Theoretically ethics, but he has none, so nothing.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
78 points (98.8% liked)
No Stupid Questions
40808 readers
1310 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Actually good point. They're probably gonna do that sometime.
Literally anyone with database access on any social media site can do that to anyone at any time (and potentially even hide it from the person that they did it to) It is why generative AI is being used to create posts on facebook that read like ads for products
…the obvious flaw that said investigations would clearly conclude the posts were doctored?
The metadata of posts include too many data points (IP address, GPS coords, etc.) needing precise alteration in line with the exact movements of a victim that it would just be too complex to achieve a desirable outcome for Musk. Even if the SS’s investigations were subjective in their approach and/or conclusion, independent investigations would provide a trove of reasonable doubt, even if denied access to the data (which, in itself, would be a point of reasonable doubt).
You're quite enthusiastic there with the idea that anyone would actually investigate any of that instead of just saying "yeap, treason!"
Let’s run a little scenario: a reporter’s post is doctored or posted completely outside of their control. Their boss calls them in:
“Did you post this?”
“No”
“Yeap, treason!”
Please don’t confuse enthusiasm with critical thinking.
Ah yes, because this administration is SO good about providing people with due process.
What I’m trying to convey, in the face of your obnoxious sarcasm, is that while the administration would of course interfere in what should be an objective investigation, politicians and reporters have a wealth of powerful advocates in their support networks. The administration can only control the message/investigation of the SS. They cannot control the message or investigations of the victim’s support network, however hard they may try.
Amazingly enough, there are more people in the world than the rich, famous, or powerful. Most people do not have that "wealth of powerful advocates."
Those people also deserve the rights you're so callously ignoring.
I mean, if you're doing it from the server administration side it would be pretty easy to just copy all that from a previous post
How would the server admin know the real-time location of the victim to spoof the GPS coordinates? How would the admin know if the victim was with others who could verify they weren’t engaged in their device? How could the admin counter legitimate logs from other applications or services the victim might be using at the timestamp of the post?
There are far too many variables to be able to execute this successfully by professionals, let alone a bunch of IT staff.
You could just replace the text of a post as it gets submitted. Keep all metadata otherwise unchanged. Lock the account from being able to make edits.
Lock the account from being able to make edits
So, the victim watches their post publish. Acknowledges it’s been doctored. Attempts to edit. Receives some error. And shrugs it off and puts their phone away…? They’ll turn to the closest person with broader knowledge of IT and then it snowballs from there. And that timeline post-publishing would be sufficient evidence for reasonable doubt.
Sure, but then it's a question of narrative not proof, right?
Because the response from X would just be, "we aren't sure why Mr so-and-so didn't/couldn't immediately delete the post, but we froze it in short order because we believe the fact he would post such a thing is a matter of public interest, and we refuse to let him sweep it under the rug."
Yeah, he could say that he posted something completely different and X changed it, but how do you prove it? Everyone would just assume it to be a lie trying to cover their ass after posting something terrible.
Not saying this is at all likely. Just that it's possible.
And this assumes they notice it was doctored immediately anyway. Most people don't verify that the post is correct after hitting "submit." A good 90+% of people would probably never notice if the text was changed post upload.
Agree; this could all happen, yes. What my original comment was trying to convey—and your reply adds to—is that the variables and complexities required to be maintained by X/Musk to ensure that the lie they are defending are hugely disproportionate to other operations that can field similar results. It is also an incredibly high-risk operation for X/Musk, in that a collusion operation of this magnitude risks global repercussions. The required amount of time, effort and resources against politicians or reporters wouldn’t be worth X/Musk’s investment when simpler techniques can be executed at lower risk and require far less resources.
It really just comes down to a cost/benefit/risk analysis. Do we start fake-posting official accounts and risk massive legal and public fallout? Or do we pay Putin $X million to spin up a bunch of bots and push a particular message that could sway public opinion in a similar direction, with very little traceable evidence and virtually no risk to X/Musk?
Sure, I agree that it's a stupid idea from an effort vs reward perspective. It's at best unnecessary.
But your initial position was that it couldn't be done without being easy to prove that it was a fabrication, and I think you're wrong about that.
I think that they are more than capable of doing it in such a way that it's wholly word-vs-word, with no forensic evidence pointing to it being doctored. And the idea that they would do that is outlandish enough that most reasonable people would assume the post was legitimate and that the "offender" was lying about it to try and deflect blame.
It's the classic, "No, I didn't post that list of porn search terms to my Twitter! I was hacked!! Totally somebody hacked me and did that. Wasn't me at all!!” But in this case it'd be something that was a pretext for the government to arrest them.