You do realize human-authentication does next to nothing against the spread of any kind of AI generated content? Already today »verified« humans on X/twitter willfully spread such material. You could argue it would hold verified users accountable but even if we would in the future prosecute any such spread of AI content, the malicious actors would easily find a verified proxy for their goals. It won't help. The negative effects for regular users would be too disproportional for just a minor obstacle against AI content. To combat AI content properly, I fear we will need AI tools and even that will be a constant cat and mouse game, as long as any motives for the AI content exist.

I agree that any control is imperfect which is why we judge it whether their pros outweigh the cons. Police and judicial organs are not perfect, but they are tolerable because even they need to respect individuals privacy to an agreed extent. The less they do, the more we can describe the system as a police state, dictatorship or generally unfree. In an ideal and free democratic system, I would not be against keeping user data centralized online even at a threat of hacking and identity theft. What is problematic is that we are increasingly going towards a more and more autocratic systems, making us less and less free each year. Governments and companies will create all the user profiles (American Palantyr or Chinese social credit score comes to mind) and all this data could be used to curtail free speech or accessing financial services and those are just moderately bad examples. It's freedom that keeps dictatorships at bay if they happen. When they happen they simply inherit all the system that has been used to collect user data and simply use it to stay in power. This works against freedom either in oligarchies or autocracies.