Nikolay Rubanovsky , Ksenia Krivtsova
A lot of books and scientific articles have already been written on the subject of verification of information, fake news and conspiracy theories. However, the current situation with a pandemic (or βinfodemia,β as WHO called it) has shown that many of us, using the fruits of hundreds of years of scientific method and research every day, still think in terms of science-based magic, where radio waves and ginger can do anything , anything.
Tom Radetzki
( ) ( ββ ). , ( , , 5G, ).
, , FakeNews Euvsdisinfo. WhatsApp . , - COVID-19 . , - . , , . ? , , ( β β), , ?
.
, , .
, , . , βfake newsβ βfact-checkingβ .
, . , , . , , . , , ββ.
β βΜβ (. fake β ). , , . fake news (. news β ) β Μ , - , ( -, ). «» , . , , , . , ( ) . - . , , . , , , , . , Μ . Μ . , - .
Μ , PR-. , - . , . - .
2 31% Μ Μ . 74% , , , . 96% .
Μ 75% . 2 , : . , , . . β . .. . Μ Μ 100%. .
It is worth noting that the intentional distortion of facts, requiring serious fact-checking, is more often related to public and political issues. With intentional distortion, fact checking is required, first of all, by statistics and digital data.
Regular reading of negative news is 70% higher than the truth. And the fake spreads 6 times faster (see table below). . β , , . , , . , . . , , ( , ), fake news . - . - Β« Β»: , . , . , .
This is due to the lack of control over information: information is published without restrictions. Unlike professional media, in social networks information is broadcast outside registered editions and usually without reference to a priori authoritative sources.An important point: we readily believe that it fits into our worldview and do not want to strain our brains to doubt the truth of the βfedβ information.
We tend to trust familiar sources and sweep away the unknown, prefer information that matches our political views or worldview. We blindly believe what a familiar source reports and can ignore information that is broadcast from alternative channels.
, .
Arkaitz Zubiaga Heng Ji , Twitter. , . , , , Μ , .
.
How to calculate fake
From the foregoing, the obvious conclusion suggests itself: we must urgently quit all things and seriously engage in checking every word read on the Internet. But take your time! If you are not a journalist, a full fact check can take several hours (or even days in some cases). Therefore, we will first talk about fake news markers that will help distinguish them from true ones when viewed briefly. For those who are interested in the topic and have a lot of free time, there will be information about the fact-checking methods.
According to what primary features, one can doubt the reliability of information in an article or post in social networks:- : , , . . - -, β , . - , .
- - : , , , .
- : , ? ? /? , - ? . , (, ), ?
- : ? Facebook, - ? - ? , ? , , , . , , .
- : - , ? Β«...Β», Β«- ...Β», Β« ...Β», Β«Μ ...Β», Β« ...Β», Β« ...Β», Β« ...Β», Β« ...Β» β β β.
- : YouTube. ? , - .
, :
- 3- . 100% , . Μ .
- . , -, , . , . , - . , , , . , , .
- β , . , .
- . ? ? ? ? ? - ? , (, RT) ββ , .
- . , ( , - , ..)? , , , , . , Μ . Μ , .
, :
- , ;
- Β«Google Β», Tineye.com. , , GDPR , . Tineye , , Μ. Jeffrey Friend Image Metadata;
- , , ;
- Μ , -, , WaybackMachine;
- WebMii Μ ;
- Snopes.com β Μ, , , Μ Μ Μ ;
- TruthOrFiction.com β Μ , , , ;
- FactCheck.org β Μ Μ. , , ;
- WikiTribune β Μ-, Μ Μ ;
- Politifact.com, FactChecker The Washington Post Μ .
. -, OSINT BBC.
, , . .
?
, , β :
β. , . , . , ?
1., , , - β , β. , adblockβ . . - , ββ ββ β 5G. ββ . , - , ( ). , . 5G, , , .
2. , . ββ, ββ, ββ. , , . , , . , 5G , : β 60 , - .β «» , . -, , . -, , , , , (- ). . -, ( ) ( ). -, 5G . , , , , .
, , , - . . , Spurious correlations , , , . , , 100% ! , , " ".
- . .
3. , . : , , , , , β . , β β .
4. β β β, , β β. , . 2017 European Journal of Social Psychology, . , β β, , . , . , . - - , , , . , . , , . - , ?
, ( ) , ββ. , ββ ( ) .
?
. , , , , , . , , . , .
Facebook β , , Facebook β β. β β. , , β β.
, , , . , ββ, β β , , β β. , , . , , ββ , , , !
, , , . , , , , . , . , , . , . 10 , , - . , , , - β, β. , . " β.
As already mentioned, to argue with conspiracy theory means to lose. The English mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell drew an analogy to illustrate the principle that the burden of proof rests with the approver. In other words, it is not you who must prove that there is no secret government, but a conspiracy theorist must prove that it exists. For the sake of analogy, Russell proposed to imagine that between the Earth and Mars in a elliptical orbit a porcelain teapot rotates, too small to be detected through a telescope. It is impossible to prove his absence, however, this, of course, does not mean that he is there. This is consistent with yet another methodological principle - Occamβs Razor.. He states that βone should not multiply things unnecessarily.β That is, if we can explain something thanks to already known and verified information, we should not add new unknowns to the theory. In conspiracy theories such unknowns can be infinite. Applying this analogy to religious discussions, Russell, ironically, himself fell victim to one of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.? β , . , , . , β- - β. , , . , . : . , . β .
, , - . .
, , . - β β , - . - , . ?
, . ? β . , . , . , .
β , β , , β. , . , , - - . , ?
We live in a time where technology makes it possible to catch a person in a lie or mistake and point out this. Let us take advantage of these opportunities, point out errors to each other and accept criticism. Every contribution is important. If you convince at least one mother of the terrible consequences of refusing vaccination, it will save a lot of lives.