Fair point, but I still think we're exaggerating the amount of doctoring that's being done by the phones. There's always been some level of discrepancy between real life subjects and the images taken of them.

It's just a tool creating media from sensor data. Those sensors aren't the same as our eyes, and their processors don't hold a candle to our own brains.

In the interest of not rambling, let's look back at early black and white cameras. When people looked at those photos, did they assume the world was black and white? Or did they acknowledge this as a characteristic of the camera?

Film is also subject to manipulation in the development stage, even if you avoid compositing e.g. dodging and burning. Photographic honesty is an open and active philosophic debate that has been going on since its inception. It's not like you can really draw a line in the sand and blanketly say admissible or not. Although I'm sure established guidelines would help. Ultimately, it's an argument about the validity of evidence that needs to be made on a case by case basis. The manipulations involved need to be fully identified and accounted for in those discussions.