By the time the video reaches the end user (i.e. on tiktok and the likes), it will have been re-compressed, edited, meme-ed, voiced over a dozen time. So not sure how you preserve trust in that chain.
Also, one thing HNers get fundamentally wrong is that anybody cares about trust/authenticity. And I don't see what's so special about photo/video.
One of the most common forms of submissions on Reddit/Twitter is an image with text, or a screenshot of a tweet, or a screenshot of a headline that makes a claim, and everyone takes it dead seriously.
Almost nobody is going "hmm let me look this up first to see if it even exists or accurately represents the facts".
So if all you need is an image of text for people to believe it, what does it even matter if you have this sophisticated system where you require photos to be signed by camera hardware or whatever? You aren't even putting a dent in how bullshit spreads.
I imagine a new type of bluetick would emerge. There will always be those who can't distinguish between a tick emoji next to a username and the actual thing, but that's a UX problem. Something shot and verified on-app could get a special, clickable tick on it when it's shared.
This removes the possibilities for bad actors to just one - the platform itself.
In any case, the audience will have to learn new ways to "trust" and tech alone won't be the solution. But I've less hope in people and more hope in new social contracts
I think LIDAR sensors would be useful to verify depth information in an image, on a side note.
You don't, the only reliable source will be the source that has signed the content. It basically takes us back to the times when the only footage available was curated and broadcast by TV.
Yeah, but I don't think Reuters, AP or AFP are anywhere near the top 1000 most popular accounts on tiktok. So they can sign anything they want, won't affect the average tiktok user.
One of the most common forms of submissions on Reddit/Twitter is an image with text, or a screenshot of a tweet, or a screenshot of a headline that makes a claim, and everyone takes it dead seriously.
Almost nobody is going "hmm let me look this up first to see if it even exists or accurately represents the facts".
So if all you need is an image of text for people to believe it, what does it even matter if you have this sophisticated system where you require photos to be signed by camera hardware or whatever? You aren't even putting a dent in how bullshit spreads.