{
 "project": "Before You Believe It",
 "lang": "en",
 "version": "1.0.0",
 "updated": "2026-07-22",
 "license": "CC BY 4.0 — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
 "attribution": "Before You Believe It — Association ODERSA",
 "reflexes": [
  {
   "id": "r01",
   "num": 1,
   "slug": "qui-parle",
   "title": "Who is speaking?",
   "hook": "Before weighing a claim, look at who is holding it.",
   "summary": "An anonymous account, a well-meaning cousin, a newsroom, a salesman: the same sentence doesn't weigh the same depending on the mouth it comes from.",
   "why": [
    "On a screen, everything looks alike: a rumour launched by an account created last week displays with the same font, the same colours and the same seriousness as a verified investigation. That's the great illusion of digital life — the packaging no longer tells you anything about the sender.",
    "So the first reflex fits in one simple question: who is telling me this? Not “who forwarded it to me” — your uncle is only the postman. Who wrote it, at the start? An identifiable person? A newsroom that signs its work and corrects its mistakes? Or nobody, precisely?"
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Look for a name, a face, an organisation behind the message. Can't find one? That's already an answer.",
    "Open the profile that published it: how old is it, what else does it post, what does the rest look like?",
    "Separate the author from the messenger: the person forwarding you the info is almost never the one who wrote it.",
    "Beware of “a doctor friend”, “someone who works there”: a source you cannot trace is not a source."
   ],
   "trap": "“A police officer from town confirmed it to my colleague”: the message loops through three neighbourhood groups. Which officer? Whose colleague? Nobody knows. The info has no author — only carriers.",
   "mantra": "No author, no trust."
  },
  {
   "id": "r02",
   "num": 2,
   "slug": "quelle-source",
   "title": "What's the source?",
   "hook": "Swim back up the stream to where the info was born.",
   "summary": "A screenshot, a vague “studies show”, an article quoting an article: information travels far from its source. The move: trace it back to the original document.",
   "why": [
    "Information is like a river: the further you drift from the source, the more debris it carries that wasn't there at the start. A report becomes an article, the article becomes a headline, the headline becomes a cropped screenshot — and by the time it reaches you, the message no longer resembles its starting point.",
    "The good news: the origin can be found. An official document can be consulted, a press release can be checked on the site of whoever supposedly issued it, a “study” has a title and authors. If a claim asserts things without ever showing where they come from, the problem is the claim's — not yours."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Look for the link to the original document. There isn't one? Search for it yourself with a few precise keywords.",
    "A screenshot is not a source: find the original post — it may be cropped, doctored, or invented.",
    "“According to a study” with no study name = red flag. A real study has a title, a date, authors.",
    "On an unfamiliar site, open the “about” page: who publishes it, from where, since when?"
   ],
   "trap": "A post claims “a new rule” will change the school's hours, screenshot attached. On the school's official site: nothing. The screenshot came from a two-year-old draft that was never adopted.",
   "mantra": "Trace the source, not the megaphone."
  },
  {
   "id": "r03",
   "num": 3,
   "slug": "quelle-date",
   "title": "What's the date?",
   "hook": "A true story from five years ago can become today's fake news.",
   "summary": "Disaster photos, alerts, promotions, decisions: old content resurfaces constantly as if it were new. Always find the date — and ask whether the context has changed.",
   "why": [
    "It's one of the web's most efficient recycling schemes: nothing to invent, nothing to fake. Take an authentic piece of content — a flood filmed years ago, an outdated alert, an old statement — and repost it today, without a date. Emotion does the rest.",
    "The trap cuts both ways: true-but-old content may have become false (the rule changed, the product was recalled, the alert was lifted)… or may still be perfectly valid. The date is what settles it — not the look of the message."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Look for a date: the publication date, and the date of the facts. They are often two different dates.",
    "No visible date? Search the message's keywords: the first publication usually surfaces fast.",
    "For a picture or a video, a reverse image search shows when it has circulated before.",
    "Before sharing an alert or an instruction, ask: is it still current, here and now?"
   ],
   "trap": "“Look what's happening RIGHT NOW on the coast!” — the video is spectacular, black sky, huge waves. The same video already circulated during a storm years earlier. The sea was real — the “right now” was not.",
   "mantra": "Undated information can be made to say anything."
  },
  {
   "id": "r04",
   "num": 4,
   "slug": "image-preuve",
   "title": "Does the image show what they claim?",
   "hook": "A photo proves a scene existed — not that the caption is true.",
   "summary": "Cropped, taken out of context, retouched or generated: an image rarely “speaks for itself”. Question its caption, and trace its origin.",
   "why": [
    "We believe our eyes — that's human. A photo feels like proof: “I saw it, so it happened.” But an image never tells the whole story: what's outside the frame, the moment, the place, the caption stuck onto it… all of that can turn an ordinary scene into a scandal, a theatre rehearsal into breaking news.",
    "And no forgery is even needed anymore: most misleading images are authentic photos… of another place, another time, or another subject. Add today's generated images, often very convincing. The move stays the same: don't ask the image whether it looks real — ask where it comes from."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Reverse image search: where and when has this image been published before, with what caption?",
    "Interrogate the frame: what would you see just beside, just before, just after?",
    "For a possibly generated image: hands, unreadable background text, inconsistent reflections — clues, never proof. The origin remains the real test.",
    "Keep the two questions separate: is the image authentic? AND does the caption say what the image actually shows?"
   ],
   "trap": "A photo shows a huge queue outside a pharmacy, captioned “total shortage right now”. Reverse search finds the same photo: it was a shop opening, in another country, for a video game launch.",
   "mantra": "An image proves the scene — never its caption."
  },
  {
   "id": "r05",
   "num": 5,
   "slug": "qui-d-autre",
   "title": "Who else is saying it?",
   "hook": "Important news never stays alone for long.",
   "summary": "The professionals' move: lateral reading. If a huge event appears in only ONE post, that's the signal to wait — not to share.",
   "why": [
    "Here is the most counter-intuitive move — and the most powerful. Faced with dubious information, our instinct is to reread it again and again, scrutinising its details. Professional fact-checkers do the opposite: they leave the page. They open other tabs and check what other, independent sources say about the same fact — and about whoever is claiming it.",
    "The logic is simple: a genuinely important event leaves traces everywhere. If a “huge revelation” exists only in one post looping around, two possibilities: it's too early… or it's too false. Either way, it can wait. Beware of fake cross-checking, too: ten sites copying the same text word for word still make only ONE source."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Take the claim's keywords and search them elsewhere: who else covers it, and what do they say?",
    "Compare independent sources with each other — not ten copies of the same press release.",
    "Nobody else mentions it? For a huge fact, that silence is a major clue.",
    "Cross-check the source itself: what do others say about the site or account publishing this?"
   ],
   "trap": "“The mayor announced all swimming pools will close!” One single site says so — the one making the claim. Not the town hall, not the local press, nobody. Three days later the post is gone. The pools are not.",
   "mantra": "News that stands alone isn't news yet."
  },
  {
   "id": "r06",
   "num": 6,
   "slug": "trop-beau",
   "title": "Too good to be true?",
   "hook": "The bigger the claim, the bigger the proof it owes you.",
   "summary": "The universal cure, the effortless payday, the ultimate scandal: the sheer size of a claim is itself a signal. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.",
   "why": [
    "There's a fake-news detector you already carry around: the feeling of “that's huge”. The remedy that cures everything, the investment with no risk, the revelation that changes everything… These messages share one trait: they promise a lot and prove very little.",
    "Careful — hugeness alone doesn't condemn a claim: reality is sometimes incredible. It's a matter of proportion — the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof must be. A mundane fact can be taken on trust; a huge one gets checked twice. And if it were true, others would already be saying it (reflex 5)."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Measure the promise: “everything”, “never”, “100%”, “revolutionary” — the more absolute, the more suspicious.",
    "Look at the offered proof: one tearful testimonial and three exclamation marks weigh nothing against a huge promise.",
    "Ask who would gain if it were true… and why nobody else is talking about it.",
    "Urgency (“last chance”, “before tonight”) exists to stop you from checking: that's precisely the moment to check."
   ],
   "trap": "“This trick cuts your electricity bill by 80% — the power companies hate it!” If one simple gesture divided bills by five, your neighbour, your cousin and every newspaper in the country would have been talking about it for years. The general silence answers the question.",
   "mantra": "Huge promise, huge proof — or no deal."
  },
  {
   "id": "r07",
   "num": 7,
   "slug": "ca-me-vend-quoi",
   "title": "What is it selling me?",
   "hook": "Behind many “news items” there's an intention: sell, get clicks, scare, recruit.",
   "summary": "A product, clicks, subscriptions, outrage: asking who profits from the message changes everything. It isn't always money — attention and indignation sell too.",
   "why": [
    "Information rarely introduces itself with “hello, I am an advertisement”. The health alert that ends on a supplements shop, the shock article wrapped in ads, the account that makes you angry every single day so you'll come back… Behind much of what you read sits a business model — and sometimes the product is simply your attention.",
    "Asking “what is this selling me?” doesn't make you cynical — it makes you clear-sighted. Content can have an interest AND be honest: the point is to see the interest instead of being played by it. Whoever informs you while selling you something simply deserves one extra notch of vigilance."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Follow where the message leads: a shop, an affiliate link, a donation form, a subscription, a sign-up?",
    "Spot the discreet mentions: “sponsored content”, “in partnership with” — often in tiny letters.",
    "Does the content lean on a strong emotion (fear, anger, outrage) that pushes you to click and share? Emotion is a fuel that sells very well.",
    "Ask yourself: if nobody clicked, would this message still exist?"
   ],
   "trap": "A video warns about “the hidden danger” of an everyday food. The demonstration is worrying, the tone grave. Last second: “luckily, my natural cure fixes it — link in the description”. The alert wasn't information. It was a shop window.",
   "mantra": "Find what it sells, and you'll know what it's worth."
  },
  {
   "id": "r08",
   "num": 8,
   "slug": "expert-ou-decor",
   "title": "Is the expert really an expert?",
   "hook": "A grand title is not a competence — especially outside its own field.",
   "summary": "A white coat, a “doctor”, an “independent researcher”: authority is easy to imitate. Check the actual field, the institution, and what other specialists say.",
   "why": [
    "We trust experts — thankfully: it's what spares us having to learn everything ourselves. The problem is that the outward signs of expertise are cheap to fake: a white coat, a bookshelf backdrop, an unverifiable title, an official-sounding “institute” that exists only on paper.",
    "And the trickiest case isn't the fake expert — it's the real one, out of their lane. An excellent specialist in one field can say very fragile things about another. Expertise is not a general-purpose badge: it covers a perimeter. So the question isn't “do they have a title?” but “do they have THIS title, on THIS subject — and do the other specialists in that field say the same thing?”"
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Check the exact field: a doctorate, sure — in what? And is today's topic inside that field?",
    "Look for the institution: where does this person work, who can confirm it?",
    "An “independent expert” is not more reliable by default — independence is not a competence.",
    "Cross-check against the consensus: what do most specialists of that same field say? A lone opinion can be brilliant or wrong — it gets verified BEFORE it gets shared."
   ],
   "trap": "On video, “Professor K., author and speaker” explains with great confidence how to “repair” your memory. His doctorate exists — in a completely unrelated field. The bookshelf backdrop was doing the work the diploma didn't.",
   "mantra": "Expertise has a home turf. Outside it, it's an opinion."
  },
  {
   "id": "r09",
   "num": 9,
   "slug": "chiffre-contexte",
   "title": "Does the number have context?",
   "hook": "A number with nothing to compare it to says almost nothing.",
   "summary": "“+100%”, “thousands”, “a record”: a number impresses, but without a baseline, a scale and a source it measures nothing. Three questions put it back in its place.",
   "why": [
    "Numbers have a superpower: they look objective. “87%” sounds precise, scientific — and yet a number can mislead without being false. It just needs to be pulled out of context: “the risk doubles” (from 1 in a million to 2 in a million), “thousands of cases” (out of how many millions?), “+100%” (starting from almost nothing).",
    "You don't need to be good at maths to defend yourself. Three questions are enough, always the same: how much at the start? Out of how many in total? Who counted, and how? An honest number takes these questions very well. A rigged number hates them."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Find the starting point: a percentage change without the initial value is a stage trick.",
    "Bring it back to scale: “thousands” in a town or across a continent are two different stories.",
    "Ask who measured: a poll has a sample size, a method, a sponsor.",
    "On a chart, look at the axis: does it start at zero? Spectacular bars are often born from a cropped axis."
   ],
   "trap": "“Incidents up 50% in the neighbourhood!” The next line, which nobody reads: they went from 2 to 3. The headline is accurate. The impression it leaves is not.",
   "mantra": "A number without context is a costume."
  },
  {
   "id": "r10",
   "num": 10,
   "slug": "et-si-je-me-trompais",
   "title": "What if I'm the one who's wrong?",
   "hook": "The hardest reflex: fact-checking yourself.",
   "summary": "We share faster whatever proves us right. The last reflex turns towards us: do I believe this because it's solid — or because it suits me?",
   "why": [
    "Here is the only reflex that doesn't look at the information: it looks at you. We all carry a rigged inner scale — whatever confirms what we already think walks in without a check, whatever contradicts us faces a full interrogation. The makers of fake news know it: they don't try to convince you, they try to comfort you.",
    "Hence the most useful question of this whole list: “do I believe it because it's well verified — or because it goes my way?” Being wrong is no disgrace; it's the normal price of a brain that thinks. Changing your mind in front of better evidence is exactly what a solid person does. And it works both ways: an unpleasant piece of information isn't false just because it stings."
   ],
   "gestures": [
    "Notice the pleasure: if a piece of news makes you really want to believe it (or triumphantly right), double your vigilance.",
    "Deliberately search for what says the opposite — not to punish yourself, to test the strength.",
    "You shared a mistake? Correct it, simply. Setting the record straight builds your credibility — never the reverse.",
    "Accept “I don't know yet”: it's an honourable position — often the most honest of the three."
   ],
   "trap": "Two neighbours receive the same rumour about the market closing. It confirms what the first one thinks: he shares it in ten seconds. It contradicts the second: she spends twenty minutes taking it apart. The rumour was false — only one of them knew in time.",
   "mantra": "Double-check whatever proves you right."
  }
 ]
}