A Guide to Countering Mis/Disinformation During a Crisis.
Amid unprecedented events, our news feeds overflow with reports, images, and videos, making real-time truth discernment challenging. This thread equips you with the tools for effective navigation amidst such situations.
When "Breaking News" emerges, the rush to lead and control the narrative ensues. Reports are hastily assembled, drawing from private sources, alleged incident images, and precedent, often intertwined with personal opinions. This process is standard, but it also leads to issues.
The hurried reporting often results in the publication of false testimonies, mislabeling unrelated pictures and videos as connected to the event, and unsourced reports driving a false narrative about the sequence of events.
How can WE avoid this?
Step 1: Be aware of your own bias.
Your belief system influences the narrative you embrace regarding "Breaking News." People often scramble to latch onto reports, pictures, or videos that align with their preconceived conclusions about the event, forgoing a critical analysis.
Step 2: Ignore reports that don't provide a source.
You are going to have to filter through a lot of content as you try to piece together what transpired. Ignore anything that doesn't provide a source for their claims about the event.
Step 3: For reports with alleged sources, check them!
Sometimes, the sources provided are "unnamed," "anonymous," or overly vague, such as when attributed statements are as generic as "a [country] official said". My advice would be to also initially ignore these alleged sources.
Step 4: For photos/videos attributed to the event - Patience.
Check for disputes regarding the origin of the photos/videos. Misattributed media is often swiftly "fact-checked." Moreover, consider using "Google Lens" on the image/video to uncover any possible older versions.
Step 5: Don't believe fact-checkers who don't provide sources.
Often, fact-checkers will rush to correct posts. Ensure that their explanations provide sources for their claims, and treat them as you would any "Breaking News" report.
Step 6: Don't rely on the captions or subtitles of videos of languages you don't speak.
If feasible, contact a user fluent in the language for verification. If not, attempt to locate a transcript of the video. Exercise caution with translation apps as they may not always be accurate.
Step 7: Sensational dazzles, yet truth it often eludes
Be cautious of initial reports packed with buzzwords and vivid details; they often serve a purpose. During a crisis, beware of clickbait designed to exploit biases and grab attention.
Navigating reports can be complex and time-consuming. This concise list aims to help you swiftly sift through your news feeds, drawing from personal experience to steer clear of fake reports, pictures, and videos.
For a more comprehensive overview of handling misinformation:
Note: A frequently asked question is, "Who should I follow for accuracy?"
We all have biases, which can lead to mistakes. Follow those you trust, but remain cautious and ensure they source anything they post. After all, we're all human and prone to errors.
Thanks for reading!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Remember the fake site built to spread disinformation?
It claimed the bystander who disarmed one of the shooters wasn’t Ahmed al-Ahmed, but “Edward Crabtree.”
Let’s break down everything wrong with the site - 🧵
First of all, the site is "attempting" (very badly) to mimic the real news site, "The Daily Aus" - It just got literally everything wrong:
Next, whoever used ChatGPT (I presume) to write the article got several basic facts wrong in the opening paragraphs:
1. The article claims the attack happened on Saturday. It happened on Sunday. 2. It claims the attack was carried out by a lone gunman. There were two gunmen.
Based on the available visuals, it appears (Based on current video evidence) that both gunmen arrived prepared with two firearms each: two hunting rifles and two shotguns.
Current visual information: 1. In the phone and drone footage, one of the individuals who is shot appears to be holding/laying by a firearm (likely a rifle) near the back right side of the vehicle at the moment they are hit. The exact weapon type cannot be confirmed from the footage alone.
2. The vehicle seen parked next to the bridge matches a car reportedly associated with one of the shooters’ home addresses (based on the license plate allegedly linked to him).
3. In the phone footage, a visible interaction visible is seen between one of the victims and a shooter.
Firearms observed in separate footage: 1. In footage showing the two neutralized shooters, one hunting rifle and one shotgun are clearly visible: x.com/talhagin/statu…
2. In footage of a bystander tackling one of the suspects, one shotgun is visible: x.com/talhagin/statu…
Taken together, these visuals support the assessment that four firearms were present at the scene.
Based on the video, after shooting at two individuals in close proximity, they direct almost* all subsequent gunfire toward the south-east.
Their immediate line of sight, shown by the red movement line, points south-east toward the gathering point of the Hanukkah celebration, marked by the white circle.
(Per my analysis of the video) The shooting does not appear to be random or indiscriminate.
The two individuals were likely shot due to their close proximity or an attempt to intervene. At 1:31, the shooters can be seen actively warning people to the north, where filming is taking place, to move away.
The only time they switch shooting direction is once officers begin to return fire:
The original image was released with the women’s faces blurred. Naturally, people wanted to know who they were, and some turned to AI to “enhance” the image. edition.cnn.com/2025/12/12/pol…
The first altered version came from Google Gemini. It was heavily distorted. One woman’s face was warped beyond recognition, and it still included an AI watermark. Despite this, some people accepted it as real.
It will never cease to amuse me that the agenda or circumstances surrounding any major event will always fall directly in line with whatever core belief a “truth seeker” holds.
They begin with a conclusion, and just jerry-rig “evidence” to fit it.
Wanna test it yourself?
Go to any self-proclaimed truth seeker and figure out their core narrative: 1. Hatred of left/right wing people 2. Hatred of a religious/ethnic group. 3. Hatred of a racial group. 4. Or the recurring hits: “This is a conspiracy,” “False flag,” “It’s staged.” 5. Etc
Now, look at any major event and the time it happened.
Then look at their feed.
How long did it take them to shove the event into their narrative?
Not based on evidence. Not based on facts.
But simply because “it has to be.”
On Jan 5, 2025, @elonmusk said:
“Grok will be the best source of truth by far.”
Beyond this, users have relied on the X LLM, known as Grok to verify information, even attempting to use its replies as Community Notes.
But can we really rely on Grok?🧵
We mostly see Grok being tagged in comment sections, being asked:
“Grok, is this true?”
This tells us something really important:
People want to verify information they see on their feed.
In theory, that’s great - People aren't blindly believing posts. But there’s a big catch.
The catch?
Grok isn’t omniscient, and many also see it as “unbiased". But it’s just a machine built on human-provided, narrative-driven, and malleable data.
Its answers shift with how questions are asked and are guided by prompts set by its creators.