[creaghpatr]

I think the risk is inversely proportional to how famous the person is. A political figure or celebrity will likely have the resources and publicly available metadata to show a video is fake beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’d be more concerned to see manufactured outrage having some random supporter saying/acting bad to someone on the other team, inciting the Twitter swarms to descend- by the time they dox the individual it’s too late for that person to go back to their normal life.

[temp-dude-87844]

This has always been the case for libel and slander and other misinformation. High-profile people have more resources to fight bad information (devoted supporters, real life social networks, money, lawyers), and they're more likely to have detractors who've tested their capabilities already. The risk to them is great, but they have more tools to recover.

The ones least equipped to defend against misinformation are people who have suddenly broken into the public sphere but lack the support systems to help their case. Typical sorts of people in this situation are fresh politicians (often local), viral 15-minutes-of-fame celebrities, and internet randoms who are called out online.

[ethbro]

You can't disprove a negative.

If it's technically indistinguishable, I can't see a valid line of attack against it.