Herein lies the balancing act that’s easier said than done:
completely fraudulent over-the-top (but realistic) artificially generated videos and photos”
If it’s too over-the-top, then some people will figure they didn’t need an expert fact-checker to debunk it. If it’s too likely, then some people will still believe it despite the debunking. The manipulators will be left with lukewarm events that many people won’t really care if true or not. It will be difficult for the expert fact checkers to build credibility while being ignored. I agree with Enthios that they’ll try. This dynamic has been speculated upon since the introduction of deep fakes several years ago. The upshot will be increased demand for digital forensics, and then the cycle will begin anew with the scrutiny of the forensics experts rather than the “analog” fact-checkers. At least in that case there will ultimately be a digital trail to reveal objectivity.
Herein lies the balancing act that’s easier said than done:
If it’s too over-the-top, then some people will figure they didn’t need an expert fact-checker to debunk it. If it’s too likely, then some people will still believe it despite the debunking. The manipulators will be left with lukewarm events that many people won’t really care if true or not. It will be difficult for the expert fact checkers to build credibility while being ignored. I agree with Enthios that they’ll try. This dynamic has been speculated upon since the introduction of deep fakes several years ago. The upshot will be increased demand for digital forensics, and then the cycle will begin anew with the scrutiny of the forensics experts rather than the “analog” fact-checkers. At least in that case there will ultimately be a digital trail to reveal objectivity.