4 ms·

I wonder if at that point people will rightfully lose confidence in the authenticity of digital media, or if people are doomed to believe what they see...

by air7 3y ago

Zetobal 3y ago
Why differentiate between digital and offline media do you believe the gro isn't produced digitally?
sandworm101 3y ago
Or famous people can maintain authoritative lists of things they have done and said. Something as simple as Imdb can do much in debunking fakery.
- trashtester 3y ago
  In principle, any digital artifact may be digitally signed, just like web pages are (using CA's). That way, you can set up a chain of trust, to track where some information is coming from. This works as long as there is at least a top level signature provider that is uncorrupted. That will be hard in authoritarian societies and maybe even harder in radically polarized societies. Imagine a world where the CPP, DNC and GOP (and others) each controlled their own CA's, and had the ability to present a fake view of reality to their supporters.
- dylan604 3y ago
  There’s information about me on IMDb that isn’t accurate. Not once ever have I added information about me on IMDb, so where exactly is this authoritative information on IMDb coming from? Requests by me to have information corrected goes no where. IMDb as an authoritative source is pure folly at best
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    Something as simple as IMBD, not literally IMDB. It is possible for famous people to maintain curated lists of their official work. Presidents especially do this, eventually putting it all into presidential libraries. Or it isn't possible to verify any information online because [reasons] and then our entire society falls apart as nothing online can ever be trusted. We aren't anywhere near that point.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > Or famous people can maintain authoritative lists of things they have done and said. Which can easily omit things they did say but wish they hadn't.
kalleboo 3y ago
"Digital" doesn't mean anything more. I live in Japan where Instax instant camera are super popular. Fujifilm makes more money off of making and selling Polaroid-style analog instant film than any single other business. The Impossible Project is cute and fun for hipsters but Instax has been there making film all along. But they realized that young women today aren't happy how they look, and they want to use Instagram-style beauty filters on themselves, so they started selling Instax Bluetooth printers. They take analog instant film cartridges, but they use an LCD to imprint the photo onto them. So now you get the nostalgia of Polaroid photos, but you can edit your face as much as you want. Is this digital or analog?
- bordercases 3y ago
  The real argument is around degrees of reconstruction in image. Cameras never depict light fully faithfully in the analog world.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    And even in the fully analog days there was plenty of doctoring of photos, it just wasn't as accessible to the common man without the equipment. Famously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> use an LCD to imprint the photo onto them. It's just blurry digital. The polaroid film is acting as a really lossy medium for the digital information. Look close enough and you will likely still find artifacts of digital photography in the "film" printout.

I wonder if at that point people will rightfully lose confidence in the authenticity of digital media, or if people are doomed to believe what they see...

by air7 3y ago

I wonder if at that point people will rightfully lose confidence in the authenticity of digital media, or if people are doomed to believe what they see...

Zetobal 3y ago

Why differentiate between digital and offline media do you believe the gro isn't produced digitally?

sandworm101 3y ago

Or famous people can maintain authoritative lists of things they have done and said. Something as simple as Imdb can do much in debunking fakery.

trashtester 3y ago
In principle, any digital artifact may be digitally signed, just like web pages are (using CA's). That way, you can set up a chain of trust, to track where some information is coming from. This works as long as there is at least a top level signature provider that is uncorrupted. That will be hard in authoritarian societies and maybe even harder in radically polarized societies. Imagine a world where the CPP, DNC and GOP (and others) each controlled their own CA's, and had the ability to present a fake view of reality to their supporters.
dylan604 3y ago
There’s information about me on IMDb that isn’t accurate. Not once ever have I added information about me on IMDb, so where exactly is this authoritative information on IMDb coming from? Requests by me to have information corrected goes no where. IMDb as an authoritative source is pure folly at best
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Something as simple as IMBD, not literally IMDB. It is possible for famous people to maintain curated lists of their official work. Presidents especially do this, eventually putting it all into presidential libraries. Or it isn't possible to verify any information online because [reasons] and then our entire society falls apart as nothing online can ever be trusted. We aren't anywhere near that point.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Or famous people can maintain authoritative lists of things they have done and said. Which can easily omit things they did say but wish they hadn't.

kalleboo 3y ago

"Digital" doesn't mean anything more. I live in Japan where Instax instant camera are super popular. Fujifilm makes more money off of making and selling Polaroid-style analog instant film than any single other business. The Impossible Project is cute and fun for hipsters but Instax has been there making film all along. But they realized that young women today aren't happy how they look, and they want to use Instagram-style beauty filters on themselves, so they started selling Instax Bluetooth printers. They take analog instant film cartridges, but they use an LCD to imprint the photo onto them. So now you get the nostalgia of Polaroid photos, but you can edit your face as much as you want. Is this digital or analog?

bordercases 3y ago
The real argument is around degrees of reconstruction in image. Cameras never depict light fully faithfully in the analog world.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  And even in the fully analog days there was plenty of doctoring of photos, it just wasn't as accessible to the common man without the equipment. Famously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...
sandworm101 3y ago
>> use an LCD to imprint the photo onto them. It's just blurry digital. The polaroid film is acting as a really lossy medium for the digital information. Look close enough and you will likely still find artifacts of digital photography in the "film" printout.