pupbiru

not really… signing is only possible on exact copies (like byte exact; not even “the same image” but the same image, formatted the same, without being resized, etc)… there are things called perceptual hashes, and ways of checking if images are similar, but cryptography wouldn’t really help there

you don’t even need to cryptographically verify in that case because you already have a trusted authority: the whitehouse… of the video is on the whitehouse website, it’s trusted with no cryptography needed

the technical solutions only come into play when you’re trying to modify the video and still accurately show that it’s sourced from something verifiable

heck you could even have a standard where if a video adds a signature to itself, editing software will add the signature of the original, a canonical immutable link to the file, and timestamps for any cuts to the video… that way you (and by you i mean anyone; likely hidden from the user) can load up a video and be able to link to the canonical version to verify

in this case, verification using ML would actually be much easier because you (servers) just download the canonical video, cut it as per the metadata, and compare what’s there to what’s in the current video

kinda… trademark law and copyright is pretty tightly controlled on the big social media platforms, and really that’s the target here

TLDR: trademark law yes, combined with a cryptographic signature in the video metadata… if a platform sees and verifies the signature, they are required to put the verified logo prominently around the video

i’m not talking about HDCP no. i’m talking about the certification process for HDMI, USB, etc

(random site that i know nothing about): https://www.pacroban.com/en-au/blogs/news/hdmi-certifications-what-they-mean-and-why-they-matter

you’re right; that’s trademark law. basically you’re only allowed to put the HDMI logo on products that are certified as HDMI compatible, which has specifications on the manufacturing quality of cables etc

in this case, you’d only be able to put the verified logo next to videos that are cryptographically signed in the metadata as originating from the whitehouse (or probably better, some federal election authority who signs any campaign videos as certified/legitimate: in australia we have the AEC - australian electoral commission - a federal body that runs our federal elections and investigations election issues, etc)

now this of course wouldn’t work for sites outside of US control, but it would at least slow the flow of deepfakes on facebook, instagram, tiktok, the platform formerly known as twitter… assuming they implemented it, and assuming the govt enforced it

it would potentially be associated with a law that states that you must not misrepresent a “verified” UI element like a check mark etc, and whilst they could technically add a verified mark wherever they like, the law would prevent that - at least for US companies

it may work in the same way as hardware certifications - i believe that HDMI has a certification standard that cables and devices must be manufactured to certain specifications to bear the HDMI logo, and the HDMI logo is trademarked so using it without permission is illegal… it doesn’t stop cheap knock offs, but it means if you buy things in stores in most US-aligned countries that bear the HDMI mark, they’re going to work

i wouldn’t say signature exactly, because that ensures that a video hasn’t been altered in any way: no re-encoded, resized, cropped, trimmed, etc… platforms almost always do some of these things to videos, even if it’s not noticeable to the end-user

there are perceptual hashes, but i’m not sure if they work in a way that covers all those things or if they’re secure hashes. i would assume not

perhaps platforms would read the metadata in a video for a signature and have to serve the video entirely unaltered if it’s there?

my other server is a cloud tho

it’s not a different voice to start with: i hear it as… my inner monologue i guess?… sometimes not even a voice exactly; it’s just a feeling… but if you repeat it, or put the feeling into a voice and say it in a ridiculous way then that, for me, overrides the original feeling

maybe it’s acknowledging it exists, thinking about it, and then turning it ridiculous makes you consciously put it into a “fuck you that feeling is false” category… i’m not really sure beyond here :p

another good trick is to give the voice a stupid cartoonish voice: make it say things like goofy… it disarms it if it sounds ridiculous

(also works for intrusive thoughts about yourself: they’re late because they don’t want to spend time with me, they say they like my thing but they sounded sarcastic, etc)

however implying because this fictional character has sex and has a good job means your depression is somehow “less” is problematic; fictional or not

i have a well paid job and have plenty of sex, but my depression is very much real… to someone in my situation struggling with working out their mental health, the kind of sentiment on display might make me reconsider whether my problems are “big enough” or whether i should “just get over it” or that “other people have it worse so my feelings are invalid”

fictional or not, the situation has parallels to real life, and real people are in similar positions. the damage is in reinforcing that their problems aren’t worthy of mental health support, and i can absolutely tell you that in this situation, acknowledging that you’re worth the support exactly because your problems seem trivial is a huge issue

for YOUR use case… which is using it for extended periods as a massive desktop

i’d say that’s pretty niche actually… most people aren’t using technology for hours at a time