The comment is fake. The points in it are valid, though.
The big difference here is whether a comment or API response is claiming any kind of authority over certain data, or is a self-contained argument where the validity doesn't depend on where it comes from.
But for real.
I had an idea a while back: with all the photo/audio/video manipulation and ‘deep fakes’, there should be a certification available that accompanies (very expensive) cameras/recorders with protected firmware that signs each and every raw frame/recording, so the original is always available upon request from any type of inquiry or investigation.
This seems like a good idea at first but what about whistleblowers or informants?
You've misunderstood the point. The goal is not to identify users. The goal is to sign messages to ensure they were actually outputted by a service.
It's much less painful to abandon the idea that photographs, videos and sound can be ultimately trusted.
https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2011/04/nikon-image-authenticatio...
Same thing happened with Canon's implementation the year before.
I figured it had already been tried.
I wonder if it can still be done.