lets just hold the line of “the answer is always username/password + second factor”.

could be username/password + totp…

could be username/password + passkey…

if someone figures out my password, i dont lose everything…

if someone steals my passkey, i dont lose everything…

even if i do use the same password for everything, the second factor has it covered.

(nobody will ever guess my password of ******** anyway!)

please stop fucking with the delicate balance of nature, its the only nature i’ve found that works for me

nope

sure, totally ok to incorporate those video items & publish your (signed) story. i think we’ve seen pretty clesrly that people want to publish and be recognised for their publications. building a web of trust has to start somewhere. currently we’re in the “its all very difficult, we cant solve all the tricky things, so we’re not even trying” stage. hopefully we find a way to move forward, even if its not perfect.

i think the point is to be able to say “this video was released by X, and X signed it so they must have released it, and you can validate that yourself”. it means if you see a logo that shows CNN, and its signed by CNN, then you know for sure that CNN released it. As a news organisation they should have their own due diligence about sources etc, but they can at least be held to account at that point. versus random ai generated video with a fake logo and fake attribution that is going viral and not being able to be discredited in time before it becomes truth.

maybe? was just trying to provide specific alternatives with a concrete example

… so make the phones do it?

i mean, its not rocket surgery.

so try again? also: if a pixel changes then it isn’t the original source video, by definition. being able to determine that it has been altered is entirely the point.

videos need to be cryptographically signed and able to be verified. all news outlets should do this.

nope.

i have been using “rss2email” for years. extremely simple, works great, deterministic. no need to reinvent the wheel for a simple use case, and thats half the point here - a lot of “solutions” being found were already solved.

are the two comparable? genuinely asking because i suspect AI usage is an order of magnitude or so more…

luddaite?

so… you’re refusing AI, but you are using AI? isnt the point of the story that people are not using because ethics? its not a discussion on how good they are, which is somewhat irrelevant.

google search got dumb on purpose, a whistleblower called it out - if you spend longer look on the search pages they get more “engagement” time out of you…

this would be more interesting comment if you explained what you were talking about? which of the many are vague and why etc

byeeeee

zorg strikes again…

education much?

there’s a lot going on in this article, but this part in particular is… uhh … a really special form of religious virtue…