I think that, at some level, people want to feel shocked and angry, or another strong (mainly negative) emotion.

We use the opportunity to validate our biases and we become blind to evidence that would negate our strong feelings. It takes a conscious effort to evaluate and check the sources, once that visceral reaction occurs.

>You don't look for signs of manipulation, you just wouldn't trust it at all without corroboration, I can type anything I like.

But people still trust what they hear and see.

So audio and video clips get more trust than written words.

> It baffles me

They are just marketing their products and services. They won't solve anything cause Media itself exists as Attention exploitation/manipulation service offered to the highest bidder.

Global Human Attention is a finite natural resource. Its needs to be treated the same way we treat water and uranium. Sooner or later we will get there.

I used to naively think that some kind of PKI/trust network for online media would have to rise up to thwart misinformation.

But anger is the real the reason why people want to believe obviously fake info about how Mexicans are manipulating the weather. We live in a society that tells you that you are free: freedom to work hard, treat people right and do the right thing. Then health, wealth and happiness will be yours.

But what if you do all those things and see the opposite happening to you and those around you? You want reasons. 5G brain control, Bill Gates and the Deep State all look like great explanations because long arcs of neoliberal monetarism and deregulated economics is, well, boring and quite hard to understand. So who cares about some AI fakery when that's going on?

Cant wait to say something on video, only for it to be flagged as AI with 90% certainty because I look too average.

There's good reason for the angst. A cornerstone that's absolutely necessary for representative government to function is a well-informed public.

Mis/disinformation becoming more prevalent and more convincing, already making it extremely difficult to debunk effectively, and the echo chambers afforded by social media algorithms and tailored-to-your-bias balkanization of traditional media makes debunking nigh impossible. "more speech" doesn't work when it can't penetrate the bubbles people live in.

So, we're in a bit of a catch-22: risk destroying freedoms via censorship or leave things alone and let them disappear on their own as society self-destructs due to a populace that no longer lives within a shared reality. A viable third option would be really nice.