Evaluating Photos & Videos: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #7
Summary
TLDRこのビデオスクリプトでは、ジョン・グリーンがデジタル情報のナビゲートを通じて、画像とビデオが人間の脳にどれほど強力な影響を与えるかを探求しています。写真は現実を捉えたかのように見え、広告業界によって「一つの絵は千の言葉に値する」と称されていますが、実際には改ざんされやすいです。特に、フィルムやデジタル技術が進歩した現代では、 Photoshop やディープフェイク技術を使って、信じがたいほどの偽の証拠を簡単に作成できます。スクリプトでは、信頼できる情報源を特定し、画像やビデオの真偽を調べるための方法を提供しています。
Takeaways
- 🧠 画像は人間の脳にとって非常に強力で、映画の前にハリーポッター本を読んでいたジョングリーンは、映画を見てから、ハリーやハーマイオニーのイメージがダニエル・ラドクリフやエマ・ワトソンに変わった。
- 🗣️ 「彼ら」とは1940年代にこの成句を作った広告業者を指しており、特に写真は現実の瞬間を捉えているように見えるため、私たちにとってリアルで客観的である。
- 📸 マシュー・ブラディの南北戦争の写真は、実際にはシーンを演出されていた例として挙げられ、画像は信頼できるものではないことを示す。
- 🖼️ Photoshopの時代において、画像は特に信頼性が低くなっているとされ、ジョングリーンが見ている花の画像は実際にはそこには存在しない。
- 🕵️♂️ オンラインで画像を分析するには、誰がその情報をポストしているか、彼らがポストする理由、証拠が信頼性があるかどうかを理解することが重要。
- 🎨 画像は編集されていない場合でも、どのようにフレームを設定するか、何を撮影するか、いつどのように共有するかという選択がなされる。
- 🐰 時には画像は、ウサ耳のフィルターやメムのテキストで明らかに変更され、時には私たちを騙すために変更される。
- 🔍 画像の信頼性を判断するためには、ピクセルを見ることができるとメレディスが言っているが、これはジョークであり、実際にはもっと複雑である。
- 🌼 ジョングリーンが例に挙げた、エマ・ゴンザレスの改ざんされた画像やトランプ支持者のTシャツの画像は、画像がどのように誤解を生み出されるかを示す。
- 📚 スタンフォード歴史教育グループの研究は、人々が画像とそのコンテキストを問い合わせずに受け入れがちであることを示している。
- 🔎 画像の信頼性を判断するためには、Googleのリバース画像検索やTinEyeなどのオンラインツールを使用して、画像の出所を追跡することができる。
- 🎥 ビデオも画像と同じくらい強力な証拠を提供できるが、編集や偽造によって誤解を招く可能性があることを示す。
- 🤖 ディープフェイク技術は、ディープラーニングと人工知能を使用して、既存のビデオに重ね合わせて超posableなビデオ画像を作成することができる。
Q & A
画像が強力な理由は何ですか?
-画像は人間の脳に強く印象を与えやすく、現実を捉えているように見えるためです。
ジョン・グリーンが映画を見た後にハリー・ポッターやハーマイオニーについて何を感じましたか?
-映画を見た後、彼のハリー・ポッターやハーマイオニーのイメージがダニエル・ラドクリフとエマ・ワトソンに固定されました。
なぜ写真は特にリアルで客観的に感じられるのでしょうか?
-写真は現実の一瞬を捉えているように見えるため、特にリアルで客観的に感じられます。
マシュー・ブレイディの南北戦争の写真がしばしば演出されていた理由は何ですか?
-彼のアシスタントが死体を動かしてポーズを変えることで、画像の視覚的な力を最大限に引き出すためです。
Photoshopの時代に画像が信頼できない理由は何ですか?
-画像が簡単に編集・加工されるため、現実を歪めることができるからです。
画像の文脈が誤解されるとどのような影響がありますか?
-文脈が誤解されると、画像が誤った情報を伝え、その結果が重大な影響を及ぼす可能性があります。
信頼できる情報源を見つけるために画像を調べる方法は何ですか?
-逆画像検索を使用し、画像の出所とその信頼性を確認することです。
逆画像検索の利用方法を簡単に説明してください。
-Google Chromeでは、画像を右クリックして「この画像をGoogleで検索」を選択します。他のブラウザでは、画像のURLをコピーしてimages.google.comに貼り付けて検索します。
動画が画像と同様に誤解されやすい理由は何ですか?
-動画も編集や文脈の歪曲によって誤った情報を伝えることができるためです。
ディープフェイクとは何ですか?
-ディープフェイクは、深層学習と人工知能を使用して、既存の動画に別の人物の顔や声を重ねて作成された映像です。
Outlines
😀 デジタル情報のナビゲート
ジョン・グリーンが主導するクラッシュコースでは、人間の脳にとって画像は非常に強力な影響力を持っていると語る。特に、映画の前にハリーポッターシリーズを読んでいたグリーンは、映画を見てから、ハリーやハーマイオニーのイメージが俳優の顔に置き換わる経験をした。また、誤った発音をしていた「ハーマイオニー」という名前の正しい発音を知った。広告業者が1940年代に作った言葉「一つの絵は千の言葉を物語る」が、特に写真のように現実の瞬間を捉えたものに適用される。しかし、画像は過去から現在にかけて、特にPhotoshopの時代には、簡単に操作されることが問題となっている。例えば、現在の画像は実際に存在しない花を示しており、オンライン上で見る画像は編集されていない場合でも、フレームや共有の選択が行われている。
🔍 画像の真偽を探る
画像は、信頼できる情報源であるか、またその文脈が正しいかどうかを確認するために、重要な役割を果たしている。例えば、エマ・ゴンデスやトランプ大統領の支持者のTシャツの画像が改ざんされた例が挙げられる。また、2017年のメキシコ選挙や2014年の未承認児童の留置施設の画像が、実際とは異なる文脈で広く共有されたことも問題となっている。スタンフォード歴史教育グループの研究では、高生が画像の出所や文脈を問い合わせるのを怠ることが明らかになった。そのため、画像の背後にある人物や情報源を調査し、それが信頼できるかどうかを判断することが重要である。また、Googleの逆画像検索やTinEyeなどのオンラインツールを使って、画像の出所を追跡することができる。
🎥 映像の改ざんとディープフェイク
映像は画像と同じように強力な証拠を提供することができるが、改ざんされる可能性がある。例えば、編集されたビデオクリップが実際の出来事や発言を誤解させる可能性がある。また、ビデオはディープフェイク技術を用いて、実際に存在しない会話や出来事を作り出すことが可能である。BuzzFeedがオバマ大統領のディープフェイクビデオを制作した例や、ベルギーの社会党がトランプ大統領のクライメットチェンジに関する偽のビデオを作成した例が挙げられる。これらのビデオは、信頼できる情報源であるかどうかを確認し、キーワード検索やニュースサイト、ファクトチェックサイトを通じてビデオの出所を追跡することが重要である。ディープフェイクの技術が進歩するにつれ、情報を評価するスキルを学ぶことが若者にとってますます重要になっている。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡イメージ
💡広告
💡マシュー・ブレイディ
💡ファクトチェック
💡逆画像検索
💡ディープフェイク
💡リアルタイム
💡コンテキスト
💡ファシストレーション
💡ラテラルリーディング
Highlights
Images have a powerful impact on the human brain, influencing perceptions even after exposure to movies based on books.
Photographs are often perceived as objective reality, but they can be manipulated, as seen in historical examples like Matthew Brady's Civil War photographs.
The advent of Photoshop has made image manipulation easier and more prevalent, questioning the reliability of images as evidence.
The importance of understanding the context of images to discern their authenticity, especially in the digital age.
The role of lateral reading skills in evaluating the reliability of images and their sources online.
The potential for images to be manipulated or taken out of context to deceive, as demonstrated by examples of altered photos of Emma Gonzalez and President Trump supporters.
The consequences of using real but misrepresented images, such as the misattributed photo of children in a detention facility.
The Stanford History Education Group's study revealing the ease with which people accept images without questioning their validity.
The use of reverse image search as a tool for verifying the authenticity and origin of online images.
The significance of checking the source and context of images to ensure their reliability, with examples of viral hoaxes.
The power of videos as evidence and their potential for manipulation through editing or deepfake technology.
The role of fact-checking organizations in identifying and debunking image and video hoaxes.
The increasing prevalence of deepfakes and the challenges they pose to discerning reality from fiction in digital media.
The importance of educating young people on evaluating online information to avoid being misled by misinformation.
The impact of the quality and reliability of information on the quality and reliability of decision-making.
Transcripts
Hi I’m John Green, and this is Crash Course: Navigating Digital Information.
So, images are incredibly powerful to human brains.
Like, I read and loved the first four Harry Potter books before seeing a Harry Potter
movie.
And I really liked the movie, but after watching it, I could never see my Harry Potter or Hermione
ever again--I saw only Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson.
And also I learned that Hermione is pronounced Hermione.
And not Her-mee-own.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words -- and by “they” I mean the advertiser
who supposedly coined that idiom in the 1940s.
Photographs in particular feel real and objective to us, because they seem to capture a moment
of reality.
More than 150 years ago, Matthew Brady’s iconic Civil War photographs were often staged,
for instance, his assistants would move corpses and change their postures to maximize the
images’ visual power.
But while images have never been as reliable as they seem, this is especially true in the
era of photoshop.
In fact, consider the image you’re looking at right now.
That flower is not actually here.
If you spend as much time online as I do, you spend a lot of it looking at images.
Sometimes those images are unedited, although even then choices are made--how to frame the
image, what to photograph, when and how to share it.
Other times, the images are obviously altered with bunny ear filters or meme text.
Sometimes images are altered in ways meant to fool us.
So how can we decipher what’s real and what’s not?
Well It’s easy!
You can tell by looking at the pixels.
Meredith says that meme is so old that nobody is going to get the joke.
OK.
Roll the intro.
[intro]
So far during this series we’ve talked about how important it is to find out who’s behind
information we learn online, why they’re posting it, and whether the evidence is reliable.
And thanks to their power, images are a very common form of online evidence.
But just like data or text, image-based evidence can be relevant and reliable or irrelevant
and unreliable.
In order to make sense of our online surroundings it is critical to think carefully about whether
image-based evidence is trustworthy because we’re used to thinking that “seeing is
believing.”
I means, special effects-laden movies are popular in part because they are so visually
thrilling--even though we know they aren’t real, they look real, or at least adjacent
to real.
That is why, for instance, I found all five transformers films completely watchable despite
their lack of … you know, plot, character and comprehensible worldbuilding and etc.
They also have that Shia LeBouef in them.
He’s a fascinating character.
Don’t do it Stan.
DON’T. Oh.
Hello Shia.
So, in movies, filmmakers depend partly on our ability to get lost in images--when we
watch a conversation between two people in a film, for instance, we rarely consider that
forty-five minutes elapsed between this shot and this one, because the camera and lights
had to be moved.
The willingness of the human brain to assume that images are real is consistently manipulated
by filmmakers, but also by other people.
Consider, for instance, this manipulated picture of mass shooting survivor and activist Emma
Gonzalez.
It’s doctored to make her look like she was tearing up the U.S. Constitution instead
of the real picture she took with a gun-range target.
Or this one of President Trump supporters whose shirts were digitally altered to read
“Make America White Again” instead of their actual “Make America Great Again”
shirts.
But images don’t have to be altered to fools us, though.
Sometimes bad actors use real, untouched photos but falsify their context.
And that can have really serious consequences.
For instance, this image of an election in Mexico in 2017 circulated online as a meme
claiming undocumented immigrants were voting in the nonexistent town of Battsville, Arizona.
Or this image of children sleeping in what looks like a cage at a detention facility
for undocumented children in 2014.
It was circulated widely in 2018 as controversy grew over policies for separating undocumented
migrant children and parents at the U.S. border.
Although the conditions were similar for many of the children being held in 2018, when the
photo went viral it was unaccompanied by its original context: the date.
And then once this mistake was revealed, it was used by many to dismiss the entire controversy
as “fake news.”
A study by the Stanford History Education Group has shown just how easy it can be for
people to let images and their context go unchallenged.
So, as you know from previous episodes, the Stanford History Education Group is affiliated
with this series.
They developed MediaWise, which is what this series is based on.
Anyway, during the Stanford History Education Group study, they showed 170 high school students
a photo from Imgur of these weird looking flowers.
The photo’s caption claimed that the flowers had “nuclear birth defects.”
Fukushima was in the photo title, implying they were from the Fukushima nuclear disaster
in Japan.
Despite no evidence that the photo actually showed these effects, or that radiation caused
the mutations, over 80 percent of the students did not question the source of the photo.
There wasn’t even any evidence to show the photo was taken in Japan!
In reality, these daisies are most likely the victims of a genetic mutation called “fascination”
that isn’t related to nuclear radiation in any way.
Bottom line: nature is really wild all by herself.
I mean, do I need to bring back the picture of the star-nosed mole?
I do.
Because it’s so easy to turn images into manipulation machines, when you encounter
a suspicious image online, it’s crucial to investigate who is behind it and whether
they are a reliable source.
We also must look for context, to be sure an image supports the claim being made.
Does the story, blog, or social media post where you encountered the image provide a
link?
Great!
Click it.
If you can get a reliable explanation of that photo and where it came from.
That can help you know if the image is reliable.
Is a caption provided?
Use your lateral reading skills to determine whether the context surrounding the image
is accurate.
But if the source sharing the photo doesn’t provide any context, or they provide a caption,
but no other reason to find that information credible, then maybe you can’t trust it.
But, there are online tools you can use to hunt down an image’s origin story.
Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.
OK, so it’s raining hard in your hometown and you just got one of those startling flash
flood warnings on your phone.
So you hop online to find the latest weather report and a friend has reposted this in your
news feed.
Just saw this on the highway.
Be careful out there, friends.
Oh my god, there’s a shark swimming around the floodwaters in your town.
That’s certainly terrifying -- if it’s true.
Before sharing it with anyone else you want to be sure that it is.
Your friend hasn’t provided any other context or tagged the photo’s location or anything.
She hasn’t said whether she took it or someone else did,
and isn’t responding to your texts.
So it’s time to do a Google reverse image search.
Quick reminder: Google is one of our sponsors for this series, but we also think they have
the strongest reverse image search engine.
If you’re looking for an alternative, TinEye is another popular one.
Right, so, if you’re using their Chrome browser, you can right click on an image and
select “Search Google for image.”
If you’re using a different browser, you can right click on an image and copy its URL.
Then you paste the URL into the search window at images.google.com.
Whoa there -- the search results for this shark photo are full of fact-checking sites
saying that this photo is a viral hoax.
It seems this photoshopped image makes the rounds every time there is a hurricane or
huge flood.
The shark has been “spotted” in Puerto Rico during Hurricane Irene, Florida during
Hurricane Irma, in Texas during Hurricane Harvey, New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy,
and in North Carolina during floods in 2015.
What a shark!
The original photo of this shark was captured in its natural habitat, off the coast of South
Africa.
But after someone photoshopped it into a highway setting,
plenty of social media posts have cited the image as “evidence” over the years.
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
You can use reverse image searches to check in on all kinds of photos.
Using what you know about finding reliable sources, you can then track down whether an
image has originated with a trustworthy source or whether it’s only been distributed on
unreliable sites.
And you can turn to fact checking organizations like Snopes and Politifact which are really
great at hunting down these hoaxes.
And then there’s videos, which can be just as powerful as images when it comes to providing
evidence.
Unfortunately, they can also be used to mislead.
For instance, a carefully edited clip can misrepresent how an event actually happened
or what someone actually said.
At least according to every villain on every reality TV show ever, that’s the entire
genre of reality TV.
It was just the /editing/ that made it /look/ like you were awkwardly breaking up with your
fiancée on national television, Arie.
But also, unedited videos can be posted alongside inaccurate information that claims footage
depicts one event when it really shows something completely different.
Like this clip of me saying “I have messed it up a lot in the past, hence, part of my
aforementioned nervousness.”
Now as it happens, that was about communicating news to fans about my books being adapted
into movies.
But it could be applied and adapted to other things, for instance, if someone said I was
talking about writing my books.
Or my taste in Polo shirts, which is excellent by the way.
You’d only understand what I was talking about if you saw the whole clip, but in another
context it could be almost anything you want it to be.
There is no text without context.
And videos can also be dramatically altered, too.
We don’t always think of videos as easy to change -- maybe by skilled filmmakers,
but not in the same way that we can easily use filters to alter our Instagrams.
But, if you’ve ever seen an episode of Bad Lip Reading, you’ll know that it’s getting
easier and easier to considerably alter a video, or even fabricate one from scratch.
And uploading and posting videos has never been easier.
Almost anyone with an internet connection can do it.
That’s why it’s important to know where a video came from, and who created it, and
whether it’s been altered before you believe what you see.
But the type of manipulated video that freaks me out personally the most is the deepfake.
Deep fake uses deep learning and artificial intelligence to create video images that can
be combined and superimposed onto existing videos.
So, for example, Nicholas Cage’s face can be grafted onto other actors’ faces to create
some really funny movie mashups.
Or, an impersonator can have their voice and facial movements convincingly woven into the
video of a president.
BuzzFeed, for instance, once made a video of President Obama saying things like “Killmonger
was right” to illustrate how deepfakes work.
And this is happening more and more.
The Belgian socialist party once created a video of President Trump saying “climate
change is fake.”
They said they weren’t trying to dupe anyone, but lots of commenters on the party’s Facebook
page did not know it wasn’t real.
Now you can certainly gain clues about a video’s validity by checking the source.
Is it an anonymous YouTube channel?
A stranger on Facebook?
Or a news source you trust?
But to determine for sure whether videos like these are real or fake, we need to read laterally.
Or watch laterally, I suppose.
Either way, open up a new tab and try to find where the video originally came from.
You might be able to do this by using a keyword search based on the content of the video to
see where it surfaces.
Like, in the case of the videos I just mentioned we could’ve searched Obama and Killmonger
or Trump, Belgium, and climate change.
And if the video you’re searching depicts an important event of some kind, you might
find it posted on several news sites.
Or if it’s a known hoax, it may show up on fact-checking sites.
And if the only place you find the video is on dubious sites or random social media posts,
it’s probably bogus.
But look, as technology advances and changing photos and videos gets easier and easier,
there will be more and more deep fakes, and it will be much harder to tell them apart
from reality.
That freaks me out, and it’s a reminder of how critical it is, especially for young
people, to learn how to evaluate the quality of information they encounter online.
Because without using our lateral reading skills, and looking for additional context
for images we encounter, we risk being duped by bad actors spreading misinformation.
And as I’ve talked about before, when the quality and reliability of our information
decreases, the quality and reliability of our decisions also decreases.
So that’s why we’re going to continue learning how to interrogate different types
of evidence next time. I'll see you then.
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)