I didn't down-vote you(in fact I don't have the karma to do so), but I think the reason you were down-voted is because the intent of your statement is unclear.

I didn't down-vote you(in fact I don't have the karma to do so), but I think the reason you were down-voted is because the intent of your statement is unclear. What I think you're trying to say is that while false captioning _should be_(and indeed _is_) easy to trace(given modern tools), it is still more prolific and successful(potent) than you would have expected. That said, your post reads like a train of thought, not an opinion.... You offer forth some conjecture, give an example, refute it, and then don't formally state your thoughts on the matter. It leaves us, as readers, nothing to respond to really... Let me give you an example. I'm going to describe the same thing two ways. a.)Bank robberies seem to be easy to stop today, with the multitude of security systems in place and general improved response time of law enforcement. For example, in the last decade multiple bank robberies were attempted and the overwhelming majority of them were foiled. It seems that no bank would be susceptible to a robbery, however robberies are as potent as ever. Check out these random sources I have relating to isolated cases of robberies [0][1] [0]-source [1]-source b.) It's surprising to see that bank robberies are so potent given the multitude of security systems in place, as well as the improved response time of law enforcement. It seems that banks wouldn't be susceptible to robberies given the tools they have at hand, yet we have evidence of it happening regularly, I wonder why that is. TLDR/In Short: You're offering us 'conjecture', that is; you're giving us your interpretation of how easy you think false caption detection should be(for the average pleb like myself), but you're failing to tell us why you have that opinion and then you exacerbate the situation by disagreeing with yourself.