Anyone can then claim fake news about anything that wasnt enumerated on their resume.
The digital age is scarey in that it tends to preserve the past in a way that allows a mistake from five years ago seem like it happened just today.
For example, Mel Gibson. Two damaging recordings got leaked of him a decade or more ago and those cringe moments of his life will be preserved forever.
It wasn't like that before and this is not a cool feature of the modern age.
Mel Gibson is right-wing antisemite involved in a dubious cult. It's hardly surprising a concrete record of this appeared at one point[1].
You're not selling the idea that the "right to be forgotten" is for people who made just one slip-up. But there are certainly ways the right to be forgotten is reasonable - not for stars but for average people. My only point was it probably shouldn't be unlimited. That seems to strike a nerve but apparently among defenders of those who want long records of bad behavior concealed.
[1] Headline: "Absolutely every anti-Semitic thing Mel Gibson has ever said" (probably incomplete but a long list) https://forward.com/culture/449521/mel-gibson-anti-semitism-...
We've been at the point where a determined amateur could learn the skills to handcraft a false statement from a political figure.
The content is not the issue, the trust of that content is.
(In theory) the more authoritative the source, the more they'll require to treat a statement as real.
Right now you could get a good impersonator to say something stupid and send it to one of those half-trying tabloids and they'd run it even if they knew it was fake...
On the other hand a place like the NY Times might require more meat to the story, how did you get it, what was the chain of custody, etc.
Cryptographic signatures offer gold-standard, definitive proof of authenticity/non-repudiation. “Trust of content”, as you put it, is the problem they solve.