Back to the old ways?
In a way, the arrival of deepfakes tech and its inevitable use as a propaganda tool—yes, inevitable, beyond question: Vlad The Emailer's little crew of scumbags will be all over this like a rash, right now—might actually turn out to have a silver lining.
The point case is undoubtedly politics. And few would disagree that 21st century politics, even in the west, is suffering a crisis of falsehood, corruption and democratic deficit. So consider: if politicians are routinely faked in video, with footage available everywhere, pretty soon no one with a scrap of sense*¹ will believe what they see. Mainstream media will try to defuse this by employing Fair Witnesses to certify that video is true to life, but the level of distrust is still going to be sky high. (Fake video won't harm pathological liars like Trump: it'll actually help him, because he will claim that the asburd lies and contradictions shown on the screen were made up by enemies. After all, grown-ups already find it hard to believe that a human being as patently unfit, ignorant and downright ridiculous as Trump is president at all.)
A century or more ago, a politician wishing to spread their message, demonstrate intelligence and integrity, show compassion, decency and wisdom, and sell themselves to the voters, did this by frequently appearing in public. They'd get up on a soapbox, schedule a meeting in the town hall or the church or the factory, and spend hours, if necessary, speechifying and taking questions. It was often a rough and rowdy business, because they'd meet both supporters and critics and have to develp masterful powers of persuasion and quick thinking.
In fact, that is so far from (to take one one example) Theresa May's spectacularly cowardly tour before last year's election—doing anything to avoid a critical question, packing every venue with guaranteed supporters, scripting everything—that you have to wonder whether this might an excellent way to filter out the dross. Instead of the lying 'Career Politician' hypocrites who can barely read a teleprompter and never answer a straight question (the appalling May, again), we will get people who have the mental robustness, commitment and intestinal fortitude to tour the country, to meet ordinary people, to make their case in words folks can understand, to show that they can actually think about and answer tough questions. Is there a better way to establish a persona that voters can relate to, and perhaps have trust in? Far from the shallow, lazy imbeciles so common in Westminster now, we might actually return to having MPs who are intelligent, energetic and willing to work hard for their beliefs.
All of that said, however, there remains the question of how people communicate their audience experience to each other. An anonymous internet—which personally, I am thinking, has turned out to be a terrible thing, as a place for the worst cowards and vilest bigots to hide—may yet make a mockery of even the best candidates' performances.
I guess we're going to find out.
*¹ "no one with a scrap of sense" = excluding the frothing, hate-filled denizens of right wing echo chambers, some of whom seriously believe that the colour of the outer millimetre of a person's epidermis means something. Racism: the equivalent of a forehead tattoo saying "Thick as Shit"
Biting the hand that feeds IT
