Perhaps not in the same vision that CAI envisage.
There is a media war going on right now being used to establish “truthfulness” of online media. Never to let a good crisis go to waste, COVID/Vaccines are the most recently cited example as the reason for urgency as a supposed clear cut case of the “experts” Vs misinformation leading to massive Youtube, FB, Twitter censorship/shadow banning of ideas not approved by the World Health Organisation. The video link above is still censored in most areas even though the non-mainstream yet still scientific results expressed in it have now been even more scientifically validated than they were when it was made (you can still find a longer form unedited original video here luckily in this one particular case there is a place they could not censor by law, most other ideas are not so lucky). So here is a case where “authentic” expert consensus views were promoted and “inauthentic” view were purged en-mass from social media sites. This mistake has cost, and is still costing countless lives.
The CAI and their solutions appear to be coming just from the establishment POV. For example: They cite digital identification systems of real world people or blanket approval of some organisations such as the NY times (which itself has a long list of “approved” news stories that killed a lot of people: WMDs, while the inauthentic views were censored). I won’t dig up references now but real world identification even when only known to a subset of participants ignores the way to high and climbing number of deaths and threats around the world every year against people publishing online (notice I did not say “journalist”). I don’t believe that some organisation/s need to know who the real world identity as a prerequisite for “authenticity”, or that identity needs to be piped through choke points to be approved Aussie style for us to solve this problem. None of their proposals appear truly decentralised or let people decide for themselves.
Would love to hear any ideas on ways SN could take this in new directions @mav and make it truly decentralised, not falling into the obvious traps being set to reinforce and preserve the status quo by CAI, C2PA, Trust Service and similar. If I had to cite one simple basic tech that the SN would need to even start tackling this I’d say it would be verifiable decentralised timestamp service. Signed messages with timestamps where the authenticity of the timestamp cannot be called into question. Perhaps timestamping would be the best first use-case for a blockchain over SN? Higher level would be marketplace of trust providers where the user can always override and advertise their particular lack of confidence in any providers to other participants. Retroactive confidence levels of course but again it will be a spectrum: You can still find plenty of authentic mainstream sources saying such and such a decision, although it retrospect turned out to be an utter disaster, was actually still a good idea.