7/8/2025–|Last update: 11:53 (Mecca time)
They are searching for a needle in a straw pile, so the report of the “Buenter” Institute described the environment in which the factors work, especially in light of a torrent of false news, and nearly a quarter of a million information per day needed to verify its accuracy.
The American Institute, a specialist in press studies and media practices, discussed the challenges in front of the facts of the facts in order to determine the priorities of false news and the verified allegations, based on their harm.
In the report, prepared by researchers “Peter Convil Jones” and “Andrew Dodeld”, the institute discussed a “strict” model that includes criteria that help information auditors narrow the options in front of the flow of false news flowing on the Internet.
“Jones” and “Dodeld” pointed to the experience of Full Fact, the largest independent organization to verify facts in the United Kingdom, where last month she used artificial intelligence tools to survey public discussions in the media and on the Internet, and identified an average of 240 thousand and 437 content that is circulated daily, can “Full Fact” or one of the other ten institutions that use their tools to verify His health.
And because false news is not equal in importance, “Ful Fact” was able, through artificial intelligence tools again, to exclude more than 99% of allegations, as it is not important for the institution to verify them, as it is opinions, predictions or repeated allegations, or related to very abstract topics, so that it can hardly have any effect.
Most institutions that fight false facts follow a largely similar process, by using a mixture of digital research and human vision, to sieve countless allegations, and focus on those you find more important.
The researchers indicated that although technology narrowed the scope of choice to dozens of important allegations only, the facts were still to decide which news would work to verify it, taking into account the importance of the claim, its potential impact and other factors. Full Fact is an average of 10 full and detailed facts of facts daily.
“Bointer” explains that most of the institutions that fight false facts follow a largely similar process, by using a mixture of digital research and human vision, to sieve from countless allegations, and focus on those you find more important.
The factors of choosing the news to verify
The researchers conducted a questionnaire last June, with 70 of the most prominent institutions of anti -false information and fact scrutiny in the world, on the considerations you take into account when choosing the materials that will be verified every day.
The answers showed 3 main factors: damage, the spread of the claim, and the strength of those who launched it, while the most frequent factor was that the claim “may cause specific harm, now or in the near future”, which was mentioned by 93% of the participants.
83% of the institutions stated that the second factor is whether the prosecution reaches a large audience, and then came with a small difference, by 81%, whether the prosecution was issued by an influential person. The factors tend to verify the validity of the party’s allegations or parties that represent the majority more than those representing the minority or the opposition, according to the researchers.
The true consequences of false information are severe, and these possible effects have been proven repeatedly from the widespread damage to individual and public health, civil violence, wars and conflicts, and democracy distortion, to the negative effects of the economy, the system of justice and mental health of individuals.
The researchers point out that the expectation of the effect of information on behavior is difficult, as decades of academic research have proven, noting that when most people, including factors, have been asked to define specific false allegations that they may be harmful or harmless, they exaggerated the possibility that many false news caused major consequences.
However, as studies show, the true consequences of false information are often severe, and these possible effects have been repeatedly proven from the widespread damage to individual and public health, civil violence, wars and conflicts, and distortion of democracy, to the negative effects of the economy, the system of justice and mental health of individuals.
But what about the huge amount of false information?
However, the researchers say, the vast amount of misleading information available in the world is still horrific, and with regard to determining what is true or wrong for the public, “Jones” and “Dodeld” indicated that there are two main paths for that at the present time.
The first is the “community notes” systems used by social media platforms, “X” all over the world, and “Tech Tok” and “Meta” in the United States.
These companies say that the system can address the health of the content that is evaluated on a scale that goes beyond what the professional factors can do, based on the consensus of the public, and the researchers commented by saying that despite the benefit of this model, it is not designed based on the possibility that false news causes harm.
Therefore, the researchers continue, the other method is the use of artificial intelligence to match the results of the verification of information with the new and existing content that publishes similar or very similar allegations, pointing out that social media platforms have used this process for a long time, according to a report issued by the European Union, “Mita” used artificial intelligence to match the allegations, to classify 27 million additional publications during a period of 6 months in 2024.