Fabricated content
30 cases in this category
Easy
What should make you suspicious before believing this?
On a social network, an account named “Town Hall Official” posts: “Starting Monday, all residents must put household rubbish in purple bags. White bags are banned. Fines start at $200.” The profile shows the town seal and has 12,000 followers.
- Anyone at all can put the word “Official” in an account name
- The fine seems too high, nobody would accept that
- The account has a big following, so it's probably genuine
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Anyone at all can put the word “Official” in an account name
A fake account can rack up thousands of followers and copy an official look in two minutes, and the word “Official” in a name is a decoration, not a guarantee. The only real source: go to the town's official website, find its real account from there, or call. The fine amount might or might not be believable, and that isn't the signal that matters.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?
What should raise a flag first?
In a story on one social network, a screenshot from another platform: a quote attributed to writer Adele Winters: “Women who are afraid to succeed never succeed. Believe me, I tried.” 18,000 shares. You recognise the quote: it stuck with you.
- The share count proves it's a genuine Winters quote
- The quote sounds too poetic to be real
- Quotation marks and a name aren't proof
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Quotation marks and a name aren't proof
Inspiring quotes travel by the thousand on social media, often misattributed or invented outright. Quotation marks and a famous name are not evidence of anything, and even a beautiful, coherent line proves nothing. The right move: look up the exact wording in a reliable source, such as a collected works, a biography or a quotations database. Share counts validate nothing.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 5. Who else is saying it?
Before sharing, what's the most reliable move?
On a messaging app, an image circulates: the front page of a paper called “The Daily Herald.” Headline: “Local school now offers free cryptocurrency classes to 10-year-olds.” The photo is blurry, but the layout looks official. 5,000 shares in one hour.
- Zoom in on the letters to see if they look crisp
- Search for the paper: is there a website and an archive
- Check the share count: at this volume, someone would have already flagged a hoax
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Search for the paper: is there a website and an archive
Screenshots like this can be faked in two minutes with basic tools. A real news outlet, even a small local one, has a website, an archive, and shows up in search engines: if the title exists nowhere, the front page was made up. Zooming in on pixels or counting shares proves nothing at all.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 3. What's the date?
What should make you cautious before acting?
You get a call on a messaging app. A voice you recognise: your uncle's. He says: “It's urgent, I have a problem with my bank. I can't call myself. I really need you to transfer me $500 right now. Hurry, they're about to freeze my account!” The call lasts 30 seconds, the voice sounds perfect.
- It's your uncle's voice, so it must be him
- Call your uncle back on the number you already have
- The urgency is a red flag, but a video call would prove it if it's really serious
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Call your uncle back on the number you already have
AI-cloned voices have become extremely convincing, and a familiar voice is no longer proof of who is speaking. Even if you recognise it, the only reliable move is to call the person back on their usual number. Never go through the number or channel the caller gives you: always use one you already had.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 6. Too good to be true?
What's the biggest red flag here?
An email arrives: “Official notice from the health department. Starting July 15, all existing vaccines are cancelled and must be redone under a new mandatory formula. Updated records available at your town hall. Signed: Dr. Aaron Wells, Director.” The email comes from “health-notice@example.com.” Three friends got it too.
- Three friends got it too, so it must be official
- The date is specific, which makes it more credible
- The sending address isn't an official government domain
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: The sending address isn't an official government domain
Fake official notices use official-sounding addresses, but rarely the exact real domain. A genuine health department announcement arrives through certified channels: the official website, a verified address. Three friends got it? That could just mean a spam chain reached all of you. The missing real source is the signal.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 3. What's the date?
What suggests this video may have been generated?
A one-minute video: a woman talks straight to camera, natural and relaxed. She says she found a secret way to make $5,000 in two weeks using an app. The following videos show screenshots of her growing balance. Her hands look odd: sometimes five fingers, sometimes six. Her movements are jerky.
- The promise of making $5,000 is unbelievable
- The changing number of fingers, and the jerky movement
- The number of follow-up videos proves it's staged
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: The changing number of fingers, and the jerky movement
AI-generated videos often leave traces: fingers that come and go, unreadable background text, unnatural movement, strange blinking. These glitches are the most reliable signal you have, and a hand that changes between shots is one of the clearest. A tempting promise alone isn't enough to prove anything either way.
Related reflex(es): 4. Does the image show what they claim? · 6. Too good to be true?
What's the most reliable move before paying?
A PDF arrives: “Tax Collection Notice.” Blurry red stamp, logo on the right, three pages long. “You owe $3,500 in back taxes, due by July 22 or your account will be frozen.” The header reads “Office of Tax Recovery.” No date, no personal case number anywhere in the document.
- Call the tax office on a number you looked up yourself
- Have a tax law specialist review the wording
- The official red stamp makes it credible, so pay quickly before the account freezes
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Call the tax office on a number you looked up yourself
Fake official documents are easy to produce: blurry stamps, no specific case number, sloppy layout are all signals. But the real move is simple: never trust a phone number printed on the document itself, because that number reaches the sender. Look up the official number yourself and call to check.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 3. What's the date?
What pattern should make you suspicious?
You find an article on a site called “Daily News Report.” Headline: “Schools nationwide are banning phones: here's why.” The URL is “daily-news-report.example.com.” You find the exact same article on three other sites (“News Centre Today,” “The Education Journal,” “Weekly Briefing”), nearly word for word. All published the same day.
- The sites have official-sounding names, so at least one of them must be real
- The same article on several sites proves it's real news being amplified by the media
- Four domains, the same text, the same day
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Four domains, the same text, the same day
Networks of fake sites create an illusion of credibility by citing one another: identical content appearing on several domains at the same moment is the signature, not a confirmation. If the same article appears on ten domains the same day, look for the original on established, verified outlets. Real news shows up on real outlets, not just on clones of each other.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 5. Who else is saying it?
What signals that this is humour, not news?
On a social network, an account named “@MinistryOfFun 🤡” (a clown emoji right in the name) posts: “We've just banned all berries after 11pm for road safety reasons.” 8,000 shares. The replies are half amused, half furious.
- The furious replies prove some people believed it
- A clown emoji in the name, and an absurd rule
- 8,000 shares prove that it's fake
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: A clown emoji in the name, and an absurd rule
Parody accounts often label themselves clearly on social platforms: clown emojis, joke names, deliberately absurd claims. That labelling is the signal. When you find an openly parody account, check whether the person sharing it with you actually recognises it as a joke. Plenty of people do fall for gags, but only because they never read the profile.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 10. What if I'm the one who's wrong?
Before passing it along, what would you do?
A message on a messaging app, shared across 30 groups: “ALERT: City Hall just cancelled September's school subsidies. Parents must send a form to this email address before August 30. Share fast, it's urgent!” No source given, no specific town named anywhere.
- Message 30 contacts privately to see who's heard about it
- Look for the announcement on the town's own website
- Share it right away since it says it's urgent
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Look for the announcement on the town's own website
Fake urgent alerts with no source exploit panic. If this were really happening, the town would announce it on its website or notify schools officially, through channels you can go and check, not spread it through a private messaging app. The word “urgent” and the missing source are the two classic tells of this kind of hoax.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 6. Too good to be true?
Medium
What should make you suspicious first?
On a short-video platform, a screenshot of texts between two friends. One says: “I saw on the news that they're banning school holidays next year to save energy.” The other: “OMG seriously?! That's crazy!” 15,000 likes, panicked comments underneath.
- The like count proves it's a real screenshot
- A real policy is announced through official channels
- The emojis make the message suspicious
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: A real policy is announced through official channels
Screenshots of texts or chats can be faked in two clicks. A real energy policy is announced publicly by the government through its official channels, not stumbled upon by chance in a private conversation, and text-message gossip is not a source. Look for the actual announcement yourself if you're unsure.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 6. Too good to be true?
What's the main trap here?
An email arrives: “Hello, your account has been compromised. Click here to verify your identity.” It comes from “contact@shop-secure-mail.example.com.” The logo and layout closely resemble a major retailer's. Marked urgent.
- The familiar-looking logo makes this message trustworthy
- The urgency suggests it's probably a real problem
- No real company asks you to verify your identity through a link
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No real company asks you to verify your identity through a link
Phishing emails copy the logo and tone of real companies closely. But a real company never asks you to click a link to hand over sensitive information: that request is the tell, whatever the message looks like. The safe move: open your browser, go to the official site yourself rather than through a received link, and check your account from there.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 7. What is it selling me?
Before clicking, what's the classic tell here?
On a social network, a post: “I found a secret way to double my money in a month through this private messaging group. They gave me free training. Join me too!” Shortened link attached. 2,000 comments asking “Does this actually work??”
- Fast money, a “private” group, “free” training
- If 2,000 people are asking questions, there must be something worth looking into
- The poster sounds honest and enthusiastic
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Fast money, a “private” group, “free” training
Get-rich-quick scams pull on three strings at once: urgency, secrecy and a guaranteed reward, and the three together are the formula. Real investments simply don't work this way. Comments asking “does this really work??” are often fake accounts, or genuine people asking because they are already unsure.
Related reflex(es): 6. Too good to be true? · 7. What is it selling me?
What's the main red flag?
A notification on your phone: “Urgent security update for your phone. Download now to protect your data.” Bright colours, a familiar logo. You look closer and the app behind the notification resembles the device's own settings screen, but isn't quite it.
- The familiar logo and official-sounding language make it credible
- Security updates are always urgent, so this is normal
- Real updates come through the device's own settings
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Real updates come through the device's own settings
Fake phone updates copy the format closely. But a real security update shows up inside the device's own settings, never through a clickable notification pointing to an outside site. Never tap a link from an “urgent update”: open the settings yourself and look.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 4. Does the image show what they claim?
What should make you cautious before believing the number?
A screenshot of an article: “Experts say drinking coffee at night slows your heart by 40%. Here are the numbers.” Image of a colourful bar chart. Shared 10,000 times in two days. No visible source, no link to any actual study.
- 40% is a very precise number, which makes it credible
- The chart looks professional, so the data must be real
- No named source, no institution, and no link to any study
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No named source, no institution, and no link to any study
Dramatic numbers with no source are a classic tactic. A real scientific finding names its researchers, its institution, its date and its method, not just a floating chart. Look for the link or the original paper. If it doesn't exist anywhere, it was fabricated.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 5. Who else is saying it?
What does this detail tell you about the video?
A one-minute video: a 7-year-old plays piano remarkably well. It's smooth, light, flawless. After 30 seconds, you notice the hands: the fingers pass right through the keys. The eyes blink strangely, out of rhythm with everything else.
- Strange blinking is a signature trait of all child prodigies
- Hands and eyes are where generated video breaks down
- It's just a very creative staging of a talented kid's video
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Hands and eyes are where generated video breaks down
AI-generated video struggles with detail: hands especially, with fingers merging or passing through objects, plus eyes and movement that is too smooth or too jerky. These glitches are the best signal for spotting a generated clip, and they point to a video that was created rather than filmed. If you see strange hands, you have your answer.
Related reflex(es): 4. Does the image show what they claim? · 6. Too good to be true?
Before congratulating them, what should you check first?
A local business posts on a social network: “Incredible! We just won the international innovation award. Here's our diploma.” Photo of a beautiful framed certificate with a gold logo. The business is real, has a website, hundreds of customers.
- The beautiful certificate and gold logo prove it's real
- A real award publishes a public list of winners you can check
- The business has hundreds of customers, so it's legitimate
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: A real award publishes a public list of winners you can check
Fake award certificates are easy to print. A real award, even a small local one, has an official winners list, a ceremony and public announcements, so it can be checked from the outside. If you can't find the business anywhere on the award's official site, the certificate is probably made up.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 5. Who else is saying it?
What should make you sceptical right away?
A social media post with a before/after photo: “I lost 30 kilos in two months with this miracle diet found overseas. Now available here: link below!” Heavily edited image, exaggerated before/after. The account has 100,000 followers.
- 100,000 followers means the account is credible
- The photo looks natural and unedited
- 30 kilos in two months isn't physiologically possible
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: 30 kilos in two months isn't physiologically possible
Miracle diet scams pull on three strings: a dramatic before and after, an unrealistic timeline, and a direct sales link. Doctors and nutritionists agree that losing that much weight that fast is dangerous, and before-and-after photos online are often heavily edited. The right move: look for independent user reviews rather than the seller's own testimonials, consult a doctor, and be wary of a direct sales link.
Related reflex(es): 6. Too good to be true? · 8. Is the expert really an expert?
What's the first security move?
An email arrives with the subject: “Action required: your payment failed.” It asks you to update your banking details. The email copies the style of a major bank closely. The link is long and cryptic, starting with “https://”. You hesitate.
- Ignore the link and go to your bank's site yourself
- If the link starts with https://, it's secure and safe to click
- A long, cryptic URL proves it's technical and secure
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Ignore the link and go to your bank's site yourself
Phishing emails imitate a bank's style almost perfectly, and https:// only means the connection is encrypted, not that the site is your bank. A real bank NEVER asks you to update your login details or codes by email or link. The foolproof move: open your banking app, or type your bank's address yourself, never through the email, and check there.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 7. What is it selling me?
What's the real trap here, even though it looks harmless?
A screenshot of a direct-message conversation: a girl says “I'm running a contest for my school, verify you're real: type your birthday and full first name.” The screenshot looks genuine. 8,000 shares, comments saying “Haha, fun!”
- It's data collection dressed up as a game
- If it's framed as a game, there's no real consequence
- 8,000 shares prove people are doing it without any risk
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: It's data collection dressed up as a game
Identity theft scams often start with fun little games that ask “just” for your birthday or your first name. It looks harmless, but these seemingly minor details, combined with others you have posted elsewhere, become raw material for fraud. The move: no personal information in public, game or not.
Related reflex(es): 6. Too good to be true? · 7. What is it selling me?
Tough
What makes this case particularly tricky?
An article on a site called “The Daily Science Report” (one you've never heard of): “Scientists discover a new type of virus that standard tests cannot detect.” No named source, no university mentioned. But the writing is very professional, with accurate technical terms. The site's design looks like a real scientific journal.
- The professional writing and official-looking design prove it's a real source
- Credible design, but no named researcher anywhere
- The virus described sounds medically realistic
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Credible design, but no named researcher anywhere
Fake science sites copy the tone and structure of real ones closely, and a convincing design costs nothing. But a real scientific discovery is published in a peer-reviewed journal, with named authors and institutions, and it also appears on the websites of the universities involved. An unknown site making a “scientific” claim with no named researchers is a major red flag: look for the news on real journals and university pages.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?
What does this timing mismatch tell you?
A professional social network screenshot: a well-known CEO says “I'm leaving my role to join a crypto startup. It's the future.” Shared 5,000 times. But you find no official announcement anywhere on the startup's site or the company's site. Checking the CEO's real account, you find a post from three hours after the screenshot where he talks normally about his job.
- CEOs change their minds often, it's normal to see contradictory posts
- 5,000 shares prove everyone believed it
- News that big would appear on the official site too
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: News that big would appear on the official site too
Deepfakes and fabricated screenshots of public figures are designed purely to create buzz. A real resignation means an official statement, a website announcement, a press conference: if an announcement that big leaves no trace anywhere else, and the timeline makes no sense, the screenshot is fabricated or not from the real account. Look for the verified official account and an official company announcement.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?
What makes this case hard to settle quickly?
A podcast on a streaming platform: “Exclusive interview with a winner of a major international science prize, on black holes.” The voice sounds natural, the interview has genuinely credible technical detail. No date, no link, no host bio anywhere on the page. You look up the named person: he's real, and he did win that prize some years back.
- No date, no source, no link to his own channels
- If the person is real and talks about his field, it's probably genuine
- A major streaming platform would never host a fake
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No date, no source, no link to his own channels
Sometimes a well-made fake blends a real public figure, real technical detail and a convincing setup, and the accurate detail is exactly what makes it feel credible. The only reliable move: check whether the podcast also exists on that person's official channels, his site, his social accounts. If you can't find it anywhere else, it's fake even when it sounds legitimate.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 5. Who else is saying it?
What danger does this scenario illustrate?
You find two very similar URLs: “health-official.example.org” and “healthofficial.example.org.” The first publishes public health information in a very official style. You share it, believing you're citing the authorities. In reality, you needed the real health commission's actual domain, which was neither of these.
- Two near-identical domains, and neither is the real one
- If the information sounds serious, it must come from a real source
- It's impossible to confuse two domains that different
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Two near-identical domains, and neither is the real one
Scammers create domains that closely resemble real ones: an extra letter, a dash moved, a word split differently. To the eye it looks official, and that is precisely the confusion these look-alike domains are built to cause. The move: never trust a complex URL received in a message. Read it character by character, or find the real official site yourself by searching its name.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 4. Does the image show what they claim?
What makes this hard to catch before acting?
An email arrives from an address that looks exactly like your school's: “winter-parents-meeting@myschool.example.org.” Message: “Video meeting on January 15 at 6pm. Join with the link below.” It's written naturally, no typos, the dates match the school calendar. A parent clicks and lands on a fake login page.
- No typos means it must be genuine
- An email address that looks like the school's is proof of authenticity
- A real school meeting comes through the school's own portal
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: A real school meeting comes through the school's own portal
Spoofing a school's email address has become common. Scammers study the calendar and copy the tone closely, so accurate details make the message feel credible rather than proving anything. The difference: a real school uses its own portal, not an email carrying a meeting link. The right move: call the school directly, on the number from their official site, to confirm any meeting, and never click a link received by email.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?
How do you settle a tricky case like this?
A viral video: a government minister says “We're going to tax hot meals over $50.” 50,000 views. Generative AI has copied her voice and movements almost perfectly. Her hands move naturally, with no obvious glitches. Articles share the video with headlines like “SCANDAL: the minister…” without checking.
- The shared articles prove experts checked it
- Check whether the policy exists on the government's official channels
- If the video has 50,000 views with no takedown, it must be genuine
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Check whether the policy exists on the government's official channels
Polished deepfakes with cloned voices are becoming undetectable to the naked eye: no visual glitch is reliable any more, however convincing the clip looks. The ONLY safe move: check whether the news exists on the government's official channels, its website or a press release. Zero mentions means an advanced fake. Shared articles on social media validate nothing; they amplify the lie.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 5. Who else is saying it?
What does this case teach about verification?
You come across a statement “from the education ministry” announcing: “Summer break shortened by two weeks for environmental reasons.” You check the ministry's official site... and find it. It's genuinely published there. But buried in the official comments, a tiny note: “This page is a simulated exercise to test public reaction. This is not a real policy.”
- If you find it on the official site, it's always true
- Even an official page can be a test or a draft
- Official comments don't count, you have to look elsewhere
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Even an official page can be a test or a draft
This is a rare but instructive case: an official source doesn't guarantee that everything it publishes is true, current or final. A page can be a test, a joke, or something retracted later. Also check the details, meaning the publication date, the updates and the notes, not just whether the page exists. Reading that tiny note to the end would have prevented amplifying it. The real move: read the whole thing, look for confirmation elsewhere, check the dates.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 3. What's the date?
What does this case show about fake sourcing?
An article on a blogging platform: “Universities are hiding a truth about vaccines.” The author has a solid-looking profile: a biology PhD, two publications. The article cites real studies, with real names, real authors. But rereading the original studies, you find the author twists them: he claims the opposite of what they actually conclude.
- An author with a real degree can't misrepresent sources
- If the studies are real, the conclusions must be real too
- Real studies, cited to say the opposite of what they found
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Real studies, cited to say the opposite of what they found
The most careful fabrication combines authority (real credentials) with real sources and quiet distortion: a fake appeal to authority sitting on top of twisted citations. The author can be real and the studies real while the conclusions are false. The move: find and read the original studies yourself before trusting anyone's summary of what they conclude.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 8. Is the expert really an expert?
Why is this case tricky?
A blog post signed “Association for Health Transparency”: “Revelation: the health agency is hiding death numbers from the epidemic.” The association is real and has an official site. The article names the right agency and the right disease. But you find the source: an official report that says exactly the opposite. The association took one number out of context.
- A real source, quoted out of its context
- If the association exists and cites the government, it must be true
- The numbers cited are real, so the conclusions must be too
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: A real source, quoted out of its context
Subtle fabrication: a real association, a real cited document, but pulled out of context, so a real organisation ends up publishing something factually false. The association may cite one week's death toll to suggest a cover-up when the full report shows a downward trend overall. The move: never trust an isolated citation. Read the complete document yourself, every time.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 9. Does the number have context?
What does this case teach?
A viral post: an entrepreneur says “We're partnering with the Rosewood Education Trust to transform education abroad!” Link to a blog post. Checking the trust's official site, you find zero mention of the partnership. Calling the trust directly, they tell you: “We have not publicly approved this partnership.”
- A real partnership is announced by both sides
- If someone claims a partnership, it's true until proven otherwise
- It's a professional network, so information there is automatically verified
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: A real partnership is announced by both sides
Fake partnerships are a marketing trick: a company claims to team up with a prestigious charity to borrow its credibility, but the charity never approved anything. A genuine partnership is announced by the charity itself, through its own channels, so no official confirmation means no partnership, or nothing finalised. The move: look for the partnership on the charity's official site, or call them directly. No mention means no partnership.
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?