People who have turned to X for breaking news about the Israel-Hamas conflict are being hit with old videos, fake photos, and video game footage at a level researchers have never seen.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6589988

The Israel-Hamas War Is Drowning X in Disinformation::People who have turned to X for breaking news about the Israel-Hamas conflict are being hit with old videos, fake photos, and video game footage at a level researchers have never seen.

  • squirrelOPMEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    no one can know with 100% certainty that it’s actually disinformation

    [Citation needed]

    If video or pictures are being posted that weren’t shot in Israel/Gaza or have already been posted in the past, while posters imply that they are from the current conflict, then we can say with 100% certainty that this is disinformation.

      • Franzia
        3·
        1 year ago

        In this case, if a video was first posted online in 2015, and is being shared as part of this conflict now, but with a Hamas logo added to the corner, we can use a search engine to say with absolute certainty that the video is misinformation.

          • Franzia
            3·
            1 year ago

            I would prefer not to even get close to the fuzzy line. I think a little bit of misinformation is something society can handle, and we are experiencing a flood of very easily proven wrong misinfo.

            I think the Twitter Added Context feature was a pretty elegant solution, and fit into the “this is wrong, even harmfully so, but I can’t prove its on purpose so maybe deleting it isn’t the right move.”

            These are seriously issues that Lemmy is perfectly positioned to approach solving. Our community is eager to craft the perfect takes. We are so incredibly informed, and debate-ready. And the instances / communities / open source nature means we can literally make our own solutions to the ongoing problems of the net.

      • squirrelOPMEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Insisting that nothing can be falsified unless there is 100% certainty all the time is ridiculous. Who would even define what 100% certainty is supposed to be?

        Because you come up some unattainable standard that you claim needs to be met, does not mean that anybody else has to agree with that standard.

        You are free to believe in such nonsense, but otherwise it’s just sophistry.

          • squirrelOPMEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Yes, you attempt to argue about hypotheticals. In practice fighting disinformation is about fact checks by various parties, including - but not limited to - OSINT researchers, scientists, independent journalists, news orgs, NGOs and government agencies.

            Can some of these be corrupt? Absolutely!
            Does it matter? Only if the piece of news in question cannot be corroborated by other parties.

            The basis of news has to be facts that can be checked in order to be confirmed or debunked by other parties. There is no possibility to determine with 100% certainty if a piece of information is correct or not, because there is no objective observer who could make that kind of judgement. All we have - and always had - is simply the possibility to check and compare information with the underlying facts.

            It is a messy process, but that does not mean that we cannot reach a consensus on which pieces of information are not supported by fact and that this is misinformation. Such consensus is part of the social contract.

            Ultimately the consensus will never be supported by every involved party, but that does not mean that consenting parties aren’t allowed to take appropriate action against the misinformation.