[HN Gopher] Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic me...
___________________________________________________________________
Voice clone of Anthony Bourdain prompts synthetic media ethics
questions
Author : andreyk
Score : 132 points
Date : 2021-07-16 18:20 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techpolicy.press)
(TXT) w3m dump (techpolicy.press)
| somehnacct3757 wrote:
| They probably knew some people wouldn't like it, which is exactly
| why they used it, because look at all the free publicity they're
| getting now.
| alexilliamson wrote:
| This statement perfectly describes the last decade in America.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Out of all the celebrities, Bourdain would have viscerally
| despised this.
|
| He hated fake phoney people, or food.
|
| He hated when his production crew would stovepipe his bits.
|
| He hated a scene in Greese (I believe) where crew went out and
| bought squid, and threw them into the water to made the shoot
| better.
|
| I really liked Bourdain. He was one of the few celebrities that
| didn't seem to change with fame, or money.
|
| I watched him for years, and knew he was unhappy, but never
| thought suicide unhappy.
| nailer wrote:
| The bone luge thing was completely made up. The restaurant
| didn't do bone luges. It's mentioned explicitly in World
| Travel.
|
| I have no problem with a fake voice reading Bourdain's own
| words.
| ceocoder wrote:
| Just quick context on the squid bit: it wasn't Tony's crew
| (zero point zero productions), it was the combination of local
| fixers/boat folks who wanted to make it look like they caught
| fish.
| holler wrote:
| Funny enough, him describing the ploy while sort of mocking
| it as it happened led to an enjoyable moment in that episode
| (imo). It showcased his humility, and ability to make the
| most out of a situation while not taking himself too
| seriously.
| distrill wrote:
| That's one of my favorite scenes. He is so angry drunk and
| it's his birthday and you can tell he doesn't like the chef
| at all (the chef is the same guy who took them out
| "fishing" earlier in the day).
| ceocoder wrote:
| Thing is, more I rewatch his shows, all of his comments
| about depression and anger have taken a really somber tone
| now given what we know. I wish someone was there with him
| to help him through through that time.
|
| His death really affected me in a deep way I didn't expect.
| I miss him so much.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| One of the other big scenes like that is up-river in SE
| Asia, talking about "how he wished that he could say it
| would be difficult [to kill a pig with a spear], but that
| time and distance have hardened the person he once was".
| [deleted]
| wavefunction wrote:
| I enjoyed the running gag (based on many episodes) of
| Bourdain going on a local fishing/hunting trip and failing to
| catch anything, and then having to scramble to some other
| local place and make up for the lack of a catch which some
| times were some of the highlights of the episode. And then on
| rare occasions when they did catch their prey, it made for a
| nice juxtaposition.
| porknubbins wrote:
| That was the Sicily episode- Bourdain wanted to show the ugly,
| scammy underbelly of Sicily I think. This kind of thing is
| there in a lot of the Mediterranean, but it unfairly makes all
| of Sicily look bad. I had a bad impression of the whole island
| until I learned more about it years later. Sicily is mostly
| nice with a few pockets of unsavoriness like anywhere, not a
| mafia island. In my opinion too many episodes are like that-
| projection of a certain fantasy about a place while ostensibly
| engaging with the real authentic experience.
| jacobkg wrote:
| Agree 100%. Also just watched this episode last night, it was
| Sicily (Season 2)
| basisword wrote:
| Important to point out it wasn't the crew faking the scene.
| The guy that took him fishing had a friend throwing squid in,
| unashamedly. They showed the guy on camera. There was no
| attempt at trickery from the people producing the show.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| As I understand it (I read this on Twitter so massive grain of
| salt etc.) the family concented to this explicitly. Would you
| feel better if it was a voice actor who could read Bourdain's
| email in a perfect mimic? What about historical recreations,
| would you object to computers being involved in, say,
| recreating Abraham Lincoln's voice? Does the age of the subject
| matter?
|
| I think the squeamishness about AI as it becomes more and more
| capable will be interesting to define why we are feeling it.
| The machine is going to be capable of (and consequently used to
| do) these things whether you like it or not.
| ineptech wrote:
| Any of those are fine - with disclosure. It seems pretty
| clear that in this case, they were less than transparent.
|
| > "If you watch the film, other than that line you mentioned,
| you probably don't know what the other lines are that were
| spoken by the A.I., and you're not going to know," Neville
| told the reviewer, Helen Rosner. "We can have a documentary-
| ethics panel about it later."
|
| ...or we can have it sooner, on Twitter, and you'll get
| excoriated, and rightly so. I don't care if they train an AI
| to imitate Bourdain rapping the third verse from _Modern
| Major General_ , it's a free country, but you have to be
| honest about it. You can't call yourself a documentarian and
| get cutesy about the authenticity of the material.
| briefcomment wrote:
| His widow did not provide consent [1].
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/OttaviaBourdain/status/14158894550057
| 164...
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Cool, great to get that clarified but also good to see I
| didn't invent the fact they _claimed_ to have asked.
| virtue3 wrote:
| Historical recreations are fine.
|
| Creating a digital voice model of abraham lincoln and then
| using it for ??? is not.
|
| All of this is being done for profit means (the orville
| redenbacher, fast furious, star wars).
|
| Just because we can doesn't mean we shouldn't stop and think
| if we should.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| On which timescale does something become historical? Are
| the Beatles historical, to you maybe not but possibly to
| your children? Where is the line you're drawing?
|
| If I'm honest humans have never done the moral thinking, we
| largely just middle through and hope to get away with it.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Idk if historical is based on time. I think intention is
| more important. if you recreate the Beatles purely for
| profit then it seems unethical and disrespectful. if you
| want to keep someone's voice for record keeping or
| something educational that seems different
| patrickthebold wrote:
| Time doesn't matter as much as what is said. Fake Anthony
| Bourdain voice reading something he wrote seems fine to
| me, especially in the context of, say, a documentary.
|
| John Lennon's voice doing an ad for Vox amps seems in
| poor taste.
| two2two wrote:
| After reading his books, I would agree and was hoping someone
| had posted this. If anyone would vehemently oppose such
| manipulation, it would be Anthony Bourdain. Is there a
| disclaimer before this scene is shown? I'll choose not to watch
| such a documentary created by those with skewed ethics.
| AutumnCurtain wrote:
| There does not seem to be any disclaimer regarding the
| manipulation, and the OP article questions whether the
| director would even have mentioned it had it not come up
| tangentially in the course of this interview.
| [deleted]
| enriquto wrote:
| what is the difference to drawing him on a fictional painting? or
| edit a photo?
|
| People who complain about that sound a bit like those mythical
| tribes that are afraid of photographs because they may rob their
| soul.
|
| EDIT: i'm not sure that this is wrong, only confused
| tqi wrote:
| Is this different than getting a voice actor?
| tptacek wrote:
| I get why this is newsworthy, but I don't get why it's an ethical
| problem. How is it any different from hiring a really good
| Bourdain impersonator to read the email? Lots of celebrities have
| pitch-perfect impersonators; is this a thing we worried about
| when it wasn't AI doing the impersonation?
| OhWellLol wrote:
| Wait until you learn about using deep fakes to trigger Blackmail
| Inflation
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xlmhhh9HYqc
| bellBivDinesh wrote:
| Putting words in dead peoples mouths is unpopular. Shocking.
| causality0 wrote:
| I don't get why this is controversial. Documentaries constantly
| have someone reading a written document while imitating the voice
| of the author, and none of them come out and say "This is not the
| actual voice of Abraham Lincoln". Why is having a computer
| imitate someone's voice different from having a person do it?
| reaperducer wrote:
| Because Lincoln has been dead for 172 years, and lived before
| audio recording, so no one who could fog a mirror would think
| that it was his voice.
|
| Bourdain didn't die that long ago, and made many recordings. It
| certainly is confusing.
| usefulcat wrote:
| It's pretty obvious why you will never hear any recordings of
| Lincoln's voice. In comparison, it most certainly could be
| Bourdain's voice here so it's not at all obvious that it isn't.
| httpz wrote:
| There are ethical concerns but I think we'll just learn to live
| with it. Forging signatures are easy and have been around forever
| but signatures are still used for very important purposes (even
| electronically now!). It may take a while for the legal system to
| catch up and using voice recordings as evidence may be tricker
| than before.
|
| But on a more exciting front, I think synthetic voice can be made
| like fonts. Celebrities and voice actors will be able to sell
| their synthetic voice like how fonts are sold today. You'll be
| able to change the voice of your Alexa, Siri to a voice you
| downloaded from a marketplace. Netflix may even let you select
| the narrator's voice for your favorite documentary. Hundreds of
| years later, people may be watching a documentary in Morgan
| Freeman's voice while having no idea that he was actually a
| famous actor in the past.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Signatures used for very important purposes are only
| decoration. They must be used in conjunction with something
| else (a notary, an independent exchange that confirms that the
| signature is actually binding, etc.).
|
| The electronic signature is completely different: there is no
| visible artefact anymore, but a process that seals a document
| and (under appropriate legislation), certifies that the signer
| is who he is. A visual object is sometimes added for aesthetic
| purposes.
| httpz wrote:
| What you listed are just ways we've learned to live with the
| forgeable nature of signatures. Now voice recordings (and
| even videos) will have a similar fate in the future.
| mcculley wrote:
| This is an interesting problem. I thought and wrote a little
| about this a few years ago:
| https://enki.org/2017/03/02/historical-narrators/
| [deleted]
| iandanforth wrote:
| This recently got worse, they claimed to have the OK from his
| widow. Turns out not so much ...
|
| https://twitter.com/OttaviaBourdain/status/14158894550057164...
| minsc__and__boo wrote:
| They really need a way for someone to trademark their voice.
| yohannparis wrote:
| As a viewer of the documentary, I will love that effect instead
| of a bland voice-over. But a note should be added on the screen
| that the voice is AI-generated. Like when they say a war video is
| a reenactment.
| pankajdoharey wrote:
| It would be interesting to see if recreating songs is possible,
| if so i would like to hear the voice of Jim morrison and Curt
| Cobain.
| rbalicki wrote:
| https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/nirvana-
| ku... I don't remember if these songs had lyrics, but there
| are AI generated songs in the style of Cobain and Jim
| Morrison
| rbalicki wrote:
| Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1-B3M_KaRQ
|
| It does contain lyrics, but the singing is not AI
| generated.
| 3wolf wrote:
| Would you settle for Ronald Reagan?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAZVp-n-5TM
| adventured wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gvsD11_z1k
| caseyohara wrote:
| AI-generated Nirvana song:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GogY7RQFFus
| genewitch wrote:
| I have a machine with two GPUs and a frozen OS with a
| tensorflow python app that clones voices, and I'd say the
| quality passes if you run it through a phone bandpass filter.
|
| I've had an idea to use propellerhead recycle to chop the
| output cloned voice into syllables, and then "play" the
| chopped parts in rhythm, through autotune.
|
| The issue is you get Eifel 65 sounding autotune if your base
| vocals are monotonic or way off key. The only way I can think
| of fixing this is to use something like audacity's pitch
| changer that doesn't affect the speed of the sample - rough
| the lyrical tones in with audacity/recycle, then autotune it
| where it needs to go.
|
| I'd like to say I'm too busy to get this workflow going, but
| mostly I'm lazy and someone else will do it first - and
| better - I can't improve the AI cloning software.
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| > The only way I can think of fixing this is to use
| something like audacity's pitch changer that doesn't affect
| the speed of the sample
|
| Check out Ableton Live's "Simpler"
| ethbr0 wrote:
| You should message @echelon on HN. ;)
|
| https://vo.codes/
| echelon wrote:
| Oh hi!
|
| I've had a new version of this in the works for a few
| months. It'll launch maybe this weekend?
|
| It supports user-trained data sets, which should be
| pretty neat.
|
| Your approach sounds kind of like unit selection or
| vocaloid.
| xkeysc0re wrote:
| You should watch The Doors movie by Oliver Stone starring Val
| Kilmer. Much of the music, including vocals, was redone with
| Val singing. It can be quite unsettling at times
| ipsum2 wrote:
| https://openai.com/blog/jukebox/ it is, but its not great
| yet.
| MrMetlHed wrote:
| Why would it have to be a bland voice-over? It's an email he
| sent to a friend. Have the friend read it. I imagine the friend
| would become emotional. That's far more riveting than a
| computer recreation, no?
| jamestimmins wrote:
| Agreed, this whole issue could be solved with a message before
| the film runs about how the voiceover is created, and then a
| "recreation" label during that scene.
| godelski wrote:
| I don't think so. There are still other ethical
| considerations. Bourdain likely would not have liked this, as
| others in the thread point out. So it is weird to honor
| someone with a documentary but not honor their wishes
| 37r7dyysy wrote:
| What makes those considerations significant enough to be
| worth the effort of evaluating though? It's too late to
| stop the tech from existing, there's no individuals
| actually being harmed, and even if you find a framework for
| arguing harm that's compelling the end-game is just going
| to be updated contracts which demand rights to use the
| performer's likeness for these sorts of purposes. The
| dialogue just seems like a lot of opining for the sake of
| itself with a fashionable hint of 21st century doom-cult
| luddism. I guess maybe the unions might have a reason to
| worry but I don't have a lot of sympathy for unions
| representing millionaires.
| ghaff wrote:
| Disclaimers help. And it's not like they were making up
| words. But I still feel it was probably a poor creative
| choice.
| KONAir wrote:
| I suppose a spoken line at the begining along the lines of
| it is not that person, but a generated voice, would be the
| best solution.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| I think with correct context and or the correct say so this would
| be fine. But:
|
| I didn't really follow Mr.Bourdain at all, but given the clarity
| from other people who did, and believe he would have hated this;
| then it's not the act of making a voice clone that's unethical
| it's doing it outside of the wishes, or what would be the
| perceived wishes of that person.
|
| In other words this is unethical because had they gone to ask
| permission from the estate/whoever could make that call now that
| Mr.Bourdain is no longer with us they would have likely gotten a
| no.
|
| It makes it particularly egregious that if these people were so
| interested in making this clone of his voice that they likely
| would have followed him closely enough to know he wouldn't have
| agreed to this if he were alive.
|
| I guess you can boil my position down to without permission,
| explicit or implied, it's unethical and not only that, legally
| I'd put it under impersonation.
| robotomir wrote:
| After electronic distribution and Amazon's ability to redact the
| books on your Kindle, this is the next important thing to notice.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'm sure Kenny G. will have some way of making bank on this
| technology.
|
| https://www.jazzguitar.com/features/kennyg.html
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I think Neville went by a common motto: "All publicity is good
| publicity."
|
| Because he didn't need to do it. Using a voice actor would have
| been completely standard and they would get a credit at the end,
| which I'm sure they'd appreciate.
|
| And Bourdain definitely would _not_ have liked it.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I actually think getting deep fake stuff to the public is the way
| to go. Basically anyone can create a deep fake. It is far better
| to get the public used to the idea of deep fakes so they can
| develop some immunity to it.
| inlikealamb wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| jackpirate wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| 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.
| KONAir wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| inlikealamb wrote:
| >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.
| autoexec wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm not sure that when you go down that rabbit hole folks will
| believe much at all...
|
| I don't want to go down the rabbit hole here but everyone hears
| about 'fake news', they know what it is, they just label things
| they don't like 'fake news'. I'm not sure that's helping.
|
| Either way we are going to find out.
| nemo44x wrote:
| It will get really fun when one side has the "experts" on
| their side and can have them vouch for the authenticity of
| something.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| We are there already with "fact checks". When someone sees
| a "fact check" pop up on something they post on Facebook,
| they just say "See? I knew I was right"
| tejtm wrote:
| I expect it will go as well as our collective immunity to
| advertising and other propaganda.
| xwdv wrote:
| Personally I think this is interesting, ethics be damned. It is
| obvious the direction we are going with these kind of
| technologies. We will be able to create entirely new content
| using the personalities of deceased people out of whole cloth.
|
| Some day we may be reduced to nothing more than a pile of ashes
| and a USB stick with our personality reincarnated into it. That's
| far better than simply being a pile of ashes, and may be the
| closest we get to some kind of immortality, a way to keep our ego
| wandering the digital world long after we've died and gone to
| wherever you choose to believe.
|
| Combined with advanced AR technology, all it may take is putting
| on some glasses to see the ghosts of your ancestors wandering the
| real world and interacting with it. Well, maybe not _our_
| ancestors. _We_ will be the ancestors, and our descendants will
| be the ones watching us, tending to our digital souls.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| If they had used a voice actor to recite the Bourdain letter ---
| would that be the same sacrilege as using an AI?
| grenoire wrote:
| Sacrilegious bit is that it's not disclosed. It's made to be
| deceptive.
| jowsie wrote:
| I think it would feel less weird/unsettling, but I'd still want
| a disclaimer at least, like any other recreation/reenactment.
| code_duck wrote:
| My brother and I had a running joke that Tom Araya from Slayer
| died in the mid 90s, based on his ashen appearance in the Divine
| Intervention sleeve. Our "theory" was all of his vocals after
| then were bits of previous recordings reassembled into new songs.
| It sounded technically possible with manual editing back then,
| but it has already gone so far as to automatable.
|
| In this case, for a documentary, I see how that's a defensible
| used case. They could hire an actor to read the email, imitating
| Bourdain's voice as closely as possible, to the same effect.
| Other uses certainly could be problematic. Discussing them and
| working out legal and cultural rules is very relevant right now.
| We've already had posthumous celebrity event appearances over the
| past couple of years. Famous actors could be in movies with
| needing to be involved very much - mainly an IP license. I have
| no doubt record companies would love to create new music with all
| the artists of the 60s-80s, dead or alive.
| jjcm wrote:
| I don't see this as any different than getting an actor to play
| the part. This happens all of the time in docos for a more
| immersive experience. JFK voice comes to mind quite a bit as an
| example. Is it unethical to get an actor to play his voice?
| mywittyname wrote:
| The major difference I see is that the viewer is aware that
| they are watching an actor. Or at least, they should be aware.
| It has always been standard practice to note when something
| being shown is a reenactment of an event, and not the actual
| one.
|
| Even if they used a voice actor to mimic Bourdain, they should
| have informed the audience that an actor was reading the
| script.
| nemo44x wrote:
| > It has always been standard practice to note when something
| being shown is a reenactment of an event, and not the actual
| one.
|
| Aren't the lines being read by robo-Bourdain actual things he
| write and/or said?
|
| I feel like there's a difference there even if it is a bit
| weird to not credit robo-Bourdain in those instances.
| thebean11 wrote:
| Voice has a lot more information than text. With a
| deepfake, all the information (despite his general sound
| and rhythm) is completely made up.
| nsomaru wrote:
| A deepfake audio + video with mask of the mayor of ethekwini was
| used to encourage people to continue looting during recent riots
| in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
|
| It's scary.
| jsonne wrote:
| Do you have a source? That's wild if true.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Googling "Deep fake ethekwini" brings up... this comment.
| borski wrote:
| To be fair, that doesn't make it untrue. It just means a
| source is required - the parent _may_ be a primary source,
| heh, but that has to be established.
|
| (I agree with you, I just have been corrected in the past
| with actual on-ground knowledge that hadn't been reported yet
| - don't know if that's the case here :))
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Looks like we have the first recorded instance of a metafake
| here.
| georgeglue1 wrote:
| This is all I could find...
| https://www.facebook.com/eThekwiniM/posts/4359537737429640
|
| I don't know what the referenced video is, or if it is a
| deepfake though.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-16 23:00 UTC)