2 ms·
The deepfakes that people are worried about are ones that, if they were real, they'd not authorize anyway, so the lack of a digital signature wouldn't help dist
by yorwba 2y ago
The deepfakes that people are worried about are ones that, if they were real, they'd not authorize anyway, so the lack of a digital signature wouldn't help distinguish deepfakes from leaks. At the same time, digitally signing something real just makes it hard to disavow later when you suddenly feel embarrassed by it. Hence there's little reason to sign anything.
On the other hand, maintaining a list of photos that are allowed to be posted, where platforms take down anything else with a facial recognition match might work better than the status quo where platforms maintain lists of stuff that isn't allowed to be posted. But it's up to platforms whether they want to implement such a system.
- mojomark 2y agoOK, so, extend that philosophy to any media content. The method I describe above would force whomever is publishing content that that want to "seem legitimate" assign a human person (digital signature) as the source. Then, it would be easy to say "well, this content doesn't have a legitimate source that I can point to, so, it's probably fake. And, if people are afraid to post the content without personally backing it up, they probably shouldn't be posting.