| In general, in EU - law doesn't play "wording nitpicking", "Simon said" or similar nonsense. And this applies here, too. - law doesn't care about what you or any "specific" person thinks something means/looks. i.e. if you ask 1000 random people if something "looks authentic" and more then a very very small fractions says it is "authentic looking" then it is authentic looking (idk. what "more then a very small fraction" is, but 10% is definitely more) Honestly any honest interpretation of "do you try or thing a random person from the street might mistake it as authentic (based on the _looks_, not content)" is giving you a pretty good idea for what it means. (honest here == not definition nitpicking, not egocentric, not elitist, not defaultist, etc. ) But also most relevant: _This (authentic looking) is the wording of the article not the law/regulation._ This is mostly about content which tries to manipulate people with deep fakes. And stuff like it being clear if e.g. a AI backed voice translation was used, as there had been more then one or two cases of voice translations being wrong in a way you would attribute to malice for a human translator. E.g. Ai generated voice overs putting |