Not The Onion

20164 readers

1788 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

231

The DOJ Redacted a Photo of the Mona Lisa in the Epstein Files (www.404media.co)

submitted 12 hours ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Department of Justice redacted the face of the Mona Lisa, a 522-year-old painting of an Italian woman who died centuries ago, as part of its release of files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffery Epstein.

In a PDF of an email with the subject line “simply paris” sent on July 3, 2009, a redacted sender sent Epstein several photos of, presumably, himself and a woman sightseeing in Paris. The photos of the woman are all redacted with a black box over her face, but the man’s face is visible.

The photos are from tourist locations like Disneyland Paris, the Versailles fountains, and the Louvre, where the Mona Lisa is installed. “We just walked around all over the city not just the sight seeing...we took like 1500 pictures so was really difficult to decide wich to send! :)” the sender wrote at the end of the email.

Archive: http://archive.today/38KfF

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 27 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

This kinda confirms to me that they used AI to do the majority of the redaction.

[–] CouldntCareBear@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 hours ago

It's one of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_stand-in

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 16 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Reading is hard.

DOJ told 404 Media that the unredacted version of the document in question contains an image of a victim’s face overlayed on the face of the Mona Lisa image.

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 19 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

I don't belive them. I have no reason to belive them.

[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 11 points 9 hours ago

There are many reasons to not believe them.

[–] BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is just such a weird thing to call out as a lie. Pretty sure you're only doing it so you can validate your snap conclusion. Why would they lie about this? Its not like it makes them look better; pasting some victim's face over a revered piece of artwork so they can pervertedly leer at both simultaneously is not projecting the image they want. Maybe stick to calling out consequential, evident lies.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Why would they lie about this?

To hide the fact that the redactions are decided by AI and the files could have been released months ago.

[–] BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

But, like, this one specifically. There are a hundred better examples you could point to for this. Earlier I saw a headline that there are censored random words like "and" or even "I." But claiming they lied about there being a real person's face on there is just self serving.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

But, like, this one specifically

Because it is a ridiculous example that is highly memeable. DoJ was so lazy they even censored the most famous face in the world.

But claiming they lied about there being a real person's face on there is just self serving.

Trust in justice is so low that we don't believe their explanation for censorship. There is no serving of self in that statement.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That's weird that you'd believe the DOJ over any other plausible theory they're trying to discredit.

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So to prove it they need to post the picture? Dumb argument.

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 11 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

This is the same DOJ that we know is illegally censoring pedophiles names. Why should we belive them?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago

The dirty perverts trapped in Epsteins honeypot were innocent. Everyone except Epstein is a victim and needs protection.

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works -2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Occams razor

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 10 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Exactly. The lying Liars who lie keep lying and it explains all the weird shit we keep seeing with the redactions. Glad you agree.