Can't remember who's phone finally did this (OPPO?), but they'd add a hash to recorded images captured with the device. To prove this is what was recorded from the sensors, not a generated or modified data file. Guessing at the firmware level to try to make it harder to fake, and depending on how it was set up you might even be able to confirm which device captured it (would be nice if you had to already know the source ID to compare against a device, with yes/no answers).

Yes, there are issues to iron out before it could be a generally assumed useful tool. But trying to "identify what is real from the beginning" seems like a better solution than "finding what might be fake" (some of the time, after some reputation damage was already done, and sometimes creating false positives marking real images/videos as fake).

Then we could create methods to connect the original source material (for measured/recorded authentication) with any customized versions (cropped, filtered, etc). Maybe even with a numerical estimate for how likely this is a likely starting point for the result file, and how it was created (to recreate it by other people if they don't want to just trust the source).

Sure, I can see how for most typical voting (winner takes all, after picking 1 answer) people about to vote might adjust their vote based on current results. Lets ignore situations like the US where different states seem to announce their own results at different times (which already breaks this goal).

But ranked choice systems should negate any benefit of doing so, right? No need to manipulate the positions of entries hoping not to "waste" your vote. They keep removing the worst off candidate, and swap whoever had voted for them to their next best option, until someone gets enough votes for a majority. Maybe confusing at first, but a bit of labor could improve that (have individuals walk anyone through the process before voting if confused).

I'd rather have a voting system where everyone can do the same validation/checking process for the results (as well as confirm their own specific votes are correct). Maybe with a slight delay in publishing/sharing to enforce plausible deniability, to prevent intimidation or retaliation (aim to get at least one vote for each option before combining and publishing in-progress results?).

Anything less than "fair by design" seems like asking for the powerful to cheat the rest of us, and for anyone who loses to claim fraud. That by arbitrarily picking 3 or 5 people to have the power to read results you're limiting how many people must be compromised to cheat, not eliminating the chance of cheating.

Making something important to all of us, a secret from most of us, seems like an anti-pattern somehow. Where one goal is the antithesis of the other. And I'm talking about the case where this is our collective decision, not the ability to fire a nuke (with a secret code/process).

(Haven't spent time to confirm, but it reads as plausible) This is Google's AI explanation for...

What does live nation "open sourcing" their ticket sales model mean?

"In the context of the March 9, 2026 antitrust settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Live Nation "open sourcing" their ticket sale model refers to a requirement for Ticketmaster to open its technology platform to competitors. [1, 2]
Rather than a literal release of software source code, this "open sourcing" is a structural change intended to end Ticketmaster's exclusive control over the primary ticketing market. Key aspects of this model include: [3, 4]

* Standalone Ticketing System: Ticketmaster must provide a product that allows third-party companies, such as SeatGeek, StubHub, and Eventbrite, to sell primary tickets directly through its system.
* Inventory Sharing: Venues are now permitted to allocate a portion of their ticket inventory to rival platforms rather than being locked into Ticketmaster for 100% of sales.
* Ending Exclusivity: The settlement caps Ticketmaster's long-term exclusive contracts with venues at four years and prohibits the company from retaliating against venues that choose other distributors.
* Increased Competition: By allowing other sellers to plug into the same technological infrastructure, the DOJ aims to lower service fees and provide more choices for both artists and consumers. [1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

This move was described by senior Justice officials as a way to create an "open marketplace" and provide immediate relief to consumers without requiring a full breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. [2, 3, 9, 10, 11]
Would you like to know more about the amphitheater divestitures or the civil penalties Live Nation agreed to pay as part of this deal?

[1] [https://www.vulture.com](https://www.vulture.com/article/live-nation-ticketmaster-doj-settlement-antitrust.html)
[2] [https://www.aol.com](https://www.aol.com/articles/live-nation-settles-antitrust-case-135622530.html)
[3] [https://www.nbcnews.com](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/ticketmaster-live-nation-settles-antitrust-case-rcna262392)
[4] [https://www.hypebot.com](https://www.hypebot.com/live-nation-doj-reach-settlement-ticketmaster-stays-but-big-changes-are-coming/)
[5] [https://www.aol.com](https://www.aol.com/news/ticketmaster-avoids-breakup-major-doj-164413741.html)
[6] [https://www.cnbc.com](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/09/live-nation-reaches-settlement-with-doj-in-antitrust-case.html)
[7] [https://www.facebook.com](https://www.facebook.com/altnationnet/posts/live-nations-antitrust-deal-with-trumps-doj-will-cost-fanslive-nation-and-doj-se/1520954106256247/)
[8] [https://www.prnewswire.com](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/live-nation-entertainment-reaches-settlement-with-us-department-of-justice-302708477.html)
[9] [https://www.undergroundwave.life](https://www.undergroundwave.life/post/how-live-nation-took-over-live-music-and-locked-everyone-else-out)
[10] [https://courthousenews.com](https://courthousenews.com/mid-trial-doj-settles-antitrust-suit-with-live-nation-ticketmaster/#:~:text=Meanwhile%2C%20a%20senior%20DOJ%20%28%20U.S.%20Department,the%20state%20seeks%20further%20terms%20at%20trial.)
[11] [https://www.ticketnews.com](https://www.ticketnews.com/2026/03/report-live-nation-doj-strike-deal-settling-antitrust-case-and-avoiding-ticketmaster-break-up/#:~:text=What%20the%20reported%20settlement%20would%20do%20Politico%27s,Opening%20parts%20of%20Ticketmaster%27s%20platform%20to%20rivals.)
"

Like a purposeful attempt to cause the judicial system to consider all the implications of the precedents they're setting with other decisions.

Or they truly believed they weren't stealing anything. That they either didn't imagine the old code could be used during this recreation, or they were careful to keep things separate and just haven't spent the time to explain all the ways (maybe to not give opposing lawyers anything to prepare from).

But yeah. It's hard to believe this general process should be seen as moral. But moral and legal are often two very different things.

You're solely focused on are they allowed to create a clone (because if you can't create it then you couldn't license it), and are ignoring the other interesting implication of the idea that AI creations cannot be copyrighted in the US.

What happens to all this "work" that people are using AI to create? Supposedly amplifying our productivity, and pushing companies to expect more from fewer people.

What if someone copies it (unhappy employee before leaving). Is that illegal if it can't be protected IP? Or are they considered trade secrets unless shared outside the company?

What if something is shared outside the company, like as a sample or demo, and a competitor realizes it was AI generated. Does that mean it cannot be a trade secret anymore? (I'm not a lawyer, but tried to read up a little on IP basics a bit ago.)

What if you take copyrighted, human created code, and then use AI on top... is that copyrightable still? How do you track what parts are copyrightable, and which aren't? Must you publicly share what parts are protected vs. aren't?

But sure, the original situation is focused on both what you mentioned (how carefully must you document recreation of a clone to be safe), and this question of can you license any work created by AI (assuming they did follow clean room guidelines in your explanation... even if they haven't claimed to in this case yet).

Whatever you started with, or have spent the effort to learn, is fine. Anything beyond that sucks.

I hated the ribbon layout when it arrived. "Why are they making this so hard? I don't want to need to perform an internet search to find settings I know exist."

Wonder when we'll get fully user configurable UI's? Meaning why can't I skin it any way I like, and put any controls anywhere I like, and let other people reuse it all if they like, etc... Separate a lot of the UI from the "functionality". Package up things in as atomic of units/pieces as you can.

Oh, right... profits make world go brrr....

Doesn't seem that hard to take "buzz word of the day/week/month/year" and use it to pretend your product announcement matters for it.

"How do I take a commodity, and jazz up this really expensive yet incremental in effect 'upgrade'?"

Electronic "glasses" aren't the only way people are recorded in public. Why aren't people up in arms about that?

This isn't "impossible" to solve. Just not the way they want to.

There should be ways to get similar information without the intense fake load. I mean less instantaneous and depending on what people naturally do, they might not see true peaks/worst case results. And the real test run (as they do) would be the 3rd party proof to show off. But there should be ways to estimate from other information too.

I do appreciate you explaining that though. My mind wasn't assembling it fully for some reason.

In part because I swear I've seen Ookla speed results without viewing ads. And they'd work harder to prevent that possibility if that was truly the only income.

And I hadn't realized ISP's were paying to host it. Almost feels like a way to cheat a little. That real tests would need to exit a customer's ISP to prevent cheating, and to measure more fully what typical external traffic would do.

Not just the data itself.

Would be neat if they posted some of the information they're gleaning from those free tests they run. Likely whatever the rest in the industry also already know about, but still. I hadn't realized there was much of value they could extract, but it makes sense (there must be something funding the service).

I mean assuming humans don't keep them unused... Mutants will still be created periodically, and some will survive there and eventually thrive where others can't.

Does this mean nothing will need to change? Nope. Just that "life" has this funny habit of filling in the gaps, where possible.

Guess all the more reason for governments to create an effective online authentication and identification system.

Pointing at 35% of your current work to explain why a likely significantly faster and lower cost replacement, that shows no sign of topping out in capabilities or interest to use it, isn't going to decimate your "not objectively better or faster, but hopefully cheaper" based industry... ballsy at least. Likely deluded too.