Kinds of False and Misleading Content

Last spring a neighbor in an invented town called Fernhollow shared a photo of a flooded street with the line "Look what the county did to us." It got 300 reactions by lunch. The photo was real. It was also eleven years old and from another state. The neighbor was not lying. She had seen it in a group she trusted, it matched how she felt about the culvert project, and she hit share.

That story is the whole subject in miniature. Most false material is not dreamed up by a master criminal. A lot of it is real material in the wrong place, passed along by honest people in a hurry. Some of it is built on purpose. Telling those apart is the first skill, because the right response differs.

Three words researchers use: mis-, dis- and mal-information

In 2017 Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan wrote a report for the Council of Europe that split the problem on two questions: is the material false, and was there intent to harm? The three words that came out of it are now standard.

The Council of Europe summary puts it simply: misinformation is false information shared where no harm is meant, disinformation is false information knowingly shared to cause harm, and malinformation is genuine information shared to cause harm, often by moving something private into public view. Claire Wardle's First Draft article from 2017 adds that these sit on a scale that loosely measures intent to deceive.

Why bother with the labels? Because you cannot see intent from the outside, and you rarely need to. What you need is how to treat the person who sent it to you. A friend who passed along misinformation deserves a gentle correction. A page that keeps manufacturing the same lie deserves a report and a block. Lesson 10 covers both.

Eight kinds you will meet

The three-word split is about intent. In daily life it helps more to name what the item is. These eight cover most of what lands in an Idaho Facebook group, a text chain or a school email list.

Satire deserves a note. A joke site is not wrongdoing. The trouble starts when a screenshot of its headline loses the site's name and travels as news. Claire Wardle's First Draft article lists parody among the motives behind misleading content and gives an example of a parody account's post being shared as if it were real, so a joke that loses its label can turn into misinformation without anyone intending it.

Another thing worth saying plainly: old content recirculated and false context are the two forms that need no technical skill from the sender. No software. Just a real picture and a new sentence. They are also the two you can most often defeat with a free tool and two minutes.

Why false material spreads: emotion, speed and identity

Nobody shares a post because a spreadsheet told them to. People share what makes them feel something, quickly, and what says something about who they are. Three forces do most of the work.

• Emotion. Anger, fear, disgust and delight all move people to act. A post that makes you feel your child or your water or your vote is under threat is built, or happens to be built, to be shared. When you feel a jolt, that is your cue.
• Speed. Feeds reward the first and the loudest. A rumor posted at 8:02 reaches more people than a correction posted at 4:00 in the afternoon, and by then everyone has moved on. Checking takes time, so the checkers start behind.
• Identity. We share things that show we belong: to a church, a school, a union, a grange, a political camp, a fishing forum. Passing on a post is a small act of loyalty, and correcting it can feel like betraying the group. That is why corrections work best from inside the circle, and why lesson 10 teaches private messages first.

A fourth factor is plain convenience. The tools we use put a share button one thumb-width from the text. Looking something up takes a deliberate trip to another tab. People take the easy path when they are tired, and everyone is tired by evening.

Who profits from false content

Knowing the motive helps you read the item. People produce or push misleading material for several reasons, and often more than one at a time.

The last row matters most for how you behave. Most of the people who pass something to you are in that row. Treat them as such.

The Federal Trade Commission tracks the money side. A June 15, 2026 FTC press release, "FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025," said people reported those losses, with business impersonators near $1 billion and government impersonators about $920 million. That figure counts reports to the agency, so real losses are higher. On September 24, 2026 the agency also asked for public comment on whether to update its rule on impersonation of government and businesses to address online platforms' role. Both items are on the FTC press release page linked in the sources, and the June release has its own link there.

Credible outlets and what they do differently

You will meet this question again in lesson 2, so a short preview. Reliable outlets are not perfect and they make mistakes. What distinguishes them is how they behave afterward: they name authors, say how they know things, publish corrections and tell you who owns them. The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) writes this down as a code for fact-checkers. Its five commitments are non-partisanship and fairness, standards and transparency of sources, transparency of funding and organization, standards and transparency of methodology, and an open and honest corrections policy. You can use the same five questions on any page you are checking. Does it name sources? Say who funds it? Explain its method? Correct itself in public?

How to use this course

Ten lessons. Each stands alone, but they build.

1. Lesson 1 (this one): the kinds of false and misleading content, and why they spread.
2. Lesson 2: checking a claim with lateral reading and SIFT. If you read only one lesson after this, read that one.
3. Lesson 3: reverse image and video search, which handles old content recirculated.
4. Lesson 4: metadata and its limits, with the honest news that it proves less than people hope.
5. Lessons 5 to 7: edited images, deepfake audio and video and the limits of detection, and content credentials (C2PA).
6. Lessons 8 to 10: quotes, statistics and screenshots; Idaho rumors and election information; correcting a falsehood without amplifying it and using platform reporting tools.

For how automated AI-text and AI-image detectors work and where they fail, the site has a separate course at AI detection. For open-source research methods, the OSINT Monitor tool and the OSINT lessons on this site go deeper. This course sticks to what an ordinary resident or a volunteer on a deadline can do with free tools and a few minutes.

Questions and answers

Is misinformation always a mistake and disinformation always a lie?

Roughly, yes, and the line is intent. The same false post can be disinformation when its maker pushed it and misinformation when your aunt reposts it. The post did not change. The people did.

Is satire misinformation?

Not by itself. A joke that the audience understands is a joke. It becomes misleading when a screenshot loses the name of the site and people take it as news. If you share satire, keep the name of the site in view.

What does "old content recirculated" mean and why is it so common?

It means a real photo, video or story from another date or place, posted as if it were current. It is common because it needs no skill, no software and no invention. A flood picture appears after every storm. Lesson 3 shows how to check one in a couple of minutes.

Do I need to check everything I see?

No. Check what you are about to share, act on, pay for or repeat to someone. A cat photo can wait. A notice about a boil-water order, a school closing or a polling place change should not.

Why not just trust the big outlets?

Many are reliable most of the time, and they correct themselves in public. But no outlet is right every time. Lesson 2 teaches you to check the claim and the source, and to look at what other independent sources say.

What if a post turns out to be partly true?

That is common. Report it as it is: which part is supported, which part is not, and what is unknown. A partly true post is often the most effective kind of false post, because the true part lends credit to the rest.

Is it okay to share something with a note that I am unsure?

It is better than sharing as true, and worse than waiting. A hedge does not travel with the post. People see the headline and miss your note. If you are unsure, wait until you check.

Where do scams fit?

They are a form of false content with a payment attached. The tells are urgency, secrecy and unusual payment methods. The fix is to stop, call a number you already had, and report it. Lesson 10 covers reporting tools.

Hard questions

Who decides what counts as false?

Nobody decides for you, and no list is final. Facts that can be checked against a record (a vote tally, a date on a meeting notice, a published study) can usually be settled by going to the record. Questions of value or prediction cannot. A good fact-check separates the two and says which part it can speak to. If someone gives you a label without a source, treat the label as a claim too.

What about claims that turn out to be true after being called false?

It happens. Early reports are often wrong in both directions, and experts revise. The honest posture is to say what is known at the time, what is not, and to update in public. Be wary of anyone who treats a past correction as proof that nothing can be known. Be equally wary of anyone who treats a past error as proof that a source is always wrong.

Is it censorship to flag or report false material?

Reporting a scam or an impersonation to a platform or to the FTC is using a complaint channel, and the platform decides what to do under its own rules. People disagree in good faith about how much platforms should remove, and that argument is outside this course. What the course asks of you is narrower: before you pass something on, check it.

Is it my job to correct every false thing I see?

No. Correcting everything is exhausting and often makes things worse, since replying can boost the post. Pick the cases where the harm is real and you are in a position to help: a family chat, a group you belong to, a notice that affects safety or voting. Lesson 10 explains how to correct without amplifying.

Can a very careful person still be fooled?

Yes. Skilled forgeries, synthetic media and well-aimed scams will sometimes get past careful people. The aim of this course is to make you harder to fool and quicker to recover, not to make you perfect. When you do get fooled, say so, and correct it. That habit is what keeps trust intact in a family, a group or a newsroom.