“Did Joe Biden spend 40% of his presidency on vacation?”, “Why Trump is wrong about the link between immigration and delinquency in the US”, “Pro-Trump accounts on X use “stolen” photos of European influencers”… With the American presidential election, the Fake off service of 20 Minutes has its work cut out for it. But despite the heated debate and fears surrounding AI tools, misinformation is not inevitable.
Certainly, disinformation, conspiracy theories or extreme discourse often seem amplified, especially online. “Social networks and discussion forums provide a form of anonymity that allows you to identify yourself and, at the same time, never reveal yourself,” explains Tamara Guénoun, clinical psychologist and lecturer, who has worked on issues of radicalization and conspiracy theories. They contribute to a distortion of the relationship with reality. We no longer ask ourselves the question of what could be true, what matters is the storytelling, the narration.” “The content is more violent, polarized and radicalized,” describes Aurélien Brest, a doctoral student in social psychology who works on the spread of false information. But there is a soft center that does not really move. Polarization is a visible and active minority.
No AI surge (yet)
The situation has not fundamentally changed compared to previous campaigns. “The situation is closer to 2016,” says Arnaud Mercier, professor of communication at Panthéon-Assas University and scientific director of the European fact-checking project De Facto. In 2020, politicians had obtained that the platforms be tougher on disinformation. Today, there is no regulation on Telegram, Twitter has passed into the hands of a conspiracy theorist ready to spread fake news, Meta has gone back on its obligations.”
While the geopolitical context has changed a little due to the war in Ukraine, the real difference with 2020 lies in the use of artificial intelligence in the creation of deepfakes or fake images. “Today, we are waiting to see what it will give,” Aurélien Brest cautiously advances. There have been a few examples, notably shared by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, but it has not created a real spark, at least not in the United States compared to India.”
Despite many fears, AI is still far from having created a flood of content that is impossible to distinguish from reality. “New AI technologies are opening a new front in disinformation,” acknowledges Julie Charpentrat of AFP’s Digital Investigation service, before qualifying. “This has been part of the problems for a year and a half, but it is not yet very sophisticated. The majority of false information uses simpler and less expensive methods.” “Many images generated by AI are not in reality fake news but forms of caricatures,” adds Arnaud Mercier. There are also accusations that are turned around: Trump said that the crowd waiting for Kamala Harris was generated by AI.”
Fact-checking is resisting
Another element that tempers the most pessimistic speeches: fact-checking, which “remains important, but presupposes the question of trust in the media”, judges Aurélien Brest. “At AFP, we do a lot of work pedagogically with the general public, with educational videos or explanatory papers, relates Julie Charpentrat. We have had a platform in 26 languages and with free access since 2017. The goal is to expose as much as possible to the verification of information and to multiply the channels (newsletter, TikTok, Instagram) to invest in the digital field and not leave it to disinformation. The real fight must happen for the youngest possible age.”
“In the United States, a lot of media outlets deal with fact-checking: Newsguard, NPR, Washington Post, list Arnaud Mercier of the De Facto project. This work is important because it can serve as a critical collection, especially for independents. But its scope must be put into perspective: someone who is immersed in an ideological universe is not going to look at a fact-checking site.”
“We are targeting people who want to be informed or who want to respond to the arguments of their loved ones who are susceptible to conspiracy theories,” adds Julie Charpentrat. “Many people are in good faith and want to be informed. […] Our goal will be to demystify what is the subject of false information. We do not fact-check opinion.” Recognizing that disinformation or conspiracy theories often rely on appeals to feelings also allows us to work on the phenomenon. “The difficulty is not to pit discourse against discourse, because it plays out at the level of belief, emotions, and malaise,” explains psychologist Tamara Guénoun. In my interventions, we try to create moments of sharing and reflection on society. This allows us to thwart discourses that use dissatisfaction to create divisions.”
Don’t give up on “post-truth”
Is the term “post-truth”, often used since it was chosen as the word of the year 2016 by the Oxford dictionary, therefore has been? According to Aurélien Brest, the word covers several realities. “There are two interpretations: a common social space that is fracturing, with visions of the world that no longer communicate, as during the Cold War, he explains. Or, the abandonment of the concept of truth to enter a world of emotion and interpretation. This definition is more in line with what Donald Trump maintains: he does not have a very loaded philosophical vision, but what qualifies him is the notion of “bullshit”, speech disconnected from reality that responds to the need to occupy space.”
And above all, we must not let this observation take hold. “The term disinformation seems more appropriate to me than “post-truth”, believes Julie Charpentrat. It would be considered that the game is lost and that is false. As a journalist, it remains the common base of facts.” “We must not start from a fait accompli”, approves Aurélien Brest. Social networks remain extremely young organizations. We have technical and theoretical tools to moderate.