Ask an Expert _

If you are concerned, you should try to identify an adult you can discuss this issue with. Much of the advice that is available is aimed at adults. Talking it though with an adult will help you decide what’s appropriate.

It’s really hard to stand by and watch someone you care about get consumed by particular types of narratives or conspiracies, especially if you think it is changing them or their behaviour, but if you can, try to keep some line of communication open with your friend so that they have someone to reach out to.

If you feel they are overly focused on conspiracy theories, it’s important to show empathy, and not ridicule them. It probably won’t be helpful to send them information or fact-checking articles. Simply confronting a believer with the facts can be ineffective, as they may be interpreted as further “proof” of the conspiracy, causing them to dig in deeper

The reasons for their belief can be complex. You have to approach it with a lot of empathy and a lot of understanding. Try to understand why this information resonates so much with them. One approach is to encourage open debate, and to show interest, e.g., by asking questions about the theory which may trigger self-reflection and allow you to gently introduce some counter-information.

Ultimately, the greatest weapon against conspiracy theories is media and information literacy, which empowers people to critically evaluate the information they encounter, seek out reputable sources, and engage in thoughtful discussions.
Some helpful sources of information can be found below:
– How to recognise and ‘deal’ with conspiracy theories? | European Youth Portal

– Identifying conspiracy theories – European Commission
– The Conspiracy Theory Handbook – Center for Climate Change Communication

There are so many ways false, misleading or inaccurate information circulates but here’s some of the most popular.

1. Imposter websites or accounts that appear to look like professional news organisations or journalists produce misleading content that are designed to misinform, enrage or cause a reaction.
2. Anonymous accounts online often share memes that are only intended to make people angry or upset and generate, or exploit, feelings of grievance among one group against members of another.
3. Automated accounts or click farms are used to try and manipulate trending sections on social media platforms to artificially boost content or influence recommendation systems that can, in turn, expose more online users to false or misleading information.
4. States have become interested in using the digital world to influence and shape public opinion at home and abroad. Ahead of the 2016 US presidential election, online accounts linked to Russian military intelligence posed as American citizens online and used Facebook and other platforms to spread false and misleading information to foster polarisation and division.
5. Private and semi-private messaging apps or group chats are highly popular. Such online spaces operate away from public scrutiny meaning they can be used to disseminate false and misleading information, encourage others to share this content or add new members to such chats.

Early examples of AI-generated images sometimes had telltale signs that would indicate that they ‘not real’, such as extra fingers on hands. However, when it comes to writing, it is more difficult.

It might be more useful to look for indicators that AI was likely or might have been used.

The most obvious indicators are usually factual. AI-generated writing sometimes includes outdated or incorrect references to historical events or public figures, or may include wrong information on a very recent event. Other indicators may be technical. AI tools will create content on whatever they are prompted with, sometimes with plausible but fabricated content. These are called hallucinations. For example, a URL or citation that is included in an AI generated piece of text might not exist when you click on it or research it for yourself.

Beyond errors like that, there are also more subtle style patterns that you can watch out for. Certain phrases have become associated with AI chatbots. For example, ChatGPT is often said to favour including the phrase “delve into” as part of its outputs. AI generated output can also favour the use of em dashes (written as ‘—’ and used as a versatile punctuation mark used to add emphasis, set off extra information, or indicate a break

in thought, often replacing commas, parentheses, or colons). Another indicator that AI might have been used to write something is the consistent use of American English (like z in place of s) or a tendency to structure arguments as “it’s not this, but that.”

Again, these are all possible signs rather than conclusive proof. Even AI detection tools widely available online are themselves open to errors. Rather than trying to figure out what was and was not written by AI, a better approach might be to understand that AI does have many legitimate uses in writing, like research or brainstorming and it is increasingly used, in all forms of media. What is important is that we are critically aware of where we get our news and information from because reputable content producers should use AI in a responsible and careful manner and ensure that a human review is carried out of any material produced using an AI platform to check for accuracy and reliability.

What should be absolutely avoided is the wholesale copy and paste of any AI outputs as, not only is this unethical and will likely contain errors, but it just won’t read very well either.

Conspiracy theories are based on the assumptions that nothing happens by accident, and that harmful or tragic events are caused by the actions of small, powerful groups of controlling (often government) elites, who are pulling the strings. There is usually an alleged, secret plot (e.g., ‘Plandemic’); a cabal of shadowy conspirators (e.g., Qanon); some cherry-picked or falsified ‘evidence’ to support the theory; a belief that coincidences don’t exist; the division of the world into “good” and “bad” sides; and the identification of scapegoats, who become targets for the conspiracists (European Commission). Conspiracy theories can be recognised by extraordinary, unsupported claims that defy established scientific knowledge, and excessive use of ad hominem (personal) attacks against anyone who attempts to debunk the theory (the “enemy”). They are often highly emotive, exploiting people’s fears, suspicions, or outrage to garner support.

Claims that the army was deployed to Dublin city center on the night of Thursday 23 November were shared in the midst of a live, developing situation where many things were happening at once and rumours, misinformation and lies often circulate in real time online and offline. Many people believed the images were real and current.

To add to the misleading nature of the claim, this was not the only image posted online that claimed the army were being deployed to the city, so, in the context of a live situation like this, it’s not surprising that the claim was shared as true and deceived lots of people online.

The particular image was especially deceptive because the original tweet featuring it that went viral made the explicit claim (which was false) that it showed tanks on the streets of Dublin that night. The image depicted a scene at night, which lined up with real world events happening at night time, but beyond that, there were no details to suggest the date that photo was taken.

To verify the location, there were some clues that were helpful. In the background was a white building with a yellow sign. By zooming in on the image you could just about make out that it said “Doyle.” You could then have Googled “Doyle” “Dublin” and you probably would have got a lot of results about the two different Doyles pubs on College St and Phibsborough.

If you opened Google Maps and searched “Doyle” over Dublin, you would have received a list of many businesses with Doyle in the name. There’s a lot of businesses but, by process of elimination, you could have checked each and reviewed the front of their buildings to see if it was a match for the building in the photo.

One of the results was JP & M Doyle, a real estate agent in Terenure. Their building features the same yellow “Doyle” sign as seen in the image, verifying the image was taken in Dublin.

This of course is a time consuming process that is usually mostly done by journalists and researchers and online users may not have the time to devote to verification like that. If you were following events online, you could have also done your own search for something like “Dublin” “army” and reviewed the online posts from others to see if someone else had commented on or debunked the claim that the army was deployed.

If you searched that on X (formerly known as Twitter) on Thursday, you might’ve seen this tweet stating the photo was taken in Terenure but also helpfully noting that army vehicles pass through here regularly on their way to/from the nearby Cathal Brugha Barracks.

That still doesn’t confirm when the image was taken, which was really at the heart of this false claim. For that, it’s important to rely on credible, trusted sources of news and information or official organisations at the heart of the claim.

In this instance, with an army deployment, you could expect the Defence Forces to issue a statement announcing an operation – or – confirming the image was unrelated to November 23. That’s what they did with this post on Twitter stating the image was “from a separate routine operation and have no connection to this evening’s events.”

This is a challenging issue. While conspiracy theories have always existed – e.g., the 1969 moon landing was faked in a studio – they seem to have become even more pervasive in recent years. This was apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, when multiple conspiracies relating to vaccines, lockdowns and the origin of the virus were shared widely on the Internet and social media. While conspiracy theories can be entertaining, they are also dangerous, especially when “going down the rabbit hole” leads to cataclysmic outcomes, such as the January 6th US Capitol attacks, or preventable deaths from viruses.

Simply confronting a believer with the facts can be ineffective, as they may be interpreted as further “proof” of the conspiracy, causing them to dig in deeper. It’s important to show empathy, and not ridicule your family member – remember, the reasons for their belief can be complex. One approach is to encourage open debate, and to show interest, e.g., by asking questions about the theory which may trigger self-reflection and allow you to gently introduce some counter-information. If possible, asking a former conspiracy theorist to help with debunking can also be a useful strategy. Ultimately, the greatest weapon against conspiracy theories is media and information literacy, which empowers people to critically evaluate the information they encounter, seek out reputable sources, and engage in thoughtful discussions.
Some helpful sources of information can be found below:

COMPACT Guide to Conspiracy Theories:

Download

The Conspiracy Theory Handbook:

Download

Identifying conspiracy theories (EU Commission):

Download

The short answer is that the evidence should determine what is and isn’t disinformation. Any person or organisation making a decision about a claim should do so transparently and in reference to the evidence. Of course, the difficulty is that evaluating evidence isn’t always straightforward because there may be a lack of evidence or the nature of the claim isn’t entirely factual. For example, there is a clear scientific consensus on the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of childhood vaccines. Some people may disagree with that, but the scientific evidence is clear. In contrast, many other things we argue about in society are not based on clear-cut facts; they are interpretations of evidence and they concern political and moral ideas about what we should or shouldn’t do. In these cases, it’s often the case that a claim is partially false or decontextualised or distorted in some way and the reasons for coming to that conclusion should be clearly explained.

Disinformation is created by a wide range of actors including states, corporations, groups, and individuals. And the reasons or motivations for creating it are also wide ranging. Motivations could be political, ideological, or financial or a mix of these. Some disinformation stems from a highly-organised and well-funded international lobby groups while other disinformation might be highly local. There is no single model.

Pre-bunking is a relatively simple idea: it involves warning people in advance about manipulation tactics and strategies. Whereas debunking or factchecking tries to correct false information after the fact, pre-bunking rests on the idea that if you are forewarned about disinformation strategies you are more likely to be able to resist them when you see them. For example, pre-bunks might explain that there’s an organised campaign to discredit climate science or that conspiracy theorists have been promoting claims about crisis actors to distract attention from crimes and atrocities. On the surface, we might think of it as being similar to media literacy in that both aim to encourage people to think critically about the media they consume, but they have very different origin. The ideas behind pre-bunking come from research in social psychology in the 1960s. In contrast, media literacy has a much broader set of concerns to protect people from undue media influence but also to empower people to use media to express themselves and lead full lives. One way to think of the difference is that pre-bunking is trying to put out the fire of disinformation whereas media literacy is trying to promote good citizenship and participation and inclusion so  fighting disinformation is just a part of it.

As with most social media, Alt Tech platforms mainly rely on users interacting with, commenting and sharing (mis) information. The key therefore is to create engaging narratives to draw people in.  A common characteristic of misinformation circulating in Alt Tech platforms is the use of emotional communication, and in particular anger, fear and anxiety. Referring to vulnerable groups, for example children, or highlighting points of tension, for example around housing, misinformation narratives provoke fear or anxiety.

In a second step, they provide a clear solution by naming and blaming the supposed perpetrators. Stoking fear, anxiety and anger is therefore a typical strategy used in harmful narratives, which then direct these emotions to target and blame specific communities.

As media stories often engage the emotions of audiences, it can be very tricky to determine whether a narrative is manipulative. We live in imperfect societies and there are many grievances and tensions, which can be expressed through anger and anxiety. However, when a narrative blames whole communities of people and presents overly simplistic solutions, this should make us pause, think and question the motives and reasoning behind it.

Digital skills are fundamental to children’s successful engagement with the world through the internet. The following are key points to consider when using technology with younger pupils.

Simplicity: Keep it simple. Use one website or app and think about creative ways of how you can meaningfully integrate it to develop language learning or knowledge and understanding of a topic that you have planned to explore in your Scéimeanna Coicíse.

Model: Model what you want your pupils to do. If you have access to a laptop or tablet and can connect it to a whiteboard in your classroom, you can introduce your pupils to the features of a new digital resource on a whole class level together. For example, if you wanted to introduce your pupils to a new digital storytelling tool such as Write Reader or Book Creator, you could engage them in a shared digital writing experience to create a class book. This would not only provide you with an opportunity to model how to use the new tool but it would also be an excellent opportunity to focus on the writing process itself.

Clear expectations: Have clear expectations for your pupils to follow in relation to handling devices and their behaviour when working in pairs or in groups. A good idea would be to involve your pupils in creating a simple class “Digital Contract” so that they clearly know what is expected of them.

Digital Citizenship crosses subject boundaries and involves a range of school stakeholders. It requires a whole-school approach to provide consistency and shared expectations across the school community. There are opportunities that naturally occur in a subject in which digital citizenship education can be embedded. Digital Citizenship naturally offers opportunities to support junior students’ development of the 8 key skills as outlined in the junior cycle curriculum.

Digital citizenship education also fits perfectly within the digital learning planning process, and maps directly to the Digital Learning Framework (DLF). It directly links to SHPE, CSPE and Leaving Cert Computer Science. For young people to become effective digital citizens there are several competencies they need to develop including information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, problem solving, privacy and data literacy.

Schools can access a range of free curriculum aligned resources from Webwise.ie including the Connected programme. Connected – a Junior Cycle Digital Media Literacy programme explores; Online Wellbeing; News, Information and Problems of False Information; Big Data and the Data Economy; and My Rights Online. Connected aims to empower young people to be effective, autonomous and safe users of technology and online media.