#misinformation detection

[olivergisttv]

How to Identify Fake News Using AI Tools

In today’s digital age, the spread of fake news has become rampant, influencing public opinion and spreading misinformation at an alarming rate. However, AI tools have emerged as powerful allies in the battle against fake news, helping users and organizations detect and combat misinformation. Here’s how you can leverage AI tools to identify fake news:   1. Understand How AI Detects Fake News AI…

[airwavesdotblog]

South Korea’s Political Tide Turns: Liberal Opposition Clinches Decisive Victory in Parliamentary Elections

In a significant shift in South Korea’s political landscape, the liberal opposition parties triumphed in the recent parliamentary elections, delivering a stark message to President Yoon Suk Yeol and his conservative party. Despite not securing a supermajority, the Democratic Party (DP) is set to dominate over half of the 300 parliamentary seats, with allied liberal factions adding to their…

[oifaaa]

Ive been laughing at this screen rant headline for like a minute bc if you’ve read the robin lives series you know the line "finally gets the ending he deserves" isn't a compliment and then it ends with "hardcore fans thought they'd never see" Which very much reads as "You thought jasons characterization in the comics couldn't get any worse think again dipshit we've reached whole new levels of bullshit youd never even dream we'd reach"

[iwritenarrativesandstuff]

I know realistically what actually happened is probably that Esther just wanted Monty to ingratiate himself into the group and Monty himself just decided to start flirting with Edwin of his own volition, which is funny enough on its own, but I really do think sometimes about Esther creating human Monty as specifically a honeypot for her revenge plan, because that leaves us with two more hilarious options - either Esther instructed him to flirt specifically with Edwin (which means she, much like everyone else in this damn town, clocked him in about two seconds but like. when he wasn’t even doing anything particularly telling lmao), or she crafted him to be attractive to any of the three he happened to bump into first (which implies that Esther is certain that all three of them are into guys from that same brief encounter) and I honestly don’t know which is funnier.

Again, realistically I know it’s the first but the last one makes me cackle because it’s literally just

Esther, waving her hand dismissively: “Okay now go bump into whoever and lay on the charm I’ve got an evil mushroom to grow”

Monty, already packing his astrology books: “on it boss” 🫡

[reesiereads]

How much time do you think Monty spent at the library while he was human?

I mean, he chose to bump into the group specifically at the library—and more than that he already had books checked out. He understood that astrology book so well he made Edwin an entire astrological chart.

Not only that but a lot of the things Monty says and does sound like something he could have picked up from novels. “I didn’t get your number” Esther is from the colonial times, I doubt he would have picked that up from her and who else would he be talking to? “Do you want to go get coffee?” Aka one of the most common romance fiction tropes of all time.

Like I absolutely believe Monty worked his way through a monster amount of books and tried to peace together how to act based on that. Even the set up on the swings feels like it could be torn out of a romance book. And maybe that’s part of why he took the rejection so harshly (other then Edwin’s admittedly blunt/hurtful response). Books hardly if ever show rejection.

It could even explain why when he’s discussing it with Edwin he states “you said you don’t love me.” Where the hell would he have gotten love from? I doubt Esther’s spouting off about love with her history. If Monty had read a romance book or two he might have assumed what he felt for Edwin was love simply because in stories that’s how it goes: meet, attraction, flirt, kiss, love. He’s spent his whole life as a crow, how is he to know better?

[imakitastrophe]

get the dbda on tumblr Immediately. niko was born to make silly posts that get like 2 likes we shouldn't deprive her of it,,,

earlier parts are here!

[rroketa]

'media literacy' has become such an annoying word lately because once someone sees people hating on some dumb edgy show or game they like its all suddenly the 'death of media literacy'.

[weidli]

Why are all courtroom dramas legal comedies whatever about murder and so on. i want a movie about reinheitsgebot für bier

[australet789]

It kinda baffles me that people just... Dont pirate shit anymore

Whenever there's any media im interested in, unless is a videogame (and that's a big unless, i have even pirated Pokemon), my first instinct is to go and research for hours a way to find it for free. In my mind it never crosses the idea to go and pay a big corporation for something i can easily search.

Maybe is because i have grown in a poor country. Maybe is how since i was little I was taught in my school to not fail to the corporations' mindset that they can own you. That there's always a way out of the paywall.

There's no reason to sell your soul to the devil when you can be smarter than him

[arl-the-beloved]

Imagining Conan's Kaito Kid senses tingling when he sees Hakuba message Kaito, like nothing at all- just seeing him draft a message

I just wished they explored his little telepathic ability to somehow sense Kaito more

[elina-sakura]

Spoilers up to the end of Chapter 4

I’m confused…

I was reading through the wiki for information on Yomi for one of my fics, and I’m completely confuse where some of these informations came from?

Dr. Wisca?

Cheng?

Planning to get Kanai Ward and its inhabitants killed?

Are these from a separate resource I missed like that book that came out, or the manga? Neither of which are translated to English yet, mind you.

[monkeyandelf]

Anonymous Authority: How We Are Persuaded by “Scientifically Proven” Facts Without Names

On https://www.monkeyandelf.com/anonymous-authority-how-we-are-persuaded-by-scientifically-proven-facts-without-names/

Anonymous Authority: How We Are Persuaded by “Scientifically Proven” Facts Without Names

In an age of information overload, trust has become a currency—and anonymous authority has become a hidden, manipulative force.

You’ve probably heard phrases like:

“Doctors recommend…”

“Scientists have proven…”

“According to sources close to the matter…”

These kinds of statements sound authoritative, factual, and reliable. But here’s the catch: you’re not told who said it, where it came from, or whether it can be verified.

Welcome to the world of anonymous authority—a subtle but powerful tool that influences public opinion without ever showing its face.

What Is Anonymous Authority?

Anonymous authority refers to the use of unnamed experts, sources, or institutions to support a claim. The power of the message rests on the implied credibility of the anonymous figure, not on actual evidence or verifiable facts.

This technique is frequently used in:

Advertising (“9 out of 10 dentists agree…”)

Journalism (“A senior official who asked to remain anonymous…”)

Politics (“Sources within the administration revealed…”)

Social media (“Experts are warning about a new trend…”)

These tactics aim to persuade without proof. The strategy relies on the listener’s instinct to trust authority—even when it’s faceless.

Why Is Anonymous Authority So Persuasive?

1. We Trust Experts—Even Imaginary Ones

Humans are psychologically wired to respect knowledge and experience. When someone mentions “scientists” or “doctors,” we assume those people have credentials, data, and integrity—even when no names are given.

This cognitive shortcut helps us make quick decisions, but it’s also a perfect opening for manipulation.

2. It Creates the Illusion of Consensus

Phrases like “studies show” or “experts agree” subtly imply that there is a broad agreement within a field—even if there’s no actual study, no expert, and no consensus.

It gives a false sense of certainty, which makes the claim feel objective, data-driven, and immune to doubt.

3. It Prevents Accountability

Anonymity shields the supposed source from scrutiny. You can’t question the methodology, credentials, or motives of an expert you can’t identify.

And that makes debunking nearly impossible.

Real-World Examples of Anonymous Authority in Action

Advertising Manipulation

“Studies have shown that people lose 10 pounds in 2 weeks with this supplement!”

Which studies? Conducted where? Peer-reviewed? Without this information, such claims are marketing tools, not facts.

Media and Political Influence

“A high-level intelligence official, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed the operation.”

Such quotes may seem credible, but without transparency, they serve as a vehicle for strategic leaks, spin, or political agendas.

Health and Lifestyle Claims

“Doctors recommend this toothbrush.”

Which doctors? Based on what research? Often, these are vague generalizations that serve to sell products, not protect your health.

The Hidden Dangers of Anonymous Authority

1. Lack of Verifiability

You can’t evaluate what you can’t trace. Anonymous claims can’t be fact-checked, challenged, or investigated. This makes them ideal tools for misinformation.

2. Data Distortion or Misuse

Even if research exists, selective citation or out-of-context quoting can skew the facts to fit a narrative.

3. False Objectivity

When statements are dressed in scientific or expert-sounding language—without offering proof—they appear neutral but may carry strong bias.

4. Manufacturing Consent

By invoking invisible authorities, organizations can nudge people toward certain behaviors—like buying a product, supporting a policy, or fearing a non-existent threat.

Related Propaganda Techniques to Watch Out For

Anonymous authority isn’t alone. It often works in tandem with other rhetorical fallacies that are just as misleading.

1. Appeal to the Majority (Argumentum ad Populum)

“Everyone uses this brand—it must be the best!”

Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s true, right, or good. History has shown us that the majority can be catastrophically wrong.

Example: “All my friends vape, so it’s totally safe.”

2. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

“A famous scientist says this theory is correct.”

Even experts can be wrong—or biased. Their opinion should be part of a conversation, not the end of it.

Example: “A celebrity doctor recommends this miracle cure!”

3. Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem)

“This is how it’s always been done.”

Tradition is not inherently logical or beneficial. Societies evolve, and so must our values and decisions.

Example: “Men should work, women should stay home—it’s tradition.”

How to Protect Yourself from Anonymous Authority

1. Always Ask: Who Said It?

If you hear “scientists say…”—ask which ones. Are they credible? Do they work for an independent body or a commercial interest?

Pro tip: Google their name and check whether the study is peer-reviewed.

2. Seek Source Material

If someone claims “studies prove…”, look for the actual study. Trustworthy sources link directly to evidence, not just paraphrased sound bites.

Use tools like:

Google Scholar

PubMed

ResearchGate

3. Compare Multiple Sources

Don’t rely on one outlet or one voice. Real truth emerges from diversity of perspectives, not echo chambers.

4. Identify Red Flags

Watch for:

Passive voice: “It is believed that…”

No direct quotes or citations

Overuse of vague terms like “experts,” “studies,” or “many believe”

These are all signs of information without foundation.

5. Separate Fact from Opinion

An expert’s personal view is still just an opinion—unless backed by data, replication, and peer consensus.

Why Critical Thinking Is Your Best Defense

We live in an age where influence is invisible, algorithms amplify falsehoods, and narratives are engineered to feel like facts. Anonymous authority thrives in this environment.

But if you ask the right questions, seek reliable evidence, and stay skeptical of faceless claims, you’ll be far less vulnerable to manipulation.

Think critically, question deeply, and never accept “truth” without transparency.

[insightfultake]

Unbridled Technology Produces a Notorious Child: Deepfake

Technology has undoubtedly revolutionized our lives, transforming the way we communicate, work, learn, and interact. Every day, we witness new advancements that enhance convenience and efficiency. However, if not controlled and regulated properly, technology can also become a double-edged sword, leading to unforeseen consequences. One such perilous innovation is deepfake technology, an offspring of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that has begun to create ripples in society.

[presswoodterryryan]

Alice Investigates: How to Tell What’s True (A Little Sister’s Guide Inspired by Ariel!)

By Alice Have you ever wondered if everything you read online is true? Well, Mr. Fluffernutter and I did some investigating, and the answer might surprise you! Let’s find out together! Hi everyone! It’s Alice, and guess what? My big sister Ariel wrote a super-duper important paper about figuring out if something is true or just somebody’s opinion. It’s such a cool paper that I think it will…

[inkskinned]

i have chronic pain. i am neurodivergent. i understand - deeply - the allure of a "quick fix" like AI. i also just grew up in a different time. we have been warned about this.

15 entire years ago i heard about this. in my forensics class in high school, we watched a documentary about how AI-based "crime solving" software was inevitably biased against people of color.

my teacher stressed that AI is like a book: when someone writes it, some part of the author will remain within the result. the internet existed but not as loudly at that point - we didn't know that AI would be able to teach itself off already-biased Reddit threads. i googled it: yes, this bias is still happening. yes, it's just as bad if not worse.

i can't actually stop you. if you wanna use ChatGPT to slide through your classes, that's on you. it's your money and it's your time. you will spend none of it thinking, you will learn nothing, and, in college, you will piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars. you will stand at the podium having done nothing, accomplished nothing. a cold and bitter pyrrhic victory.

i'm not even sure students actually read the essays or summaries or emails they have ChatGPT pump out. i think it just flows over them and they use the first answer they get. my brother teaches engineering - he recently got fifty-three copies of almost-the-exact-same lab reports. no one had even changed the wording.

and yes: AI itself (as a concept and practice) isn't always evil. there's AI that can help detect cancer, for example. and yet: when i ask my students if they'd be okay with a doctor that learned from AI, many of them balk. it is one thing if they don't read their engineering textbook or if they don't write the critical-thinking essay. it's another when it starts to affect them. they know it's wrong for AI to broad-spectrum deny insurance claims, but they swear their use of AI is different.

there's a strange desire to sort of divorce real-world AI malpractice over "personal use". for example, is it moral to use AI to write your cover letters? cover letters are essentially only templates, and besides: AI is going to be reading your job app, so isn't it kind of fair?

i recently found out that people use AI as a romantic or sexual partner. it seems like teenagers particularly enjoy this connection, and this is one of those "sticky" moments as a teacher. honestly - you can roast me for this - but if it was an actually-safe AI, i think teenagers exploring their sexuality with a fake partner is amazing. it prevents them from making permanent mistakes, it can teach them about their bodies and their desires, and it can help their confidence. but the problem is that it's not safe. there isn't a well-educated, sensitive AI specifically to help teens explore their hormones. it's just internet-fed cycle. who knows what they're learning. who knows what misinformation they're getting.

the most common pushback i get involves therapy. none of us have access to the therapist of our dreams - it's expensive, elusive, and involves an annoying amount of insurance claims. someone once asked me: are you going to be mad when AI saves someone's life?

therapists are not just trained on the book, they're trained on patient management and helping you see things you don't see yourself. part of it will involve discomfort. i don't know that AI is ever going to be able to analyze the words you feed it and answer with a mind towards the "whole person" writing those words. but also - if it keeps/kept you alive, i'm not a purist. i've done terrible things to myself when i was at rock bottom. in an emergency, we kind of forgive the seatbelt for leaving bruises. it's just that chat shouldn't be your only form of self-care and recovery.

and i worry that the influence chat has is expanding. more and more i see people use chat for the smallest, most easily-navigated situations. and i can't like, make you worry about that in your own life. i often think about how easy it was for social media to take over all my time - how i can't have a tiktok because i spend hours on it. i don't want that to happen with chat. i want to enjoy thinking. i want to enjoy writing. i want to be here. i've already really been struggling to put the phone down. this feels like another way to get you to pick the phone up.

the other day, i was frustrated by a book i was reading. it's far in the series and is about a character i resent. i googled if i had to read it, or if it was one of those "in between" books that don't actually affect the plot (you know, one of those ".5" books). someone said something that really stuck with me - theoretically you're reading this series for enjoyment, so while you don't actually have to read it, one would assume you want to read it.

i am watching a generation of people learn they don't have to read the thing in their hand. and it is kind of a strange sort of doom that comes over me: i read because it's genuinely fun. i learn because even though it's hard, it feels good. i try because it makes me happy to try. and i'm watching a generation of people all lay down and say: but i don't want to try.

[therobotmonster]

Not saying this isn't AI-generated but Chat-GPT can't evaluate work to determine how it was made, as was demonstrated by academic nincompoop Dr. Jared Mumm.

Chat-GPT invents its answers on the fly based on the most likely word/concept that follows next. It will invent a yes/no answer for you when asked, the same way Dall-E 3 will make you a picture of the mothman or a shark buying a Mello-Yello at the 7-11:

The ability to perform improv is not the ability to recognize improv, at least in machine terms. Using Chat-GPT to search for its own use is pseudoscience, and you should not get used to using that method. You should trust it as much as you trust a dowsing rod.

Even AI detection methods specifically designed to do that job (which Chat-GPT, I emphasize, is not) are unreliable and easily baffled in either direction, assuming they work at all and aren't highly curated showpieces designed for B2B acquisition over actual functionality.

So this is what we in the fiction trade call a lie, a made up story, and not true. In case anyone ever tells you they read it online.

I'm not linking to it because I won't give them the clicks.