Not that guy, but at a basic level one possible approach is that everyone will have a digital signature, everything posted can be verified against the signature. A faker could create new content but they won't be able to sign it correctly.
The tools for digital signing already exist and are used in niche industries but not really something everyday people are concerned about. It's more a social awareness problem and this will come with better tools, integrated with the apps and channels ordinary people use daily so that it is something that happens in the background.
In addition to digital signing, public distributed ledgers can establish provenance or a chain of ownership for signed content, so digital content that is altered and redistributed can be sourced back to its origin more accurately.
Ordinary people with the right tools built into their devices will be able to see very easily "Is it in the chain?" based on a simple enquiry to the ledger, and if the answer is no, then it's untrustworthy.
If the answer is yes, then they will ask "Does trace to the origin?" and if it does not, or the origin isn't signed by the alleged owner, then it is untrustworthy.
That's one possible way crypto can help defeat disinformation / fake news content. The underlying techniques exist but there is a lot of work to do to bind it to everyday use.
> Ordinary people with the right tools built into their devices will be able to see very easily "Is it in the chain?" based on a simple enquiry to the ledger, and if the answer is no, then it's untrustworthy.
Not that I disagree, but the first thing that came to mind when I read this part of your comment was that this approach reinforces the Monopoly of governments and media companies on the flow of information. On the one hand it's great that we could protect in this way from unverified, "not-in-the-chain" messages, but on the other hand being a contrarian, producing and coming into contact with information outside of the chain, not necessarily really fake videos, but other types of information is crucial to social evolution and civil discourse.
The "public" and "distributed" would be major priorities of mine in the scenario you describe.
The fake news company takes a photo of a protest. They then deepfake a celebrity into the photo, invalidating its cryptographic signature in the process. They then print the photo, and take a photo of the photo.
Their photo of the photo now has a valid cryptographic signature that proves it's real and trustworthy.
Incriminating videos don't originate from the incriminated person. They can and will be anonymous and no amount of signing is going to help with deep fake videos. All you can do is claim that this video is not from you, which doesn't matter because we know the video that incriminates you is not from you.
The tools for digital signing already exist and are used in niche industries but not really something everyday people are concerned about. It's more a social awareness problem and this will come with better tools, integrated with the apps and channels ordinary people use daily so that it is something that happens in the background.
In addition to digital signing, public distributed ledgers can establish provenance or a chain of ownership for signed content, so digital content that is altered and redistributed can be sourced back to its origin more accurately.
Ordinary people with the right tools built into their devices will be able to see very easily "Is it in the chain?" based on a simple enquiry to the ledger, and if the answer is no, then it's untrustworthy.
If the answer is yes, then they will ask "Does trace to the origin?" and if it does not, or the origin isn't signed by the alleged owner, then it is untrustworthy.
That's one possible way crypto can help defeat disinformation / fake news content. The underlying techniques exist but there is a lot of work to do to bind it to everyday use.