"You are a disgusting liar." "Someone, somewhere will hunt you down." "I hope someone puts a bullet between your eyes."

These are messages received by climate scientists. According to a recent survey, 39 percent of climate scientists have faced online abuse.

18 percent of those are threats of physical violence. "At the end of the day, we're going to see just how much you believe

in your global warming and whether you're willing to die for your so-called 'research.'" No scientist should have to fear for their lives.

But this is just another day in the life of a climate scientist. I'm not a climate scientist.

I'm not a climate change activist. I'm a counterterrorism expert. I started my journey meeting with white supremacists

in basements in Sweden and went on to lead a global policy effort after Europe's first major terrorist attack

perpetrated by a white supremacist. I went on to found Moonshot, an organization that works to end violence online.

I care about climate change denial because it's so often weaponized to serve as a justification for violence.

It would be easy to think that if only we could get people to understand climate change is real,

we could put an end to this. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. In 2019,

a gunman walked into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. He killed 23 people, many of immigrant background.

He called himself an “eco-fascist.” He believed in climate change, but he had bought into mis- and disinformation

that immigrants were the root cause of it, that sustainability would only be possible with the elimination of people of color.

Mis- and disinformation are so often weaponized to serve as a justification for violence. Although they're often used interchangeably,

Misinformation is information that's false or misleading. Disinformation is spread intentionally to cause harm.

It's so powerful because it taps into your grievances, what makes you really angry, and it offers simplistic solutions.

There's typically a villain and a hero. Over the last two years, my team and I have been researching different kinds of manipulation tactics

used all over the world to spread disinformation. Two of the most common were decontextualization

and fearmongering. Decontextualization is the practice of taking information out of its original context to deliberately mislead people.

For example, earlier this year, Europe experienced a series of protests by farmers against a range of proposed environmental regulations.

There were street blockades and protests, demonstrations, occupations. Adding to an already tense moment,

several inauthentic images circulated. This one purported to show the Ukrainian embassy in Paris getting pummeled with manure.

This was actually footage taken months earlier from an entirely different protest about an entirely different issue in Dijon,

not even in Paris. And this effort to mislead the public, it wouldn't be complete without the use of new technology.

Here's an image showing the streets of Paris lined with bales of hay. It's a really striking image, isn't it?

This never happened. It was entirely generated by AI. And this isn't just happening in Europe.

Last year, after wildfires raged in Hawaii, a disinformation network linked to the Chinese Communist Party

spread inauthentic images purporting that the US government had intentionally spread the wildfires using a so-called “weather weapon.”

Can you imagine? Over a hundred people died in those wildfires, and the idea that those fires were deliberately set

by their own government against their own people? It's terrifying. These kinds of conspiratorial narratives can spread widespread fear,

which takes us to the next powerful tactic of disinformation: fearmongering; deliberately exaggerating an issue

so that you can provoke fear and alarm. We know that emotion-driven information processing can overtake evidence-based decision making,

which is what makes this form of disinformation so effective. It's for these reasons that a recent MIT study found

a false story will travel six times quicker to reach 1,500 people than a true story will.

And we know Facebook fact-checkers take up to 72 hours on average to identify and remove this content.

By that time, most impressions have already been made. Now I know we have all seen this online,

and when you see it happen, it can be really tempting to respond with the facts. I get it.

We pride ourselves on logic and science. The truth matters. So when someone is so obviously spreading false information,

just correct them, right? Unfortunately, this doesn't always work. Believe me, I spent the last two decades

learning how to have conversations with people buying into white supremacy. That is disinformation at its worst.

Disinformation wins because of the emotions it inspires, because of the way it makes people feel. So if someone is so bought into disinformation,

getting into debates on the facts with them can just risk pushing them even further into a corner,

backing them into a corner so that they get really defensive. Okay, so if we can't debate the facts endlessly,

what can we do? Last year, Moonshot partnered with Google to test an approach known as “prebunking.”

Prebunking is a proven communication technique designed to help people spot and reject manipulative efforts

in the future. By giving people forewarning and tools to reject manipulative messages,

you lessen the likelihood that they will be misled. This isn't about telling people what is true or false

or right or wrong. It's about empowering people to protect themselves. We've tapped into the universal human desire not to be manipulated,

and this method has been tried and tested for decades, since the 1960s. All prebunking messages contain three essential ingredients:

One: an emotional warning. You alert people that others may be trying to mislead or manipulate them.

Be aware; you may be targeted. Two: stimulus. You show people examples of manipulative messaging

so they can more easily identify them in the future. And three: refutation.

You give people tools to refute a message in real time. For example,

if you see a sensational headline that seems too good to be true or makes you angry,

always check other sources using Google. Always Google around.  Okay, so we knew the steps to take,

but we also knew that to truly address this global problem, a one-size-fits-all approach wouldn't work.

We needed a local approach. So we partnered with civil society organizations in countries around the world,

from Germany to Indonesia to Ukraine. We started with the evidence. We met with dozens of experts,

surveyed the online space, and identified the most common manipulation tactics used in each country.

We then partnered with local filmmakers to create educational videos that would teach people about those manipulation tactics that were being used in their home country.

In some contexts, we found that people trust close peers and relatives the most. So in Germany,

we filmed close friends chatting in a park. In Ukraine, we filmed family dialogues around a kitchen table,

a setting that's so familiar to so many of us, where so many of us have had those difficult conversations.

We wanted to encourage people to have these kinds of conversations within their own trusted circles, whether they're in El Salvador or Indonesia.

And to do so before pivotal moments where online manipulation efforts intensify, like elections. So as we prepared to head into the EU elections,

we knew that distrust in climate science had already emerged as a critical misinformation theme. Now, one study had found that adults over the age of 45

are less likely to investigate false information when they stumble across it online. Now we also know that adults over the age of 45

have higher voter turnout, which means if it wins, disinformation can have a disproportionate impact on the outcomes of elections.

So as we prepared to head into the EU elections, we created content for every EU country,

in 27 languages, aiming to empower Europeans to spot and reject efforts to manipulate them before the elections.

Over the last year, we have reached millions of people around the globe with these videos. In Germany alone, we reached 42 million people.

That's half the German population. And we found, on average, viewers of these videos were up to 10 percent more likely

to be able to identify manipulation efforts than those who hadn't seen those videos. This is a winning formula.

The evidence shows us that prebunking is effective at building resistance to disinformation. It begs the question,

How do we make that resistance last? How do we build long-term societal resilience to disinformation efforts?

There is an ongoing effort to use disinformation to undermine our democracies. Just last month,

the US Justice Department seized 32 internet domains secretly deployed by the Russian government to spread disinformation across the US and Europe.

This included deliberate efforts to exploit anxieties and fears across the public about the energy transition,

specifically to encourage violence. Now it's not just the Russian government that we need to be worried about.

Easy access to generative AI tools means that anyone, not just those with resources, money, and power,

can create high-quality, effective, powerful disinformation content. And the sources of disinformation are varied.

They can come from our elected officials all the way through to our neighbors down the road. Many of us don't need to look further than our own families.

But so many of the tools we tested online are even more powerful when they come directly from the people

that you trust and love the most in real life, IRL. So instead of endlessly debating the facts,

give your loved ones the tools that they need to protect themselves online. Information manipulation is unfortunately the new norm.

But that doesn't mean we need to accept our loved ones being misled, and we shouldn't accept our climate scientists living in fear.

So if we can't fact-check our way out of this problem, we need to beat disinformation at its own game

by reaching people before disinformation does and giving them all the tools that they need to protect themselves online.

The Real-World Danger of Online Myths | Vidhya Ramalingam | TED

The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. You're welcome to link to or embed these videos, forward them to others and share these ideas with people you know.

TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization/our-policies-terms/ted-talks-usage-policy. For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at https://media-requests.ted.com

온라인상의 기후 과학자에 대한 폭력적인 공격

기후 과학자들이 온라인에서 받는 폭언과 협박 메시지 예시

최근 설문조사에 따르면 39%의 기후 과학자가 온라인 폭력을 경험

그중 18%는 신체적 폭력 위협을 받음

발표자는 기후 과학자나 활동가가 아닌 테러 대응 전문가임을 밝힘

기후 변화 부정과 폭력의 연관성

기후 변화 부정이 폭력을 정당화하는 데 악용되는 사례

단순히 기후 변화의 진실을 알리는 것만으로는 문제 해결이 어려움

엘파소 총격 사건의 범인이 '생태 파시스트'로서 이민자를 기후 변화의 원인으로 지목

잘못된 정보(misinformation)와 의도적인 허위 정보(disinformation)의 차이 설명

맥락 왜곡(decontextualization)과 공포 유발(fearmongering) 전략 설명

유럽 농민 시위에서 맥락 왜곡의 예시 (우크라이나 대사관에 대한 거짓 이미지 유포)

AI 생성 가짜 이미지를 이용한 정보 조작 사례

하와이 산불 이후 중국 공산당과 연계된 가짜 정보 유포 사례

공포 유발 전략의 효과와 감정적 정보 처리가 증거 기반 의사결정을 압도하는 현상

사실을 가지고 논쟁하는 것이 오히려 역효과를 낼 수 있음

선제적 반박(prebunking) 전략 소개: 미리 정보 조작 시도를 알리고 대응 방법을 알려주는 것

선제적 반박 메시지의 세 가지 요소: 감정적 경고, 자극, 반박 도구 제공

전 세계 다양한 지역의 시민 사회 단체와 협력하여 현지 상황에 맞는 접근 방식 사용

선제적 반박 전략의 효과 및 향후 과제

EU 선거를 앞두고 27개 언어로 선제적 반박 콘텐츠 제작 및 배포

선제적 반박 영상 시청자의 정보 조작 식별 능력 향상 효과

장기적인 사회적 회복력 강화 방안 모색

러시아 정부의 가짜 정보 유포 시도 사례 언급

AI 도구의 접근성 증가로 인한 가짜 정보 제작 용이성 증가