I don’t quite get why some of those cases require universal adoption. News photos: You just need one big news company to say “we’re giving all our photographers a camera with this tech” and then it serves its purpose.
You see a headline “SHOCKING photo published by MegaNewsCorp will send you into a coma!” then you can validate that it came from a MegaNewsCorp photographer. If you trust MegaNewsCorp, then the tech has done its job. If you didn’t trust MegaNewsCorp already, then this tech changes nothing. I think there is moderate value in that, overall.
The story of this tech is getting picked up and thrown around by bad tech journalism, being game-of-telephone’d into some kind of game changer.
Plenty of open standard live and die by whether or not one big player decides to adopt them.
… I literally just explained that a lot of those photos are crowd sourced. Which gets back to needing more or less universal adoption. And even then: Maybe I’ll give CNN a picture of a republican beating a child if I can strip the metadata. I am not giving that if it is going to trace back to me.
So then news orgs who care about provenance have to stop copying social media posts and treating them like well-researched journalism. Seems like a win to me.
You gave an example of TMZ sourcing photos from randos, but they’re likely not the target customer for this tech. If they cared about integrity they wouldn’t be reporting celebrity gossip.
For news companies posting syndicated images, then those come from a cadre of photographers who are most likely to own the newest most expensive cameras. Surely it’s not inconceivable that as this tech rolls out more, Agence-France-Presse, Getty, or AP could require all photos submitted to them to have this metadata, thus passing the benefits along to any news agency using their images.
If you’re talking about photo sources taken from everyday people, then yes: They won’t have this technology in the short term, maybe not ever. Then again, I don’t get my news from TMZ.
I think blockchain is dumb because it fails to achieve its stated goals while also harming society. I think this is a system with marginal use case and minimal licensing overhead to integrate into future cameras, so overall my take is “not dumb” and “probably useful”.
I don’t quite get why some of those cases require universal adoption. News photos: You just need one big news company to say “we’re giving all our photographers a camera with this tech” and then it serves its purpose.
You see a headline “SHOCKING photo published by MegaNewsCorp will send you into a coma!” then you can validate that it came from a MegaNewsCorp photographer. If you trust MegaNewsCorp, then the tech has done its job. If you didn’t trust MegaNewsCorp already, then this tech changes nothing. I think there is moderate value in that, overall.
The story of this tech is getting picked up and thrown around by bad tech journalism, being game-of-telephone’d into some kind of game changer.
Plenty of open standard live and die by whether or not one big player decides to adopt them.
… I literally just explained that a lot of those photos are crowd sourced. Which gets back to needing more or less universal adoption. And even then: Maybe I’ll give CNN a picture of a republican beating a child if I can strip the metadata. I am not giving that if it is going to trace back to me.
So then news orgs who care about provenance have to stop copying social media posts and treating them like well-researched journalism. Seems like a win to me.
Sure. That is what is happening…
You gave an example of TMZ sourcing photos from randos, but they’re likely not the target customer for this tech. If they cared about integrity they wouldn’t be reporting celebrity gossip.
For news companies posting syndicated images, then those come from a cadre of photographers who are most likely to own the newest most expensive cameras. Surely it’s not inconceivable that as this tech rolls out more, Agence-France-Presse, Getty, or AP could require all photos submitted to them to have this metadata, thus passing the benefits along to any news agency using their images.
If you’re talking about photo sources taken from everyday people, then yes: They won’t have this technology in the short term, maybe not ever. Then again, I don’t get my news from TMZ.
I think blockchain is dumb because it fails to achieve its stated goals while also harming society. I think this is a system with marginal use case and minimal licensing overhead to integrate into future cameras, so overall my take is “not dumb” and “probably useful”.