[inlikealamb]

We've had Photoshop for 3 decades and airbrushing for even longer and it's had far-reaching impacts across society... no one is really immune to it because it isn't obvious and it has arguably poisoned realistic ideals around body image.

IMO we need to mandate disclosures around deepfakes. It's impossible on a peer-to-peer level, but commercially it should be clearly disclosed.

[autoexec]

We don't get immunity to photoshop in the "I can tell from some of the pixels" sense, but we gain immunity in the sense that we no longer accept every image as representing absolute truth. Plenty of people today still think that video manipulation more sophisticated than an instagram filter takes a Hollywood budget or a lot of expertise.

Once people get more experience seeing and creating deepfakes on their own they'll be less trusting of random videos they see in the future

[hombre_fatal]

I think your hypothesis is defeated by how people take screenshots of text (captions, headlines) at face value on Reddit, Twitter, and other social media. You can scroll through all the comments and you won’t find a single person asking for a source, just people reacting to some text. If people don’t have an immunity to a screenshot of text that claims something, how are they going to have an immunity to Photoshop and deep fakes?

[autoexec]

You don't even need a screenshot for that. Any text online, even just a comment will be taken at face value by a certain percentage of the population. The general gullibility of people or their susceptibility to disinformation is always going to be an issue. Even for people like that who just don't question things they see (especially when they want to believe them) I'd bet if you pressed them they'd admit to being aware of photoshop and of just how easy it is to fake a screenshot of text.

[KONAir]

Are there any studies on "I can tell from some of the pixels"? Over the years I keep coming across both people (and myself) on internets being correct on 'shopped photos while masses belivied in. Is this just down to familiarity with software and a health bit of skepticism?

[autoexec]

I think it's the healthy skepticism that's more important than being able to detect some minute detail in an edit. For a while photos were considered strong proof, not so much today.

There has been research on detecting photo manipulation and there's plenty of things people can watch out for if they're trying to "prove" an image was altered, but a lot of edits I see are so bad/obvious that the people making them aren't really trying to "fool" anyone with them. They just think it makes the photo look better. They'll do things like jack up color saturation to impossible/unnatural levels, or remove every pore from their skin, etc.

[jackpirate]

we gain immunity in the sense that we no longer accept every image as representing absolute truth

GPs whole point about body image is that, as a society, we don't have that immunity. Basically no one has a healthy ideal of what a good body image is because we never even get to see them.

[autoexec]

The fact that media can so effectively influence our view of an ideal body has little to do with our awareness about photo manipulation. We know full well photos are touched up and fake. In fact we're at the point now where millions of people are so aware of it that they are routinely editing their own photos to match whatever the ideal being pushed at us in the moment is. Maybe that's "instagram face" or giant asses, hell I remember when it was heroin chic. The point is that we all know it's fake. It just doesn't matter because media tells us what to like/want regardless.

[inlikealamb]

I disagree! photo manipulation plays a starring role in how pervasive and insidious these ideas are... I can turn off the TV and avoid movies, but I can't avoid ads, billboards, grocery stores, direct mail, you name it... it's everywhere.

I live alone, and if I go into town there's a good chance I'll see more doctored photos of people than I see actual people (depending on how busy things are, which is usually not very).

[inlikealamb]

>we no longer accept every image as representing absolute truth

That's not true for many people (I'd go as far to say most), and we're so inundated with it that unedited media is the minority. Ad campaigns get PR for being "unedited" and even then they're heavily art directed (casting, lighting, styling, etc) to compensate.

The effects are so widespread that they're subliminal, even if you're conscious of the scope that they occur. Billboards, tv, movies, newspaper, magazines, products on shelves, menus at restaurants, wedding photos, family christmas postcards... it's inescapable.

Even if you're some paragon of mindfulness and truth in image editing and can somehow isolate yourself from its influence, you're still subject to it because of how it impacts the way everyone else behaves and sees the world.

We should learn from these mistakes.

[kristofferR]

Just last month, Norway made changes to it's Advertisement Act, that states:

"The advertiser, and the person designing the advertisement, shall further ensure that the advertisement where a body's shape, size or skin has been changed by retouching or other manipulation, shall be marked."

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https:/...

[autoexec]

photo manipulation is pervasive, but I don't take that as evidence that it is actually being believed as truth. I'm not really sure what the subliminal effects are. If you see an ad for a fast food burger on TV it might successfully make you hungry, and make you want to go to that restaurant, but nobody really expects the food they get will look anything like the food in the ad did.

[inlikealamb]

> but nobody really expects the food they get will look anything like the food in the ad did

Have you ever worked at a restaurant? It's not as unusual as you think. A lot of us on HN are in bubbles of savvy people because of our tech-related professions, and most people are NOT savvy. Many people never consciously think about the images they're subjected to.

[autoexec]

Wouldn't it be a problem for the restaurant if people were contently sending food back or being disappointed by the product because it didn't look like the ad? I mean, the difference is striking! (see https://i.imgur.com/e9EaVbu.jpeg). If I genuinely expected the first burger in that image and got served the second one I'd demand my money back and maybe never step foot in that restaurant again! Wouldn't most people? It seems more likely to me that most people accept that the first burger is a fantasy.

[inlikealamb]

I worked restaurants through college and I've probably had food thrown at me over a dozen times because it didn't look like the menu!

It's not the norm, but it's not completely unusual. I've had many more people complain about the disparity in less severe terms. It's a very weird world out there, and if I've learned anything it's that I'm incredibly lucky to have any amount of self-awareness because a lot of people are running around out there on pure id... unaware of just about anything. If you're at all skeptical about anything you're ahead of the curve.