> But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

The technology to fool someone who has the TV on in the background has existed forever. You could do it with a stunt double. The problem is fooling everyone such that "this video is faked" doesn't become a bigger story than the fake video in the first place.

Some people would demand fake videos supporting their point of view be taken seriously.

Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.

Exactly. We've seen this in responses to (for example) the Rolling Stone fake sexual assault story. Many people said "the problem is real even if this story may not be."

So people may push fake stories to make what they believe to be a justified point.

  Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.

I didn't understand your scenario. Can you expand on that?

Saying "the Nixon video is fake" in a community of Nixon truthers will get you verbally attacked? It seems extremely likely.

It's already a common troll[1] to just post "FAKE" in anything where the evidence is difficult/impossible to verify. There's a whole subreddit, /r/NothingEverHappens, devoted to making fun of this troll, and adding politics/culture war to the mix will just make the backlash to people who call "FAKE" that much worse.

[1] "Troll" as in "derailing tactic used by people who don't know or care if it's really fake or not" simply to be extra-clear. In politics, throwing out chaff and using derailing tactics to make it effectively impossible to have certain discussions in open fora can be a good way to prevent inconvenient ideas from being spread, in addition to the usual tactics around sowing uncertainty and confusion among the enemy.

>But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

I'm not convinced deepfakes will be that big of a problem because people already believe things that aren't real (and don't believe things that are real) without the help of technology.

> people already believe things that aren't real

That's the problem: These people can now parade proof when there isn't any, perhaps even rally to garner majority and dilute out actual facts.

> (and don't believe things that are real)

For instance, refusing to acknowledge deep-fakes despite being labeled as such...?

The point I was going for is that "proof" already doesn't work on lots of people, that's the real issue. Information literacy is an important skill that much of the populace lacks.

But now people will also have more reason to disbelieve things that are true.

Imagine if Trump could claim that the "Grab em by the $#@%" tape was a fake, or if Biden could do the same about the tape of him bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

He already is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/trump-access-...

Real life is not exactly preparing people for spotting fakes these days. The bizarre is real, the plausible will likely get a pass.

> But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

This won't change much compared to now. There are videos of Trump saying something, then in an interview he denies he ever said that. People believe that he never said those things and real proof is dismissed. What I'm saying is, people believe lies even when there's no proof and when there's video proving that what was said is a lie.