The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Deepfakes and the 2020 US elections: what (did not) happen
Abstract
Alarmed by the volume of disinformation that was assumed to have taken place during the 2016 US elections, scholars, politics and journalists predicted the worst when the first deepfakes began to emerge in 2018. After all, US Elections 2020 were believed to be the most secure in American history. This paper seeks explanations for an apparent contradiction: we believe that it was precisely the multiplication and conjugation of different types of warnings and fears that created the conditions that prevented malicious political deepfakes from affecting the 2020 US elections. From these warnings, we identified four factors (more active role of social networks, new laws, difficulties in accessing Artificial Intelligence and better awareness of society). But while this formula has proven to be effective in the case of the United States, 2020, it is not correct to assume that it can be repeated in other political contexts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Deepfake technology is often still unnecessary and inefficient.
“Deepfake technology is often still unnecessary and inefficient (Meneses, 2021: 7).23”
From Deepfakes and Democracy (Theory): How Synthetic Audio-Visual Media for Disinformation and Hate Speech Threaten Core Democratic Functions (2022) · cites this paper as Meneses, 2021: 7
Section 2.3, “Why take the risk?” (page not available in our copy), says deepfakes were sometimes unnecessary for electoral disinformation and could be costly or harder to produce than conventional fakes. That supports the point in the paper’s electoral-interference context, but not the broader claim that deepfake technology is often unnecessary and inefficient across uses. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Ahmed, S., 'Who inadvertently shares deepfakes? Analyzing the role of political interest, cognitive ability, and social network size', 2020/20, Telematics and Informatics [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101508] · DOI · Paper page
- Buo, S. A., '2020 The Emerging Threats of Deepfake Attacks and Countermeasures', 2020/12 [http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23089.81762 · DOI
- Dobber, T., Metoui, N., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., and de Vreese, C., 'Do (Microtargeted) Deepfakes Have Real Effects on Political Attitudes?', 2020, The International Journal of Press/Politics [https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220944364] · DOI · Paper page
- Du, M., Pentyala, S. K., Li, Y., and Hu, X., 'Towards Generalizable Deepfake Detection with Locality-aware AutoEncoder', 2020/10, CIKM '20: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management [https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3411892 · DOI · Paper page
- Katarya, R., and Lal, A., 'A Study on Combating Emerging Threat of Deepfake Weaponization', 2020/10 [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9243588]
- Thaw, N., July, T., Wai, A. N., Goh, D. H-L., and Chua, A. Y.K., 'Is it real? A study on detecting deepfake videos', 2020/10/22, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology [https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.366 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pawelec, M. (2022) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-022-00010-6 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Meneses, J. P.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- arXiv
- 2101.09092
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
