Trump's Second Term

[AmyStrange]

Maddow herself has warned there is fake AI generated material that isn't actually her own work. Verify the source before presenting anything to actually be her channel.

I also tend to not trust stuff presented in her image as a lot of the material isn't verified by other sources, presumably offered by the faked channels.

Yeah, so what? Are you calling Rachel a liar?

 

[a_unique_person]

Trump: "We have a great relationship with a country named Venezuela. 50 million barrels of oil is right now floating very nicely in extremely large ships toward Houston, where it's processed ... that was a very strong attack."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2024603207125594181

It was close to being a disaster. A few more rounds into that helicopter full of men could have brought it down.

 

[AmyStrange]

It doesn't matter. The first story was marked as altered/synthetic and it is therefore, a priori, by definition, fake. Whether what it said is truthful or not is irrelevant.

Just because you think it's irrelevant, doesn't make it so.

 

[AmyStrange]

I can't find any news articles that corroborate this. Just a handful of YouTube videos posted by channels I've never heard of.

Edited to add: I'm doing more searching now, I'll come back with results.

So, Rachel Maddow is a liar now. That's so sad.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Telling the same lie about France again

Trump: "I said Emmanuel, 'you're gonna have to lift your drug prices by double or triple.' 'No way, I will not do that, Donald, I would be out of business.' I said, 'No, you're GONNA DO IT!' And he said, 'No no.' I said, 'Here's the story, if you don't do it, I'm gonna put a 100% tariff on all the wine and champagne you sell into the US.' And you know what he said? 'I'll do it!'"

https://twitter.com/x/status/2024614342121939249

 

[arthwollipot]

Just because you think it's irrelevant, doesn't make it so.

It should be. AI content should be marginalised. Only then will the big techbro companies realise that shoving it in our faces isn't a good business decision.

 

[Aridas]

In Hegseth's Pentagon news...

Pentagon preaches white nationalism—literally

Wilson is a creepy hard-right preacher who runs the creepy hard-right denomination that the creepy hard-right Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends, so it was inevitable that he would be asked to come help obliterate the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.

That’s an explicit, not implicit, explanation of what Wilson had to say, which we know from Wilson himself, who used his Pentagon sermon time to pray for a “black swan revival,” which is apparently evangelical-speak for foisting a narrow and vicious brand of Christianity on the nation.

You can also peep Wilson over on the Defense Department’s “Rapid Response” X account, where you’ll find other important government updates like this video of Hegseth weightlifting.

Because everyone knows that a "leader" boasting about his weightlifting on an official government account is super professional! Among other things about the preacher in question, though...

Who doesn’t want, as a standard-bearer of faith for the nation, a preacher who thinks that slavery was totally fine because it was based on “mutual affection and confidence”? Or that Muslims and Hindus are immigrating in a “parasitic way” and need to be assimilated?

Slavery apologist Republican! Yeah, "the best people," eh?

 

[junkshop]

Until you actually watch the video, you can't really complain it's faked evidence and make it stick.

BTW, the evidence presented was not faked.


ETA: Go ahead and prove me wrong. I dare you.

Challenge accepted, but please bear with me - cooking and interwebbing slow each other down, also this fakery is is proving to be a much bigger wormhole than expected.

 

[AmyStrange]

It should be. AI content should be marginalised. Only then will the big techbro companies realise that shoving it in our faces isn't a good business decision.

I agree with you about AI, but that doesn't change the actual story or make it fake.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We have a thread for complaining about AI

 

[junkshop]

Yeah, so what? Are you calling Rachel a liar?

That isn't Rachel Maddow. That's kind of the point.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Okd favourites tonight

Trump: Your drug prices are coming down by 70, 80, 90 percent, or depending on the way you figure it, 500, 600, 800, 900%. There are two ways of calculating that number

https://twitter.com/x/status/2024614825528049746

 

[AmyStrange]

Challenge accepted, but please bear with me - cooking and interwebbing slow each other down, also this fakery is is proving to be a much bigger wormhole than expected.

So, do you think Rachel Maddow is a liar too? Check out the video I posted above. #43,184

BTW, that video wasn't altered or synthesized.

 

[Aridas]

Yeah, so what? Are you calling Rachel a liar?

Just to be clear, that's not what was said there. What was said is that Rachel has alerted the public that there's an ongoing issue with people creating false content designed to trick people into thinking that Rachel said something when she didn't. That's not calling Rachel a liar at all. Much the opposite, really.

 

[shemp]

I can't find any news articles that corroborate this. Just a handful of YouTube videos posted by channels I've never heard of.

Edited to add: I'm doing more searching now, I'll come back with results.

All I can find is a lot of similar videos, all uploaded by obscure channels that I've never heard of. Some of them were uploaded as much as 2 days. ago. Yet there is not a single legitimate major news source for this story. If this really happened, it would have definitely been in every major news source by now, and it would be a top story on CNN, MS NOW, and all major TV network news shows. But nothing.

Verdict: AI slop being pumped out by the usual scum looking to make money on views.

 

[AmyStrange]

Just to be clear, that's not what was said there. What was said is that Rachel has alerted the public that there's an ongoing issue with people creating false content designed to trick people into thinking that Rachel said something when she didn't. That's not calling Rachel a liar at all. Much the opposite, really.

Obviously, one didn't watch the video I posted. It certainly looks and sounds like Rachel Maddow.

BTW, that video wasn't altered or synthesized.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Here lies Donald.
You can tell it's him because we put a
hamberder on the stone.

I would have thought the lake of urine around it would be a bigger give away.

 

[junkshop]

Obviously, one didn't watch the video I posted. It certainly looks and sounds like Rachel Maddow.

Can you find that video on Maddow's channel, or any channel she works for/with?
How do you explain the first two videos you linked having the exact same script, but entirely different visuals ( glasses/no glasses for a start) and 'Maddow's' voice being in a different pitch?

 

[shemp]

So, do you think Rachel Maddow is a liar too? Check out the video I posted above. #43,184

Fer chrissakes, anyone with the proper tools and a little knowhow can quickly create a fake Rachel Maddow video.

Like this example:

After sharing a phony Rachel Maddow video, I reflected on how algorithms are dividing us

Recently, a friend sent me a video she found on social media that purportedly featured MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reporting that Donald Trump's former personal physician was about to release damaging evidence about the president's health. Given Trump's erratic behavior of late, the claim felt plausible, and I watched the clip, thinking, finally, the truth is coming out.

I forwarded the video to a cousin, who raised a simple question: "What if this was AI-generated?"

I searched for corroboration that Trump's former doctor had disclosed explosive news about his physical condition, but found none. I sent an apology to my cousin, who then offered a broader observation: "Algorithms may be a major reason our country feels so divided and angry."

It turns out he's right.

I'm not posting this to attack you. Intelligent people can fall for AI fakes too.

And yes, I watched some of your video. To my ear, that does NOT sound quite like her, similar but not accurate.

If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize profusely.

 

[shemp]

Can you find that video on Maddow's channel, or any channel she works for/with?
How do you explain the first two videos you linked having the exact same script, but entirely different visuals ( glasses/no glasses for a start) and 'Maddow's' voice being in a different pitch?

I watched the first couple of minutes of both of those videos and noticed that too.

Also, it is nowhere on The Rachel Maddow Show playlist. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDIVi-vBsOEyETRGoRP9y8zhyu6bHl6iK