To be fair the idea behind nft’s is great when its about tracking a commodity, item or piece of information.
Its making them “THE” commodity that is cringe levels of stupid.
I still hope that one day press will have professional onlines cameras generating an nft with location, time and camera id for every piece of footage. No more fake news with misused imagery.
I get what you want, I mostly fail to see how NFTs help there either. If a digital camera is generating the SHA256 or whatever that even links to the video file (and this would only work for the RAW, not even compressed for transmission data), then it’s a computer generating the data. I don’t really see why you couldn’t just have a computer generate a “fake camera” - it’s not like you’re going to be able to audit all the cameras a news org uses, and it’d be easy for someone to say they “lost” a camera, or it was stolen or whatever. And for the user submitted stuff from smartphones or their video cameras … etc.
The problem with NFTs is always the link to the actual thing IMO. There’s just no cryptographic way to link a physical item or anything that doesn’t itself fit on the chain, nor is there a way to verify the original claims input that’s outside the blockchain - i.e. it’ll verify when the NFT was uploaded to the chain, but not when the video was taken. There’s no obvious way for the blockchain to validate the GPS data provided (or not) by the camera that took the video etc.
Appreciating your points, it’s true that while the camera wouldn’t be foolproof, the nft can still significantly augment the traceability of media. When official channels and news is encouraged to source footage from there then certified uploaders would add a layer of trust, and legal reuse could be monitored effectively with a clickable badge/mark It’s not without its vulnerabilities, but it’s a step towards a more accountable media landscape. And makes it easier for people to dismiss random propaganda imagery shared online.
Does it? People misunderstood SSL so badly thr browsers started hiding the lock icon and actual details of the certs.
But your idea still comes down to who you trust. If you trust the NYT then you’re going to go to their site they already control to see their images. If you aren’t sourcing the images from random third parties then this does nothing. And if you’re already trusting random Facebook pages, they can also NFT their posts.
You seem to think no one can certify upload accounts now? But of course they do already.
To be fair the idea behind nft’s is great when its about tracking a commodity, item or piece of information.
Its making them “THE” commodity that is cringe levels of stupid.
I still hope that one day press will have professional onlines cameras generating an nft with location, time and camera id for every piece of footage. No more fake news with misused imagery.
I get what you want, I mostly fail to see how NFTs help there either. If a digital camera is generating the SHA256 or whatever that even links to the video file (and this would only work for the RAW, not even compressed for transmission data), then it’s a computer generating the data. I don’t really see why you couldn’t just have a computer generate a “fake camera” - it’s not like you’re going to be able to audit all the cameras a news org uses, and it’d be easy for someone to say they “lost” a camera, or it was stolen or whatever. And for the user submitted stuff from smartphones or their video cameras … etc.
The problem with NFTs is always the link to the actual thing IMO. There’s just no cryptographic way to link a physical item or anything that doesn’t itself fit on the chain, nor is there a way to verify the original claims input that’s outside the blockchain - i.e. it’ll verify when the NFT was uploaded to the chain, but not when the video was taken. There’s no obvious way for the blockchain to validate the GPS data provided (or not) by the camera that took the video etc.
Appreciating your points, it’s true that while the camera wouldn’t be foolproof, the nft can still significantly augment the traceability of media. When official channels and news is encouraged to source footage from there then certified uploaders would add a layer of trust, and legal reuse could be monitored effectively with a clickable badge/mark It’s not without its vulnerabilities, but it’s a step towards a more accountable media landscape. And makes it easier for people to dismiss random propaganda imagery shared online.
Does it? People misunderstood SSL so badly thr browsers started hiding the lock icon and actual details of the certs.
But your idea still comes down to who you trust. If you trust the NYT then you’re going to go to their site they already control to see their images. If you aren’t sourcing the images from random third parties then this does nothing. And if you’re already trusting random Facebook pages, they can also NFT their posts.
You seem to think no one can certify upload accounts now? But of course they do already.
Right, it’s sad how nfts are just a joke now because of the worst possible execution of what an nft could do/be became a massive scam