[jamp897]

The concern around deep fakes is that they could be used to trick people, fair enough, but apparently tricking people doesn’t require much, if any, believably. Throughout history up to today people are tricked by the most obvious untruths with disastrous consequences on large scales.

[dublo7]

The end result of this is a bunch of trolls in Russia might be out of a job soon and get replaced by a server farm running in the target country pumping out similar but not identical stories.

What this might usher in is the era of cryptographically signed news articles. Not just credibility but verifiability. Blocking

[tcmb]

> What this might usher in is the era of cryptographically signed news articles.

Actually, how about cryptographically signing videos as they get written on the recording device?

Maybe there even are ways to sign data so that the integrity can get validated on shorter segments, so that clips can be cut. Write a signature every 5 seconds for the past 5 seconds?

Edit: This exists and the term for it is 'video authentication'.

[ric2b]

> Actually, how about cryptographically signing videos as they get written on the recording device?

That wouldn't prove much besides that the person sharing the video had access to the device's private key. I think the best you can do is timestamp the video by uploading a hash of it to a blockchain, but even then that only proves the video existed sometime before that instant.

[noir_lord]

> What this might usher in is the era of cryptographically signed news articles. Not just credibility but verifiability. Blocking.

Huh, I'd never even considered that you could do that.

[pizza]

For what it's worth, it's almost never the case that the lack of proof of the identity of a news article author is what causes it to be fake news. More often, it's:

- a fact that has been distorted to be interpreted in a 180 degree way (Americans paying tariffs to the US Gov for buying Chinese goods = Trump saying "China is finally paying us!"), or

- a total untruth slipped in between valid concerns (like the fake Russian Black Lives Matter pages piggybacking off of civil rights abuses mentioned by the American Black Lives Matters campaigns), or just

- incitement of uncertainty in more or less solved problem domains (anti-vaxxers)

If you are interested in learning about more (failed attempts at) verified news platforms, though, try looking up verrit, and pravduh

[hanniabu]

Yes, but people quoted or referenced can provide their signature as proof to say they not only agree this is correct but that they also confirm it is not taken out of context or misconstrued.

[pizza]

I agree, you could probably attach some kind of social proof key-ring to news articles. That said, I feel like this would devolve into a "social currency for real currency" under-the-table paid sponsorship kind of deal rather quickly. We seem to have plenty of stealth ads nowadays, and it's especially disconcerting because iirc only 1 in 10 could discern them. I guess it could still be worth giving a shot in the hands of the right tinkerer.

[jamp897]

The problem is that it doesn’t matter if someone is told something isn’t true, their beliefs aren’t changed.

[Waterluvian]

I wonder if there's an extent it can be brought to that is so absurd that not even the most ignorant people can continue to buy into.