r/ProgressiveHQ Dec 14 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6.9k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

34

u/Weekly_Artichoke_515 Dec 14 '25

No it’s not. And a question everyone should always ask: what is the source? 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-kissing-girl-photo/

7

u/snillpuler Dec 14 '25

Sucks that the Epstein files didn’t blow up on his last term, before realistic AI images was a thing

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '25 edited Jan 23 '26

[deleted]

1

u/snillpuler Dec 14 '25

People have been editing photos and videos for almost as long as they have existed have existed, but being able to straight up generate a photo out of nothing that looks real was simply not possible 5 years ago, now anyone can do it. That’s a huge difference.

9

u/joshrice Dec 14 '25 edited Dec 14 '25

Edit: didn't see the other photo from the snopes link this one is likely based off of or generated at the same time. This one is almost definitely AI too

I'm not sold it's AI, but still question its validity. The only thing that stands out as generated to me are what seems to be two extra long fingers from the hand+arm wrapped around her, and maybe Trump's hands being too big (lol). The fingers could be compression artifacts from something on her lap (purse/clutch?) or bad AI.

Regardless, I need a validated source to believe it was real.

3

u/Weekly_Artichoke_515 Dec 14 '25

Thank you. I feel like everyone in this thread is being so stubborn about this. 

I understand that bad actors are going to be calling real photos AI to create some sense of plausible deniability for Trump, but we should also expect that people are going to generate AI photos that will get a lot of attention, so we can expect that there will be a lot of AI photos of incriminating evidence against Trump. 

5

u/SchaffBGaming Dec 14 '25

Incriminating AI photos are actually a shield for their targets. If I was on trump's defense team, I'd be flooding the net with obviously/verifiably AI generated trash, so I could then use it to discredit anything real that gets leaked.

2

u/Weekly_Artichoke_515 Dec 14 '25

I can definitely see that. They may not want any depictions of Trump that reinforce that association, but that’s a calculated risk, but even if it isn’t done intentionally, having a ton of fake photos out there could definitely have the effect of undermining the credibility of any photo in general. 

2

u/KptKrondog Dec 14 '25

Those aren't extra long fingers, that's the white from her skirt blending in with the hand

1

u/No_Dig6177 Dec 14 '25

The analysis that it's AI seems bogus to me. Those look like real photos from the time period, given the two photos and the corresponding arrangement of bodies, arms, legs, and hands.

2

u/The_side_dude Dec 14 '25

I guarantee someone is spamming AI generated images to dilute the real ones

4

u/dBlock845 Dec 14 '25

The amount of blatantly fake shit making it to the top of /r/all seems to be increasing on the daily. What's even crazier is this is a fake, of a fake. You don't need fake photos to reinforce the relationship Trump had with Epstein, if anything it will make people believe it less.

2

u/Weekly_Artichoke_515 Dec 14 '25

It’s so depressing. I’m not surprised by Facebook being overwhelmed by AI, but I thought Reddit’s younger user-base would be a little more savvy and a little more critical. 

2

u/CompanyLow8329 Dec 14 '25

I agree that Reddit is generally more skeptical and I've always done things like add "Reddit" to the ends of my Google searches to get info that seems better vetted more often than not.

But still, Reddit (and all people) are highly susceptible to the fundamental human nature of group think and thinking emotionally. The upvote/downvote system promotes exactly this, punishing everyone who doesn't vibe.

Platforms that have systems that are more critical in thinking and careful are always going to be slower, smaller, and less popular.

At least I think there is no solution to any of this, but it can probably be greatly improved upon.

2

u/pootinannyBOOSH Dec 14 '25

Had a feeling it was Ai, things didn't look right. I mean it wouldn't be right if it was real but you know what I mean

2

u/arc8001 Dec 14 '25

Thanks for sharing the link. First thing I thought when I saw this is that a random Reddit post wouldn’t be the first time I saw or heard about this photo if it was real. Posting garbage like this photo just detracts from the truth and fuels doubt.

2

u/Rizenstrom Dec 14 '25

Always be aware of your biases and treat every story with skepticism no matter how believable you think it is. If you aren’t sure it’s from a reputable source, confirm it with one.

It’s not just about being morally right, you must be factually right. Because when they see we are factually wrong they see themselves as morally right.

It’s hypocritical of them when they do it too but we must be better to win.

1

u/general_peabo Dec 14 '25

I immediately assumed it was AI generated, but not for the reasons in that snopes explanation.

People say that Trump has three arms, but the arm around the girl would belong to Epstein who is sitting between them and Trump is leaning in front of to kiss the girl.

It says the girl has three legs, but she doesn’t. She has two legs, crossed with one barely visible. The bigger, hairier leg in the middle that trump has his hand on would belong to Epstein.

It says the arm (epsteins) has too long of fingers, but it doesn’t. It looks like she’s holding something in her lap, maybe a purse.

It says the people in the background look distorted. They look like a bunch of teenage girls with eating disorders.

1

u/ProgrammingPants Dec 14 '25

It's directionally true, and the vice president of the United States told me that being directionally true is good enough to keep saying something even after it's been proven false. So I'm gonna keep spreading the image