Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Media Politics

We've Just Seen the First Use of Deepfakes In an Indian Election Campaign (vice.com) 39

The Delhi Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has partnered with political communications firm The Ideaz Factory to create "positive campaigns" using deepfakes to reach different linguistic voter bases, reports Nilesh Christopher reports via Motherboard. It marks the debut of deepfakes in election campaigns in India. From the report: On February 7, a day ahead of the Legislative Assembly elections in Delhi, two videos of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President Manoj Tiwari criticizing the incumbent Delhi government of Arvind Kejriwal went viral on WhatsApp. While one video had Tiwari speak in English, the other was him speaking in the Hindi dialect of Haryanvi. "[Kejriwal] cheated us on the basis of promises. But now Delhi has a chance to change it all. Press the lotus button on February 8 to form the Modi-led government," he said. One may think that this 44-second monologue might be a part of standard political outreach, but there is one thing that's not standard: These videos were not real. [The original video can be viewed here.]

"Deepfake technology has helped us scale campaign efforts like never before," Neelkant Bakshi, co-incharge of social media and IT for BJP Delhi, tells VICE. "The Haryanvi videos let us convincingly approach the target audience even if the candidate didn't speak the language of the voter." Tiwari's fabricated video was used widely to dissuade the large Haryanvi-speaking migrant worker population in Delhi from voting for the rival political party. According to Bakshi, these deepfakes were distributed across 5,800 WhatsApp groups in the Delhi and NCR region, reaching approximately 15 million people.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

We've Just Seen the First Use of Deepfakes In an Indian Election Campaign

Comments Filter:
  • What made it "fake"? Was it a direct translation of the message into different languages? If so, sounds like a good idea to me.

    • Basically, they took it beyond "audio dubbing" to make his face look like he was saying words in another language.

      • Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2020 @05:55PM (#59741082) Homepage Journal

        Right. Looks like they did a good job. It wasn't clear if the meaning of the message itself was really altered and it was at the behest of the candidate. So....sounds good to me.

        • Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2020 @06:15PM (#59741130)

          Except, it's false advertising. And it's a slippery slope.

          I don't want my next President to be 70% computer-generated. If he's a dumb-ass, I want to know it. And if he can't speak other languages, let alone English, I want to know that too.

          • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            What is false about a politician talking about their own political views directly to voters in their own nation using translation?
            • Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

              by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2020 @07:05PM (#59741266)

              Because it implies a deeper connection to the voter's culture than the politician actually has. He doesn't speak their language, he doesn't know their issues, he just wants their vote and if a deepfake to make him seem like "one of them" will get him votes, then that's good for the politician but doesn't do much for the voters.

              And of course all of that is completely aside from the issue that once you let "approved" deepfakes loose, anyone can and will put out deepfakes of their own on the same candidate that show a less positive image - and other politicians. It's a stupid idea.

              • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
                How many different languages should a person seeking office have to speak?
                A translation of a person speaking their own words is a ... translation.
                Like in a newspaper, on TV, radio ... the internet and now with computers.
                Why would any person need a "culture" and "language" test to be allowed to talk to people?
                A "one of them" test to get into gov?
                Some people who have the needed language, have the approved "culture" and is "one of them" get to talk for/to a group of citizens?
                Would only be using English
              • Don't get me wrong, there are aspects of this that give me the jibblies.

                However, this is what the old Star Trek universal translator leads to - the idea that you don't even notice what the "base" language is, and it really isn't relevant as long as the message and intent is conveyed.

                Once the tech can start doing things effectively in realtime, I can see a State of the Union address seamlessly in my native language. Who needs Univision vs. the BBC - great content producers can just make great content for al

          • "Slippery slope" is correct... This is use of deepfake by the candidate's own team. But if they can do it, could the opposition render anything they wanted too?

          • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

            I don't want my next President to be 70% computer-generated.

            The hair and tan is.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          It's a relatively minor transgression if the purpose was simply to translate the candidate's message for viewers of different languages. It's a bit misleading if it makes it look like the candidate is fluent in a particular language because that also implies familiarity with culture etc., which voters typically value (for good or bad). That's not the same as making the opposition say, "I eat human babies and they are delicious!"

          I wonder if US candidates will try that: "El pared graaande es mui mui bueno!"

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        The use of a different language is still ok..still good..
        So a new voice over is still approved old tech.... still good.
        But get the tech a bit better and its "saying words"... bad.
        How about just letting people in India enjoy the words of a political leader ...
        In the past it would have been translated and printed.. then on radio..TV.. then on the internet. Now its translation and an image and voice.
        Their message to talk to the people about.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      An approved voice over is now a deepfake.
      Because the other side of politics.
    • by sosume ( 680416 )

      No, this does not seem like a good idea to me. It demonstrates that the candidate is too lazy to truly connect with group of voters. Instead of looking out for the people and their cause, this politician just hires some sleazy PR agency to look "trustful". But it makes him look more like a douche instead.

  • Facebook moved to ban deepfakes recently. Guess it doesn't apply (yet) to WhatsApp?
  • "Deep-fake technology has helped us scale ..."

    It's always the same excuse: Identity, popularity and market penetration. It's hiding the truth and qualifies as propaganda. What's wrong with a voice-over in the desired language, as news broadcasts having been doing for years?

  • . . . for President!

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Working...