Whose dystopia is it anyway? Deepfakes and social media regulation

Abstract

This study explores global journalistic discussions of deepfake applications (audiovisual manipulating applications based on artificial intelligence (AI)) to understand the narratives constructed through global coverage, the regulatory actions associated with these offered narratives, and the functions such narratives might serve in global sociopolitical contexts. Through a qualitative–interpretive narrative analysis, this article shows how journalists frame deepfakes as a destabilizing platform that undermines a shared sense of social and political reality, enables the abuse and harassment of women online, and blurs the acceptable dichotomy between real and fake. This phenomenon is tied to discussions of dis/misinformation, manipulation, exploitation, and polarization in the media ecosystem these days. Based on these findings, the article then provides broader practical and theoretical insights about AI content regulation and ethics, accountability, and responsibility in digital culture.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence deep learning deepfake dystopia gender internet policy journalism narrative analysis news social media regulation thick data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumgartner

Linn

Boydstun

(2009) The decline of the death penalty: How media framing changed capital punishment in America. In: Schaffner

Sellers

(eds) Winning With Words: The Origins and Impact of Framing. New York: Routledge, pp. 159–184.

Benjamin

(2001) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In: Leitch

(ed) The Norton Anthology of Theory and Literary Criticism. New York: Norton, pp. 1166–1186.

Blitz

(2018) Lies, line drawing, and (deep) fake news. Oklahoma Law Review 71(1): 59.

Bruns

(2005) Axel Bruns at iDC. Institute for distributed creativity. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/4863/1/4863_1.pdf (accessed 26 April 2020).

Cision (2018) State of the Media Report. Available at: https://investors.cision.com/2018-04-24-Cision-State-of-the-Media-Report-Reveals-Rising-Public-Trust-Amidst-Journalisms-Fake-News-Battle (accessed 26 April 2020).

Cobb

Elder

(1981) Communication and public policy. In: Nimmo

Sanders

(eds) Handbook of Political Communication. London: SAGE, pp. 391–416.

Coopersmith

(1998) Pornography, technology and progress. Icon 4: 94–125.

Crow

(2012) Policy diffusion and innovation: Media and experts in Colorado recreational water rights. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 4(1): 27–41.

Dibbell

(1993) A rape in cyberspace. The Village Voice. Available at: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/a-rape-in-cyberspace-6401665 (accessed 26 April 2020).

10.

Downs

(1972) Up and down with ecology – The ‘issue-attention cycle’. The Public Interest 28: 38–51.

11.

Edelman Research (2019) 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report. Available at: https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer (accessed 26 April 2020).

12.

Entman

(1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.

13.

Fischer

(1992) America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.

14.

Fisher

Wright

(2001) On utopias and dystopias: Toward an understanding of the discourse surrounding the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6(2). Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00115.x (accessed 26 April 2020).

15.

Floridi

(2018) Artificial intelligence, deepfakes and a future of ectypes. Philosophy & Technology 31(3): 317–321.

16.

Fox

Rooney

(2015) The dark triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Personality and Individual Differences 76: 161–165.

17.

Gamson

(2004) Bystanders, public opinion and the media. In: Snow

Houle

Kriesi

(eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. London: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 242–261.

18.

Gillmor

(2006) We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Sebastopol. California: O’Reilly Media.

19.

Gingras

(2018) News then, news now: Journalism in a digital age. In: Growing Between the Lines (Osservatorio Permanente Giovani-Editori), Bagnaia, Italy, 25 May 2018.

20.

Greenberg

Hier

(2009) CCTV surveillance and the poverty of media discourse: A content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage. Canadian Journal of Communication 34(3): 451–486.

21.

Iyengar

Kinder

(2010) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Jenkins

(2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: NYU.

23.

Kosicki

(1993) Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication 43(2): 100–127.

24.

Latzko-Toth

Bonneau

Millette

(2017) Small data, thick data: Thickening strategies for trace-based social media research. In: Sloan

Quan-Haase

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE, pp. 199–214.

25.

Lazer

Baum

Benkler

, et al. (2018) The science of fake news. Science 359(6380): 1094–1096.

26.

Lieblich

Tuval-Mashiach

Zilber

(1998) Narrative Research: Reading, Analysis, and Interpretation, Vol. 47. Los Angeles: SAGE, pp. 199–214.

27.

Lotan

(2014) Israel, Gaza, war & data: Social networks and the art of personalizing propaganda. Huffington Post 8 July. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-war-social-networks-data_b_5658557 (accessed 26 April 2020).

28.

Marciano

(2019) The discursive construction of biometric surveillance in the Israeli press: Nationality, citizenship, and democracy. Journalism Studies 20(7): 972–990.

29.

McCombs

Shaw

(1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176–187.

30.

Meyrowitz

(1985) No Sense of Place. New York: Oxford.

31.

Mishler

(1986) The analysis of interview-narratives. In: Sarbin

(ed) Narrative Psychology. New York: Praeger, pp. 233–255.

32.

Napoli

(2019) User data as public resource: Implications for social media regulation. Policy & Internet DOI: 10.1002/poi3.216.

33.

Ong

(1982) Orality and Literacy. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

34.

Ophir

(2019) The effects of news coverage of epidemics on public support for and compliance with the CDC – An experimental study. Journal of Health Communication 24(5): 547–558.

35.

Pan

Kosicki

(1993) Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10(1): 55–75.

36.

Pearson

Trevisan

(2015) Disability activism in the new media ecology: Campaigning strategies in the digital era. Disability & Society 30(6): 924–940.

37.

Shih

Wijaya

Brossard

(2008) Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics. Mass Communication and Society 11: 141–160.

38.

Smith

Sparkes

(2006) Narrative inquiry in psychology: Exploring the tensions within. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(3): 169–192.

39.

Spigel

(1992) Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Spilioti

(2016) Digital discourses: A critical perspective. In: Georgakopoulou

Spilioti

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 133–145.

41.

Sturken

Thomas

(2004) Introduction. Technological visions and the rhetoric of the new. In: Sturken

Thomas

Ball-Rokeach

(eds) Technological Visions. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 3–18.

42.

Tandoc

Lim

Ling

(2018) Defining ‘fake news’: A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism 6(2): 137–153.

43.

Turkle

(2012) Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. New York: Basic Books.

44.

van Gorp

(2006) The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication 57(1): 60–78.

45.

Verschueren

(2006) From virtual to everyday life. In: Servaes

Carpentier

(eds) Towards a Sustainable Information Society: Deconstructing WSIS. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books, pp. 169–184.

46.

Wang

(2016) Big Data needs Thick Data. Web log post, 20 January. Available at: https://medium.com/ethnography-matters/why-big-data-needs-thick-data-b4b3e75e3d7.

47.

Yadlin-Segal

(2018) What’s in a smile? Politicizing disability through selfies and affect. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 24(1): 36–50.

48.

Zelenkauskaite

Niezgoda

(2017) ‘Stop kremlin trolls:’ Ideological trolling as calling out, rebuttal, and reactions on online news portal commenting. First Monday 22(5). Available at: https://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7795/6225 (accessed 26 April 2020).

49.

Zimmer

(2008) The externalities of search 2.0: The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets web 2.0. First Monday 13(3). Available at: https://firstmonday.org/article/view/2136/1944 (accessed 26 April 2020).