Over 5 billion people (Statista, 2023) are currently connected to the internet. Simply speaking, that’s like having access to about two-thirds of the world’s population through the smartphone in your pocket. Digital technology has revolutionised information access, empowering individuals to acquire unprecedented volumes of knowledge. But it has also ushered in rampant misinformation and disinformation—posing a grave societal threat.
It is becoming easier to influence and manipulate real-world perceptions through digital means. Misinformation (inaccurate information without malicious intent) and disinformation (the deliberate spread of falsehoods) plague our digital world. Social media, news outlets, and even official channels can amplify misleading content at an alarming pace. This is what happened around the explosion at Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza on 17 October 2023.
The blast came eleven days following Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel—leading to the deadliest assault in Israel’s history, with over 1,400 Israelis dead (including children) and more than 4,600 injured. In response, Israel declared war on the Islamist terrorist organisation. On the evening of 17 October, Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry reported that an Israeli airstrike had hit the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital, stating that over 400 people had been killed (including women, children and the elderly). This information went viral as major news outlets broadcasted these early reports. Social media exploded as users shared the story over and over. Condemnation for attacking a hospital—a contravention of international humanitarian law—poured into Israel from across the globe, particularly from Arab states and further inflaming pro-Palestine protests in the Middle East.
The truth is that the strike had happened, causing an unverified number of deaths. However, all was not as it seemed. Within hours, Israel denied responsibility for the attack, releasing statements and evidence that a rocket had misfired within Gaza, likely launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad militants. These claims were backed by President Joe Biden during his visit to wartime Tel Aviv on 18 October, citing US intelligence reports—which were further supported by assessments from France later on. Weapons experts and think tanks weighed in, providing analyses that cast doubt over Hamas’ claim that Israel was behind the hospital hit.
By the end of the following news day, major outlets with high public trust for being reputable sources, like The New York Times and the BBC, issued official statements correcting headlines and articles blaming Israel for the strike. They had been quick to publish these stories off the back of early reports from Hamas.
Moral of the story? Don’t believe everything you see on the internet because digital checks and balances aren’t inherently built into the system. It’s up to us to exercise due diligence.
The internet can be a vast and lawless digital landscape, much like the Wild West of old. Digital deception can have far-reaching repercussions. Unverified information can impact public perceptions and political decisions, as seen through the Gaza hospital strike. Malign intent and lies can go undetected. Harmful behaviour can be unattributable. False medical information can imperil public health, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Confidence in institutions—including governments, law enforcement, and the military—can crumble under the weight of doctored photos and conspiracy theories. Disinformation can manipulate public opinion—undermining elections and disrupting markets.
It’s time to empower sheriffs in the wild, wild web—but who are they?
It’s all of us.
Sharing information is vital to societies, where real ideas can be contested and promoted to improve humanity. Identifying misinformation and fighting disinformation online can preserve the collective trust and confidence required to keep societies going. It’s an endeavour we must all partake in, and there are a few things we can do to kit up as sheriffs.
Anyone can check the URL for mimicry of a credible source, inspect content for unsupported claims and check comments for duplicated engagement (different users all suspiciously saying the same thing can indicate the use of bot accounts). We can pick up on unsupported claims by seeking information from multiple reputable sources to ensure accuracy and reduce bias.
It’s widely regarded as common sense not to rely solely on one news outlet or social media platform. Importantly, we must be aware of our own prejudices and how they might affect judgment. To support this, engaging with diverse perspectives could work to broaden our understanding and avoid confirmation bias. Former Google design ethicist and founder of the Center for Humane Technology, Tristan Harris, suggests people do a “Freaky Friday” swap with friends’ newsfeeds to see how social media algorithms can breed a certain bias based on individual preferences and digital media habits.
On the technological front, consider using browser extensions and plugins—like NewsGuard—that rate online sources on accuracy. These can be used in conjunction with fact-checking sites like PolitiFact and Snopes, while reverse image searches can assist in verifying photos accompanying “true” stories. This is particularly handy for user-generated content—such as images and videos on Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok or X—which can be easily manipulated or miscaptioned.
In light of all these tools we can take up against misinformation and disinformation, governments could invest in increasing digital literacy across the general population and running educational programs at schools and public libraries. It could work to decrease the large-scale havoc that malign actors or unknowing netizens can wreak on the internet.
There is currently no silver bullet, but we have to start somewhere. Ultimately, fighting the rise of digital misinformation and disinformation requires collaborative action. It starts with you and me on our devices. By staying vigilant and taking personal responsibility for our digital media habits, we can all be sheriffs in the wild, wild web.
