Foxnews proving to me that their latest article is actually from them only helps people who already trust that source. The reason why Assange etc. post signatures is because they dont have control over Twitter. The ownership of the domain already is a form of authentication/signature that is more than sufficient for just about everybody and source authentication definitely is not the main problem that fakenews is about. Verifiying that the author is who you think it is, is probably the smallest, most insignifant part of fakenews. Much more central is that the content isnt false. How do we prove that something is false? We usually can't, so we could at best try to find flaws in their thinking or quotes that are wrong and say 'probably false'. That's what fact checker sites are doing, they give out grades. In my opinion the approach of fact checker sites is the best we can do so far, the problem however is now identical to mainstream news: Corruption. These fact checkers inevitably mess up or maximize their grading to achieve goals for their ideology of purse, which has arguably already happened and now we dont trust factcheckers anymore either.

Maybe this is an uncomfortable thing to say but this entire escapade with fakenews may just be a natural cycle that happens when corruption becomes too much and competition is emerging. So if we accept that reasoning then fakenews is just one ugly side effect but there are also good side effects, like new news sites emerging which may use outrageous new content to get viewers or superior ethics as their selling point. Hopefully the latter prevails but the cycle of gaining / losing trust will continue for as long as human beings are fallible.