Combating Disinformation

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

Article 52 of the AI Act is a pivotal piece of legislation designed to mitigate the risks associated with synthetic media. Art 52 directly addresses the challenges posed by generative AI (GPAI) systems that produce audio, image, video, or text content, demanding that such outputs be clearly marked as artificially generated or manipulated. This requirement aims to preserve the integrity of digital content and protect against the deceptive uses of AI, particularly deepfakes, which have demonstrated significant potential for harm in political, social, and personal contexts. The provision mandates that providers of AI systems ensure the detectability of AI-generated content through marking in a machine-readable format. This obligation extends to ensuring the effectiveness, interoperability, robustness, and reliability of these technical solutions, where technically feasible. For AI systems generating or manipulating deepfake content, there is a requirement to disclose the artificial nature of such content. This transparency obligation extends to content intended to inform the public on matters of public interest, requiring disclosure when text has been artificially generated or manipulated, with exceptions for content that has undergone human review and where editorial responsibility is established. Building on the principles outlined in Article 52 of the AI Act, initiatives like Adobe’s Content Credentials (CR mark) represent significant advancements in the practical implementation of these provisions. The CR mark, a cornerstone of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), offers a visual indicator that signals the provenance of digital media. This initiative is aimed at combatting disinformation by enabling users to easily identify and verify content that adheres to technical standards of authenticity. Adobe’s approach allows for a “digital nutrition label” that provides verified information about the content, including the publisher or creator’s details, creation date and location, the tools used (specifically indicating the use of generative AI), and any edits made. Meta’s response to the challenge of AI-generated misinformation further illuminates the complexities involved in regulating and labeling synthetic content. Despite announcing a plan to label AI-generated content created using popular generative AI tools and the development of tools to identify invisible markers, Meta’s efforts have been criticised for their limitations. The efficacy of Meta’s watermarking plan is questioned due to the ease with which watermarks can be removed and the reliance on bad actors using tools that comply with watermarking standards. The shortcomings of Meta’s approach underscore a broader challenge: the need for more indelible watermarking technologies that can embed authentication information directly into the content’s pixels or data structure, making it considerably more difficult to remove or alter without detection.

I’ve been reading about how Finland handles fake news. While we often treat media literacy as a workshop or a checkbox, they treat it like a survival skill. Rather than just adding a "critical thinking" class to the schedule, they weave it into the fabric of the entire curriculum. In math, students learn how statistics can be manipulated to mislead. In art, they study how images are altered to change the narrative. In history, they analyze propaganda campaigns to understand the mechanics of influence. It starts young. Really young. Finnish children begin these lessons in preschool. As they learn to read; they are learning to question what they read. Teachers encourage them to act like detectives, asking simple but powerful questions: Who wrote this? Why did they write it? Where is the evidence? This approach came from necessity. Sharing a long border with Russia, Finland has faced targeted disinformation for decades. They understood early that a strong democracy requires a citizenry that can’t be easily fooled. It makes me wonder about our own relationship with information. We often focus on the platforms-the algorithms, the moderation policies, the tech giants. We look for a technical fix to a human problem. But Finland reminds us that the most effective filter is the mind. Are we teaching our teams, our kids, (and ourselves) to pause and ask who is behind the information we consume? Or are we just scrolling? We could learn a lot from a system that values the ability to doubt just as much as the ability to know.

Misinformation isn’t just about false facts—it’s also about misleading ones. Even if a fact is 100% true, it can still be unreliable: ⚠️ A single anecdote can be paraded as proof. ⚠️ An exception can be framed as the rule. ⚠️ A correlation can be mistaken for causation. In May Contain Lies, I explain how we can protect ourselves from misinformation. Here's how: 🧠 Step 1: Recognize That You Already Have the Tools We don’t need a PhD in statistics to think critically. Whenever a study is posted on LinkedIn that people don't like, there's no shortage of comments on why correlation is not causation, or why the example may be cherry-picked. The real challenge? Ensuring we use the same discernment for a study we do like as for one we don't. 🔍 Step 2: Beware of Confirmation Bias We latch onto whatever interpretation of the facts confirms our view of the world. Take breastfeeding and IQ: 🍼 Studies show that breastfed babies often have higher IQs later in life. 🔬 One interpretation? Breastfeeding causes higher IQ. This makes sense: breastmilk is natural; formula is a UPF. 🤔 A more critical perspective? Family support might be the real factor—since breastfeeding is easier with strong family backing. ⚫⚪ Step 3: Avoid Black-and-White Thinking The world isn’t split into “always good” or “always bad.” 🥑 Fat sounds bad—because it’s called "fat." 💪 Protein sounds good—because it “builds muscle.” 🍞 Carbs? Neutral. But diets like Atkins claimed they were the enemy. 🔹 Reality? Science suggests that carbs are healthy when they make up 30–50% of daily calories. 🔹 But tracking exact percentages is tough—so simple rules gain traction, even when they’re scientifically weak. With black-and-white thinking, to sell an idea, you don’t need to be right. You just need to be extreme. ♻️ Step 4: Flip the Narrative If a claim supports your beliefs, imagine the opposite claim instead. Example: 🔴 If a study said breastfeeding lowers IQ, how would you try to debunk it? You'd appeal to alternative explanations: perhaps poorer families breastfeed (as they can't afford formula), and it's poverty not breastfeeding that causes the lower IQ. 🟢 Now ask if the same alternative explanation applies even though the results are in the direction you want. Might family background explain why breastfed babies have higher IQ? In short, challenge the evidence—not just the conclusion. 🤔 Step 5: Embrace Healthy Skepticism Questioning flawed research isn’t just intellectual nitpicking—it’s freedom. ✅ Parents can make feeding choices without guilt. ✅ People can eat carbs without fear-based restrictions. ✅ We all gain the confidence to navigate the world with clarity. We won't get it right 100% of the time—and in the book I explain many times I got it wrong. But the goal is not to be perfect, only better.

Donald Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly is the direct consequence of the green narrative that has presented for too long the climate action as expensive, sacrificial and shrinking the economy. I would love to have the opportunity to show him that it is exactly the opposite. I don’t expect to convince him with ideology, but with economic logic and financial facts: 📌 According to IRENA, solar energy is now 41% cheaper than fossil fuels, and onshore wind projects 53% cheaper. 📌 According to the IEA, clean energy jobs worldwide have now surpassed fossil fuel employment - and the gap is widening every year. 📌 According to the US Department of Energy, improving energy efficiency in buildings could cut utility bills by 30%, while creating hundreds of thousands of local jobs. This is not about sacrifice. It is about modernisation, competitiveness, and purchasing power. Because cleaner air, lower bills, healthier homes, and more resilient economies improve the quality of life for all of us - today, not tomorrow. At the Solar Impulse Foundation, we have identified thousands of clean and profitable solutions proving that the transition is not a cost, but a way to avoid wasting money on old and ineficient infrastructures. Being smart means shifting capital toward technologies that work, not locking it into yesterday’s economy. Those who delay the inevitable modernisation will be left with stranded assets, obsolete industries, and higher energy bills. Those who act will create new markets, new professions, stronger economies, and better living conditions. And yes, denial is often a reflex, a way to resist change when it feels threatening. That is why we must speak to skeptics in their own language: not with fear, but with evidence that solutions already exist, that they work, and that they make both economic and human sense. United Nations I UN Environment Programme I International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) I International Energy Agency (IEA) I U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) https://lnkd.in/ekFyGV_T

Last night we saw Taylor Swift calling out the use of an AI deepfake of her falsely endorsing a presidential candidate. Let’s talk thru the latest in how to spot deepfakes in videos, calls, & social media… First, let’s start with an experiment! Do you think you can reliably spot fake AI images? Here’s an opportunity to see how well you can spot AI generated photos (some are easy and some are more challenging): https://lnkd.in/gcZ2DKkX Next we’ll talk about tips to spot deepfakes. Let’s start with how to spot AI generated *photos* (will change in the future), ask yourself: - Shockingly unusual: Is the pic showing surprising actions for celebrities, politicians, or cultures? - Body parts and clothes a bit off: Are body parts merged together? In the background of the pic, are there people without faces? Are the people wearing mismatched earrings or have jewelry like earrings embedded in skin (like in their forehead)? - Airbrushed and Saturated: Does the picture look highly saturated, with airbrushing effects around edges? Is it somehow lit from all sides at once? Are there more colors than exist normally in a typical photo? - Looking for Pity: is the photo an airbrushed picture of a child or solider holding up a sign asking for support, money, wishes, or likes/follows? Does it have incorrect spelling in odd ways? Now let’s talk thru spotting AI deepfake *videos*: - Glitchy mouth and teeth: do the mouth and teeth fall out of sync? Do you see large teeth when a mouth is closed for a split second? - Lip sync issues: do the words match up with the mouth movements or are they out of sync? - Blinking in slow motion, oddly or backwards: does it almost look like the person blinking is in rewind/blinking in reverse? Does the amount of blinking increase throughout the video significantly? - Ragged breathing movements: does the person in the video look like they aren’t breathing in a natural cadence, that sometimes they go a while without taking a breath and then their chest rises dramatically multiple times to breathe? Now for spotting AI voice clones in *phone calls or robocalls*: - Celeb or politician impersonation: if you receive a call from a “politician” about voting/not voting/actions to take on Election Day that’s a good sign it’s a voice clone deepfake. - Verbose: live AI voice clones hooked up to LLMs are typically overly verbose, they speak for way longer than normal humans do - Long pauses: someone using an AI voice clone either has to deal with LLM latency causing long pauses if you interrupt or they have to attempt to use a voice clone tool to type their replies…both cause long awkward delays and pauses. - Pretending to be a boss/someone who can tell you what to do: Does the slightly robotic voice telling you to wire money sound like your CFO? Verify authenticity of the request first. It's up to all of us to keep our loved ones & coworkers up to date as the methods to spot deepfakes evolve!

🗞️ 🇬🇧 Lessons from the latest « Disinformation Diplomacy » report by the UK House of Commons : ▶️Democracies must move from fragmented, defensive counter-disinformation to coordinated, strategic use of information power. 🇬🇧 National recommendations : 1. Create a National Counter-Disinformation Centre A centralised structure to coordinate response across government. • Inspired by models in Sweden, Ukraine and France • Aim: faster detection, attribution and response= a shift toward a “fusion centre” model for the information space. 2. Significantly increase funding for information defence Focus areas: FCDO Hybrid Threats Directorate & BBC World Service as key strategic asset ▶️ greater investment needed to prevent authoritarian narratives from gaining ground globally. ▶️ recognition of information power as a hard power multiplier. 3. Scale up support to allies and vulnerable regions 🔹Priority regions: Black Sea, Western Balkans, Africa 🔹Focus on strengthening independent media and civil society resilience. 4. Address legal gaps on foreign interference 🔹current threshold to prove foreign attribution deemed too high, limiting enforcement & enabling plausible deniability 🔹 urgent legislative review needed to enable faster and more effective action. 5. Introduce algorithmic transparency for platforms 🔹Amend the Online Safety Act to require: • Greater transparency on how algorithms amplify content • Stronger safeguards against coordinated manipulation 6. Invest in public resilience (media literacy and prebunking) Shift from reactive debunking to societal immunity, to strengthen public understanding & scale preventive approaches. Considering citizens as the frontline of defence. 7. Rethink strategic communications Current efforts deemed to lack compelling narratives: Need credible messengers & Content tailored to target audiences 🔹 shift from fact-based rebuttal to competitive narrative warfare. 8. Clarify and communicate strategy on China 🇨🇳 🔹Defining red lines, Influence risks, Engagement doctrine, Avoid ambiguity between economic engagement and security priorities.

The Guardian's recent piece on the information crisis names something most of us feel but struggle to articulate. We have moved from misinformation to deliberate disinformation, into something far more disorienting: a world where the shared foundations for evaluating truth — journalism, science, institutions — are themselves distrusted. AI-generated content at an industrial scale, deepfakes, algorithmic amplification, epistemic fragmentation, and sheer exhaustion have combined to produce what philosophers call an “epistemic crisis”. The real casualty isn't just truth, it's our capacity to agree on a shared reality. And without that, dialogue, institutional trust, and collective action all erode. In “What the Heck Do I Do with My Life”, I wrote about developing your own inner GPS to navigate chaos. That GPS is your character — the moral compass that tells you what's true, what matters, and how to act when the signals around you are scrambled. Here's what building it looks like in practice: 1. Develop critical thinking and discernment  Don't outsource your judgment to algorithms, influencers, or even experts. Ask: What's the evidence? Who benefits from me believing this? What am I not seeing? Discernment is a muscle; it weakens if you don't use it. 2. Curate reliable voices, not just reliable facts  Identify a small set of thoughtful, intellectually honest people worth following across disciplines and geographies. Not people who always agree with you, but people whose reasoning you have learned to trust. This is a long-term investment, not a quick fix. 3. Actively seek out dissenting opinions.  The algorithm will never do this for you. It's designed to do the opposite. Make it a practice to understand the strongest version of views you disagree with. You may not change your mind, but you will hold your conclusions more honestly. 4. Slow down before you believe or share  The platforms are engineered for speed and outrage. Pause and ask: Do I actually know this is true, or does it just feel true? Most viral misinformation falls apart in sixty seconds of basic scrutiny. 5. Build your character — that's your real GPS  Information literacy helps. But what ultimately navigates you through chaos is who you are: your values, your integrity, your willingness to sit with uncertainty rather than grab the nearest certainty. Character is built slowly, through choices, reflection, and honest self-examination. There are no shortcuts, but there is no better investment. The information crisis won't be solved by better fact-checkers alone. It will be navigated by people who have done the harder work of developing themselves. What would you add to this list?

Cyber Smart from the Start: Defending Finland’s Future in the Classroom Finland has long been celebrated for its world-class education system and commitment to digital innovation. But as technology becomes increasingly entwined with everyday life, new challenges are emerging—especially for the next generation. The rise of misinformation, cyberbullying, and online fraud means that teaching traditional subjects is no longer enough. Today’s students must be equipped with the tools to think critically, act safely, and defend themselves in the digital world. Disinformation campaigns, particularly from hostile foreign actors like Russia, have become more frequent and more sophisticated. These campaigns are not limited to military or political targets—they affect everyday citizens, manipulating emotions, distorting facts, and undermining democratic values. Finnish students must be taught how to recognize propaganda, question suspicious sources, and resist the temptation to share unverified information. But media literacy alone won’t cut it. Our young people also need to understand personal cybersecurity—from using secure passwords and avoiding phishing scams, to managing their online identity and digital footprint. By integrating cybersecurity and disinformation awareness into the national curriculum, we can ensure that Finnish students grow up not just smart, but cyber smart—ready to protect themselves, and their country, from the digital threats of today and tomorrow. #cybersecurity #education #Finland #CyberHygiene #misinformation #disinformation #PrimarySchool #SecondarySchool #privacy #WhyCantWeDoThatHere #democracy