dude@lemmings.worldM to news@lemmings.worldEnglish · 30 days agoThe DOJ Redacted a Photo of the Mona Lisa in the Epstein Fileswww.404media.coexternal-linkmessage-square8fedilinkarrow-up199arrow-down13 cross-posted to: nottheonion@lemmy.worldnottheonion@lemmy.world
arrow-up196arrow-down1external-linkThe DOJ Redacted a Photo of the Mona Lisa in the Epstein Fileswww.404media.codude@lemmings.worldM to news@lemmings.worldEnglish · 30 days agomessage-square8fedilink cross-posted to: nottheonion@lemmy.worldnottheonion@lemmy.world
minus-squareJakenVeina@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up23·edit-230 days agoIt’s cause they used some AI bullshit do the redactions, isn’t it? Of course, I’m still just guessing because the article that opens with “Now we know why” never actually explains why.
minus-squareMadison420@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·29 days agoNo they explain it in the article, the redacted version has a victims have pasted over the paintings face.
minus-squareJakenVeina@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·29 days agoThe article appears to have been changed, since I read it. For one, there’s now a paywall that wasn’t there before.
minus-squareSomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up27·30 days agoThe article has been updated to say that the original picture has a victim’s face photoshopped over the painting.
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·28 days agoSo the DoJ claims. Put a % number on how much you believe that statement.
minus-squareCouldntCareBear@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·29 days agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_stand-in You can see that it’s upright on a street somewhere.
minus-squareSomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·28 days agoThat makes sense, but then if it was a modern photo I’d kind-of expect the background (or the whole thing) to be in colour?
It’s cause they used some AI bullshit do the redactions, isn’t it?
Of course, I’m still just guessing because the article that opens with “Now we know why” never actually explains why.
No they explain it in the article, the redacted version has a victims have pasted over the paintings face.
The article appears to have been changed, since I read it. For one, there’s now a paywall that wasn’t there before.
The article has been updated to say that the original picture has a victim’s face photoshopped over the painting.
So the DoJ claims.
Put a % number on how much you believe that statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_stand-in
You can see that it’s upright on a street somewhere.
That makes sense, but then if it was a modern photo I’d kind-of expect the background (or the whole thing) to be in colour?