Strategies for Misinformation Management

Harsh truth: AI has opened up a Pandora's box of threats. The most concerning one? The ease with which AI can be used to create and spread misinformation. Deepfakes (AI-generated content that portrays something false as reality) are becoming increasingly sophisticated & challenging to detect. Take the attached video - a fake video of Morgan Freeman, which looks all too real. AI poses a huge risk to brands & individuals, as malicious actors could use deepfakes to: • Create false narratives about a company or its products • Impersonate executives or employees to damage credibility • Manipulate public perception through fake social media posts The implications for PR professionals are enormous. How can we maintain trust and credibility in a world where seeing is no longer believing? The answer lies in proactive preparation and swift response. Here are some key strategies for navigating the AI misinformation minefield: 🔹 1. Educate your team: Ensure everyone understands the threat of deepfakes and how to spot potential fakes. Regular training is essential. 🔹 2. Monitor vigilantly: Keep a close eye on your brand's online presence. Use AI-powered tools to detect anomalies and potential threats. 🔹 3. Have a crisis plan: Develop a clear protocol for responding to AI-generated misinformation. Speed is critical to contain the spread. 🔹 4. Emphasize transparency: Build trust with your audience by being open and honest. Admit mistakes and correct misinformation promptly. 🔹 5. Invest in verification: Partner with experts who can help authenticate content and separate fact from fiction. By staying informed, prepared, and proactive, PR professionals can navigate this new landscape and protect their brands' reputations. The key is to embrace AI as a tool while remaining vigilant against its potential misuse. With the right strategies in place, we can harness the power of AI to build stronger, more resilient brands in the face of the misinformation minefield.

Wild idea: combat misinformation w/a neuropsychological vaccine! The paper below explores a psychological strategy known as “prebunking” or “inoculation theory” to combat misinformation. The researchers argue that by exposing people to a mild, controlled form of misinformation ahead of time, individuals can build mental defenses against full-fledged false information. This approach draws from the concept of inoculation in medicine, where small doses of a virus prepare the immune system to recognize and fight off future infections. Here, instead of pathogens, individuals are “inoculated” with misleading information in small doses. The method involves presenting people with common misinformation techniques, such as emotionally charged language or false causal links, allowing them to recognize these tactics more easily. Building an immune response to the pathogen. When these people later encounter similar techniques in actual misinformation, they’re better equipped to identify and resist it. Through controlled experiments, the researchers found that participants who received this type of “cognitive vaccine” showed a significantly higher ability to discern and dismiss misinformation compared to those who hadn’t been exposed to prebunking exercises. The results suggest that pre-exposure to misinformation tactics rather than factual correction after the fact could be a scalable, proactive solution to counter the rapid spread of false information. This inoculation strategy could be integrated into public awareness campaigns, educational programs, and even social media platforms, potentially creating a more resilient public that is less susceptible to manipulation by misinformation. CP methods could significantly enhance prebunking of MH-related misinformation by: Personalizing misinformation defenses & modeling how individuals process, store, & recall information—including false beliefs—researchers can identify cognitive vulnerabilities that misinformation exploits. Simulating w/Bayesian inference belief updating, predicting how exposure to misinformation alters individual belief systems. Guiding the design of prebunking interventions, ensuring that they account for diverse cognitive processing patterns and belief rigidity levels. Revealing that individuals w/high cognitive rigidity are more resistant to information changes, guiding the development of customized prebunking approaches that break down misinformation into cognitively digestible steps. Enhancing the timing/dosing of prebunking content based on individuals’ unique cognitive profiles, such as susceptibility to emotional appeals or cognitive biases. Assessing users’ online behavior & decision-making patterns, to dynamically adjust prebunking material, delivering it when users are most cognitively receptive. Simulating the long-term effectiveness of prebunking by analyzing w/RL how repeated exposure strengthens cognitive resilience against misinformation over time.

🧑🔬 30 misinformation researchers pulled together their 🔨 hammers 🔧 wrenches and 🪛 screwdrivers to create a toolbox of interventions against misinformation 🧰 They decided on 3 main ways to combat misinformation: 🔨 Nudges (which target behaviors) 🔧 Boosts & educational interventions (which target competences) 🪛 Refutation strategies (which target beliefs) 🎙️ Samuel Salzer and I were lucky enough to talk to one of these researchers, Gordon Pennycook, to sift through, compare and contrast these 3 different categories and 9 different strategies within. 💡 What did we learn?💡 🔩 The tool that you use depends on the task at hand. If you have a screw, you’ll want a screwdriver. (A hammer could work, but it’ll get messy!) And it turns out, all 9 of the strategies in the toolbox work fairly well at stopping the spread of misinformation. The 9 strategies for combating online misinformation are: 1️⃣ Accuracy prompts – Shift people’s attention broadly to the concept of accuracy 2️⃣ Debunking and rebuttals – Offer corrective info for specific misconceptions, or address inaccuracies with facts (topic rebuttal) or by exposing rhetorical tactics often used to reject scientific findings (technique rebuttal) 3️⃣ Friction – Make relevant processes slower or more effortful by design 4️⃣ Inoculation & Prebunking – Preemptively prepare people for common misinformation and/or manipulation tactics 5️⃣ Lateral reading and verification – Use verification strategies to assess online information credibility 6️⃣ Media-literacy tips – Strategies to identify false or misleading information 7️⃣ Social norms – Leverage peer influence to discourage believing, endorsing, or sharing misinformation 8️⃣ Source-credibility labels – Show ratings assigned by professional fact-checking organizations (e.g., NewsGuard) 9️⃣ Warning and fact-checking labels – Alerts about potential misleading content or fact-checking ratings (e.g., PolitiFact) 📢 And still, approaches from the policy toolkit (e.g., targeting systems rather than individuals) often work even better than any tool from this toolbox of individual-level interventions. Classic s-frame vs. i-frame! Curious to hear from you: What do you think is the most effective way to combat misinformation? Have you experimented with any of these strategies? Let me know in the comments below! 👇 -- 📩 If you’re interested in building products for humans using behavioral science and AI, send me a message on LinkedIn or email me at aline@nuancebehavior.com. 🎙️ The new season of the Behavioral Design Podcast is out! Listen to hear Sam and I chat with leading experts in AI and human behavior. For more on misinformation, check out our 2-part episode with Gordon Pennycook.

The rapid rise of AI-generated media - particularly deepfakes and convincingly altered content - brings us to a crossroads in how we interact with information. Suddenly, seeing isn't necessarily believing. This shift raises critical questions: How do we verify what’s real, and how do we address creators' intentions behind such content? Do we just categorize them as creative output? Addressing this challenge likely requires multiple, coordinated approaches rather than a singular solution. One fundamental strategy involves enhancing public media literacy. Teaching ourselves and our communities how to recognize misinformation, critically evaluate sources to help reduce the spread of misleading information. Initiatives like educational campaigns, school programs, and public-service messaging could strengthen our collective defenses against misinformation. Simultaneously, technology companies producing or distributing AI-generated content could implement practical measures to build transparency and trust. For instance: - Clearly watermarking content generated by AI tools. - Requiring upfront disclosures about synthetic or substantially altered media. - Employing specialized authenticity verification technologies. Moreover, adopting clear ethical standards within industries utilizing AI-driven media - similar to those upheld in professional journalism - could encourage greater accountability. Finally, regulatory frameworks will be important - but they must be carefully designed. Excessive restrictions could inadvertently stifle innovation and legitimate expression. Conversely, too little oversight leaves society vulnerable to harmful deepfakes, especially in contexts like elections. Targeted and balanced regulations can minimize harms without impeding creative and productive uses of AI. Where should efforts be prioritized most urgently - strengthening public awareness, establishing clear industry standards, or developing nuanced regulatory policies? #innovation #technology #future #management #startups

The growth and exploitation of (so-called) “contextual credibility” enables the creation of "alternative realities" and undermines factual discourse. And it is creeping into our business world right now. (Let me tell you about an absurd pitch I just witnessed). To shift back towards credible interactions, we must focus on several key areas. Critical Thinking: We must invest in comprehensive media literacy programs to teach critical evaluation of information, identification of biases, and recognition of manipulation tactics (to all ages and demographics). It's vital to promote source verification by encouraging the use of fact-checking tools and cross-referencing information from reputable sources. Journalistic Standards: Supporting independent investigative journalism that holds power accountable is crucial. We need to advocate for greater transparency in media ownership to reveal potential biases and establish mechanisms to hold misbehaving media outlets accountable for misinformation. Evidence-Based Reasoning: Increasing public understanding of the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning is essential. Fostering open dialogue where diverse perspectives are engaged and evidence-based arguments are promoted is vital. We must also develop strategies to combat misinformation on social media, including fact-checking and user education. (I propose something like eBay’s credibility tool.) Institutions and Legal Frameworks: Protecting the independence of the judiciary is paramount. We should explore legal frameworks addressing harmful misinformation while safeguarding free speech, focusing on laws that target deliberate dissemination of false information. Strengthening freedom of information laws and promoting government transparency is additionally necessary. Critical Thinking in AI Development: Ensuring transparent AI development, preventing AI from spreading misinformation, and developing AI tools for fact-checking and source validation are critical. Training AI/LLMs on garbage misinformation will only create equally corrupt resultant. Combating misinformation requires a multi-faceted approach and a societal shift towards valuing evidence-based reasoning to protect the integrity and progress of humanity.

While #CES2025 is buzzing with everything #AI from helping people see, curing cancer and mobilizing efficiency in every way, there is a quiet content revolution happening that all CMOs need to pay attention to. Meta’s decision to replace its third-party fact-checking program with user-generated “Community Notes” isn’t a play to be more like Elon. It strives to move Meta toward decentralized moderation, emphasizing free speech. This changes content and social strategies pretty significantly for every brand. Here’s how CMOs can navigate this change strategically: 1. Protect Brand Trust Community Notes rely on collective input, which could lead to misinformation or biased content. (Think Reddit or Glassdoor) Brands need to safeguard their reputation as users may question the reliability of this model. Action: • Reevaluate brand safety measures for ad placements to avoid association with controversial or inaccurate content. 2. Prioritize Accuracy in Brand Messaging In an environment with less centralized fact-checking, brands can differentiate themselves by emphasizing transparency and credibility. Action: • Create and share content that is verifiable and aligned with audience values. • Publicly commit to responsible, fact-based marketing. 3. Monitor Public Sentiment Free speech advocates support this move, others warn of increased misinformation risks. Action: • Use social listening tools to gauge audience reactions. • Be prepared to adjust campaigns if public sentiment strongly impacts you Mr efforts. 4. Reevaluate Ad Spend Meta’s new content moderation system may impact audience behavior and increase scrutiny of ads. Action: • Consider shifting some ad spend to platforms with stricter content governance, like LinkedIn or Google. • Experiment with creative formats like user-generated content to align with the free-speech-focused environment. 5. Engage with Meta and Advocate for Balance CMOs play a key a role in shaping platform policies to ensure that decentralized moderation enhances transparency without compromising accuracy. Action: • Participate in industry coalitions to advocate for safeguards and balanced approaches. • Request data from Meta on how Community Notes mitigate misinformation. 6. Prepare for Regulatory Changes As governments scrutinize these shifts, brands should anticipate potential legal and cultural impacts. Action: • Develop crisis management plans to handle controversies tied to platform changes. Meta’s shift is a pivotal moment for digital marketers. CMOs who proactively address the challenges while championing accuracy and authenticity can build trust and demonstrate leadership in this evolving landscape. https://lnkd.in/eJEPyqAh

Disinformation is a "wicked problem"—complex, multi-faceted, and challenging to counter without risking unintended consequences. Tackling it with a “do no harm” policy approach requires nuanced, adaptable strategies that respect freedom of expression and reinforce the foundations of democratic governance. In my mid-career Master’s in Public Policy at Princeton School of Public and International Affairs I've encountered this excellent Carnegie Endowment for International Peace policy guide. It offers actionable, balanced approaches based on evidence and case studies that can truly boost policy approaches to counter disinformation. 💡 Key strategies include: Empowering Local Journalism: When local news sources disappear, disinformation spreads like wildfire. Strengthening local journalism revives civic trust, keeps communities informed, and builds a first line of defense against disinformation. #DemocracyDiesInDarkness Building Media Literacy: Teaching critical media skills across communities and schools equips individuals to spot manipulation and build resilience against false information. Prioritizing Transparency with Fact-Checking: Going beyond labels, fact-checking that promotes transparency enables audiences to make informed choices, fostering trust without policing beliefs. Adjusting Algorithms & Limiting Microtargeting: Creating healthier online spaces by limiting microtargeted ads and rethinking algorithms reduces echo chambers while respecting autonomy. Counter-Messaging with Local Voices: Developing counter-messaging strategies that engage trusted community voices enables us to challenge false narratives effectively and authentically. These approaches are essential for defending open dialogue, strengthening governance, and supporting sustainable development. It's all hands on deck! https://lnkd.in/egKKmAqh 🌐 #Disinformation #DoNoHarm #LocalJournalism #FreedomOfExpression #PublicPolicy #CivicTrust cc Melissa Fleming Charlotte Scaddan Rosemary Kalapurakal Alice Harding Shackelford Roberto Valent Allegra Baiocchi (she/her/ella) Danilo Mora Carmen Lucia Morales Liliana Liliana Garavito George Gray Molina Marcos Neto Kersten Jauer

"From the very top of Mount Sinai, I bring you these ten . . . cybersecurity regulations." In IT/cybersecurity, the "single source of truth" (SSoT) refers to the authoritative data source, representing the official record of an organization. The broader concept of the SSoT, however, can be helpful in fighting misinformation and disinformation: 1. OBTAIN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT: Much of the news we hear can be tracked down to a SSoT--an original source document. The original source document can be a judicial opinion, text of a regulation, government or corporate press release, a scientific study, or an audio/video file. 2. FIND IT ON AN OFFICIAL SOURCE: The challenge these days is that with deep fakes, it is hard to know whether you have the SSoT or a fake. Thus, obtain a copy of the SSoT on an official source. For example, judicial opinions can be found on the court website or ECF Pacer. Legislation and proposed legislation can be found on Congress' website. Press releases are available on the issuing agency or organization's website. Scientific studies are usually available (for a fee) on the publishing journal's website or the sponsoring university's website. If you cannot find the SSoT on an official website, consider finding it through a "reliable" news source--one that independently and credibly fact checks its sources, and let's its audience know when it has not done that (e.g., WSJ, NYT, etc.). 3. READ IT YOURSELF: Once you obtain the SSoT, read it yourself, rather than relying on someone's characterization of the document or an AI summary of it. AI regularly hallucinates and mischaracterizes documents and humans often have their own spin or interpretation. See https://lnkd.in/eypgWCnd. 4. CONTEXT MATTERS: Just because you have read the SSoT doesn't mean it is accurate. First, consider what sources the SSoT cites. Are their sources cited at all? Are those sources reliable? Can you review the cited sources themselves? Also, consider who authored the SSoT. Is the author credible? Does the author have a reputation for accuracy and reliability? Consider Googling the name of the document to see whether there is controversy over its authenticity. 5. WHAT IS NOT SAID: When you are reviewing the SSoT, remember that what is NOT said in the SSoT is just as important than what is said. It is not uncommon for people (and perhaps as a result, AI) to make their own inferences and inject their own opinions into their discussion of a topic, when that inference or opinion is not a part of the original SSoT at all, and may be fair or unfair under the circumstances. Deep fakes are a significant problem but the truth is out there. We all bear the responsibility to find it.