Democracy is historically not the default state of human interactions. Just look at facebook/nextdoor/twitter, most people want to force others how to behave (with force that is available), i.e. authoritarianism.
Any technology that makes it easier to vilify someone by definition can be used to weaken democracy.
The irony is that we all trust crypto because of the perceived tribal affiliation of the developers as well, which doubly reduces the case for crypto verifying media.
None, since encryption isn't the answer to this problem. Take Romney's leaked "47%" comment [1] or Hillary Clinton's leaked "deplorables" comment, how would encryption have been useful to either verify the recordings' authenticity or reject them if they had been a deepfakes? It wouldn't have, as those comments were meant for private audiences, so neither of them would have officially signed them. If the encryption could trace the recording back to the individual that made it, then the leaker might decide never release the recording (since they don't want to be outed). And if all the encryption can do is trace back to a random device, why not just get a random device to sign your deepfake?
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/09/17/16131...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2016/09/10/493427601/hillary-clintons-ba...
I mean, sophisticated propaganda techniques have been utilized forever, no? How do you defeat it without getting into checksums, etc? Would you agree that critical thinking skill gained from part of a rounded education would help you see through the BS? Of course, one side of the politcal duopoly in the US is trying very hard to keep Americans from getting educated...
Because they saw it on an ad, perhaps even a targeted one. I think deepfakes are going to be a "push" kind of thing: more used to corrupt the background information environment than be engaged with directly.