That is... naive. The incentives for journalists don't necessarily align the the interests of the general public (transparency, thorough research, etc. etc.).
The point is that DKIM can be abused to lend undue credibility to falsified data... not that it can credibly attest true data.
These is absolutely no way you're going be able to educate the general public on the nuances of this. I mean, there are lots and lots of people who doubt the efficacy of vaccines and masks...
> The point is that DKIM can be abused to lend undue credibility to falsified data... not that it can credibly attest true data.
So can deep fakes. What makes deep fakes explainable and DKIM unexplainable?
If the journalists interests do not align about DKIM, how come they align about deepfakes?
I'm not saying journalists have any integrity. I'm just wondering why specifically for DKIM a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" solution is advocated, whereas for things like deep fake it isn't -- where the underlying truth is the same: "You can't trust what you see/hear".
I think what you are referring to is “whataboutism”, but I don’t think it is a case of whataboutism.
I have pointed out that in a similar case (potentially fake evidence), same actors (journalists) seem to have completely different incentives than those you hold so self-evident and I ask for an explanation of the difference - why is it so self evident that journalists have an incentive to not understand DKIM and not inform about it, but the same is not true of another concurrent challenge to evidence authenticity.
To me it sounds like you’re saying “journalists eat cotton candy because they like sweets, but they don’t like chocolate because they care about their teeth”. They might have this preference among cotton candy and chocolate, but the explanation is inconsistent and likely wrong.
The point is that DKIM can be abused to lend undue credibility to falsified data... not that it can credibly attest true data.
These is absolutely no way you're going be able to educate the general public on the nuances of this. I mean, there are lots and lots of people who doubt the efficacy of vaccines and masks...