[hurpaDurpa]

I'd have to agree. In fact, I'm actually glad to see some pushback against the seemingly indelible veracity of photographic imagery.

Photos, and by corollary video, haven't been incontrovertible for at least two decades, and Hollywood movies are a clear demonstration of that fact.

We won't really be able to rely on pictures as proof, at some point in the immediate future.

Unfortunately, in an ever-more terrifying far-flung future, where eye surgery becomes sufficiently advanced, we won't even be able to trust our eyes. After that, I think it's probably just game over.

I really just don't have a strategy to countermand that one.

[abruzzi]

I think the pictures-as-proof is a straw man. There are a lot of people that believe what they see if it reinforces their existing beliefs. If you make videos of Trump saying something bad, people on the left will believe it, even if the provenance is weak, and people on the right will be inclined to disbelief. A similar fake video with Obama or Clinton will have an opposite effect. Much of that effect can be had without any provenance at all due to the general ability of videos to circulate, usually though social media, with little to no real “authoritative source” to validate them.

[mjw_byrne]

I think the general public is learning how to be sceptical, albeit slowly. It used to be the case that merely being published counted as authority (I remember reading about UFO abductions and thinking "this is a real book! There must be some truth to it!" In my defence I was eight years old) but the internet is forcing everyone to be less naive.

That being said, movements like the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers are testament to people's ability to believe whatever the hell they want.