulating, purporting to be a genuine exposition of Chadema. Other opposition parties are left undisturbed.
In one video, Chadema’s Vice Chairman Tundu Lissu asks his audience if they follow his message. Suddenly, another video from a different occasion shows people shouting him down.
ALSO, READ Artificial Limits: Evaluating AI’s Potential to Transform or Disrupt Human Life
When one looks at the two videos closely, one can see that the first one shows Tundu Lissu addressing a political Chadema gathering, while the second one is in Tanga during the burial of their murdered leader. The crowd is shouting down the minister for internal affairs to hand over the mic to the Chadema national chairperson.
Blending two videos from different days, areas, and gatherings indicates that whoever prepared it was attempting to cash in on our ignorance of the two meetings. He assumed we could not add two and two to get four, five, or even ten. I just did it! In another printed message, it again targets Chadema.
The contents demanded no contextualisation, as they were straightforward. The author wanted us to believe that Tundu Lissu had decamped to ACT-Wazalendo after being ditched from gunning the presidency through Chadema. There are many more similar messages from shallow fakes. I call them shallow fakes because the quality is poor, and it is very easy to disentangle the concocted fabrication.
Over time, shallow fake news will transform into deepfake, rendering discernment a challenge, and many will fall over it. This new challenge calls for sophistication when reading or viewing anything. Fact-checkers will also find relevance as they rake the Web to pick lies and name-shame them.
Today, most news is trustworthy, but tomorrow, fact-checking will be added to our reading, viewing and listening. Where we are not conversant, we will seek expert fact-checking before we share with others lest we be accused of propagating lies.
Fake news is protected under free speech but exposes the initiator to libel suits where a character or any damage is experienced. Most fake news is purposed to wage a war against those the propagandists feel are a threat to their cause.
In many ways, it is designed to inflict damage and lower the stature of the intended target. The examples I just cited had minimal character damage, so the affected may opt to access their rights under riposte rules, defending themselves against ghost assailants.
In certain situations, the victims may also drive out their fake news. That may involve mocking the other side about fake news directed to them or, in other situations, spinning exaggerations to hurt the public standing of those they deem behind lowering their public stature.
Once both sides are mudslinging each other, one side may feel most affected. In such a scenario, the disgruntled party may report to the police or hire a lawyer to seek punitive and general damages.
While theoretical aspects may convince us to see possibilities of taming the altercation through laid down channels, the hindrance is that parties tend to operate like ghosts in most circumstances.
Ghosts flaunting unknown whereabouts blurred personal identities and the like—rules to guide how social media tackles such grey areas are still in infancy. The rules must be legislated in individual countries to limit victim damage.
ALSO READ Are Biometric Signatures the Future or a Risky Gamble with Our Privacy?
Social media owners will be pushed to pull down accounts propagating unacceptable fake news. Not all fake news is bad. Some fake news is meant to be banter, tickling many to laugh, not hurting. In such situations, fabrication must be stated that they are.
Hoaxes and parodies will be required to alert viewers and readers that whatever is gathered there is untrue. Most such informal communication will not attract the ire of those who are on the receiving end.
As technology grows, we must accept that it will keep intruding into our lives in a manner that may challenge the framework of free speech. For example, deep fakery is now so believable that nudity and phonographic materials of people who have nothing to do with it are being generated to our total disbelief and disenchantment.
Students can use apps to place photographs of other students and replace those with actual photographic content. Then, they can threaten to distribute or sell in the underworld as a weapon to seek certain compensation. This is the criminal activity of extortion and blackmail.
It is not long from now when deepfake videos of local politicians are seen in grotesque videos will begin to surface, and those who made the videos or distributors may be difficult to flag for criminal indictments.
Deepfake is associated with disguised personal identity. In most criminal activities, temporary accounts are created to share damaging personal content. No sooner have their evil aims been achieved than the accounts are closed or left for the moderators to remove.
Politics will get nastier as technology develops, and regulators will keep playing catch-up to arrest the bad cowboys who are encouraged by identity theft or the ability to create fake identities in a hope of evading accountability.
The good and the bad of the digital world just got started! Can we ever be prepared for the imminent consequences? I am afraid the emotional stamina needed is beyond our collective tolerance and understanding, but we must soldier on, knowing high-tech duplication is going nowhere. It is here to stay, getting even more realistic and churning out many counterparts, but all are fake.
