{"id":43473,"date":"2022-01-26T11:38:51","date_gmt":"2022-01-26T16:38:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kaspersky.com\/blog\/?p=43473"},"modified":"2022-01-26T11:38:51","modified_gmt":"2022-01-26T16:38:51","slug":"information-check-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kaspersky.com\/blog\/information-check-2022\/43473\/","title":{"rendered":"What can you trust on the Internet?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Thanks to the Internet, we have access to a potentially infinite amount of information, which can often be difficult to sort out and figure out what\u2019s true and what\u2019s not. We\u2019ve all seen headlines like \u201cDutch Scientists Prove Coronavirus Doesn\u2019t Exist,\u201d \u201cUnvaccinated People Held in Concentration Camps in Australia,\u201d and \u201cHIV-Infected Needles Placed in Movie Theater Seats.\u201d These are examples of myths spreading on the worldwide web that nowadays we usually call \u201cfake news.\u201d<\/p>\n

Many people believe fake news, regardless of age or social status. For example, a middle-aged tech friend of mine was recently foaming at the mouth proving to us that McDonald\u2019s products are unfit for human consumption. He learned this from a TikTok video. In it, a girl said that chef Jamie Oliver had proven in court that the meat in the McDonald\u2019s burgers was \u201cunfit for human consumption.\u201d<\/p>\n

Just five minutes into the search showed that the story was quite different<\/a>. There was no trial, just a TV show in which the chef criticized the entire food industry in the United States. A bit later some journalists linked McDonald\u2019s subsequent recipe change to that. The whole story took place in 2011\u20132012. Surprisingly, this myth still lives on in both social networks<\/a> and various local media<\/a>.<\/p>\n

We, of course, laughed and forgot about the dispute. Nevertheless, an important lesson is that information needs to be checked because fake information can be found where you least expect it. We suggest that you look at information based on the following algorithm to figure out where you start unraveling more complex and important stories than the McDonald\u2019s meat fail.<\/p>\n

Find the source of the information<\/h2>\n

The first thing to do is to check where the information came from. There may be several options here. Media outlets, bloggers, messenger channels, and communities on social networks usually have some kind of reputation. It is important to understand that even the most reputable and respected media can publish nonsense. Large outlets such as the BBC<\/em>, The New York Times<\/em> and Paris Match<\/em> have all made mistakes more than once. This stage of verification is mainly necessary to filter out sources marked \u201cdefinitely not to be trusted.\u201d Such a verdict may be given to humorous news (even serious journalists sometimes believe fake news from the likes of The Onion<\/em>) and all kinds of strange WhatsApp messages that should be treated with caution.<\/p>\n

Find links to primary sources<\/h2>\n

Any information claiming to be reliable must contain links to original sources. An article or post without links should not be trusted. The next step is to check the links themselves. Everything depends on the specifics of the material. For example, if a text describes some events abroad, it should contain links to local publications in the original language. Otherwise, how did the authors learn about the event? References to official publications or scientific studies are also a good sign of plausibility.<\/p>\n

Check particular facts<\/h2>\n

Any text, video, or audio material has particular facts that can be verified by other sources. Often these are names, dates, geographic locations, some scientific facts, and so on. This data can be verified with a quick Internet search. The search engine companies themselves tell you more about all the features of more complex searches. For example, this material<\/a> will help you to understand how to properly search for information on Google.<\/p>\n

If you find more than two or three inaccuracies, the text is probably not worth trusting. This does not always mean that authors are maliciously trying to mislead you. It is very possible that they, in good faith, simply do not know what they are writing about.<\/p>\n

Figure out the source\u2019s agenda<\/h2>\n

The first three tips involve fact-checking, but beyond that, the tone with which information is presented is important. Even if the authors aren\u2019t spreading outright lies, the right emphasis and carefully chosen facts in an article can distort the picture and influence your opinion. Therefore, it is useful to consider the source\u2019s agenda<\/a> or bias as it will help you to weigh up the information you receive more objectively.<\/p>\n

Pay attention to details<\/h2>\n

If the basic facts look coherent, pay attention to the details: images, quotations, terms, and frequent use of superlatives. Let\u2019s deal with each point separately:<\/p>\n