3 ms·
> So you're arguing that at some point in the future, nobody will give even the slightest credence to amateur footage captured on camera phones I think that's
by xienze 7y ago
> So you're arguing that at some point in the future, nobody will give even the slightest credence to amateur footage captured on camera phones
I think that's the end goal of all the "deep fake" hysteria we're being primed with. In the future if some damning video of a politician or other elite member of society pops up the defense will simply be "well you can't rule out that it's a fake, look, it's not signed and it's not in our database of trusted videos!"
- pessimizer 7y agoOr the end goal of the "fake news" scare in general (not to say that there aren't sites that specialize in making up news.) To combat "fake news," you start whitelisting "true news," and defining it by the influence of the provider, not the content. In the end, you just end up with state news sources. related: It's telling that "factchecking" isn't a dialogue between various authorities, but instead just a bunch of weird private judicial systems with no appeals courts, selected and assigned to specific stories by internet aggregation intermediaries. Eventually, this can't help but shake out as stories being divided into two categories: factual and banned from distribution. I sadly feel that we're about 10 years away from licensing journalists with a security clearance-type process that must be sponsored by an approved outlet. The PropOrNot at the Post shook me a bit.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago1st amendment won't allow that, but then again people seem to want to throw out the 2nd without a constitutional convention so it's not impossible. I can see the arguments now, "it's the freedom of the press, are you the press? Then why do you have a own a fully automatic printing press?"