Background

As a politically active social media user one may often come across posts, which make specific claims about events or people and are often only supported by an image or foto to trigger attention, but it is unclear where the stated numbers or facts come from. It has become a habit of mine to add this sentence to the comments:

“Add a source to strengthen your message! :-)”

While I often get positive reactions and replies with the requested links to sources, I often get also negative reactions like this (paraphrasing):

…“ad hominem” attacks (a logical fallacy):

• “You are lazy! Do your own research!”
• “You are just against me!”

… or “whataboutisms” (another logical fallacy):

• “Did you remind others to add their sources?”

… or “futility” (ad consequentiam) arguments (another logical fallacy):

• “Even if I add a source, this will not convince you!”

.. or “non-sequitur arguments” (another logical fallacy)::

• “Not needed, it is all over the internet!”

…  or just rude comments.

To understand the world and react adequately one has to base one’s beliefs about the world on facts. The probability of a message to be believed by a reader depends on the content (logical?) and the source (credible?), but also pre-existing beliefs or political attitudes of the reader. Readers may prefer the “central route of persuasion” or the “peripheral route of persuasion” [1] depending on one’s personality (eg sceptical vs enthusiastic) and the situation (eg much time vs little time, high impact vs low impact):

• central route: systematic processing using rational thinking
• peripheral route: heuristic processing using pre-existing beliefs, approximations, emotional cues

Strongly emotional images (eg, wounded child, cute puppy, or a masked, armed man) have the effect of eliciting strong emotions, which bypass critical thinking, and often lead to quick reactions such as liking, commenting or sharing the information, often without fact-checking or sharing the source of the information [2].

Making a habit out of reminding oneself to check whether the post contains a source, helps to switch from the peripheral route to the central route of processing information.

Advantages of adding a source

Adding a specific source (ideally a permanent link to a permanent medium) makes it easy for a follower to verify the information.

Just stating “New York Times” or “@user123” is usually not specific enough and will make it hard to find the original source, especially if some time has passed. For example, an article prominently displayed on the start page of a newspaper website today maybe later moved to the archive. Also a user name may not be specific enough because it is not always clear on what social network the post was published (Twitter/X, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Telegram, …???) and may also be buried in multiple posts following after that original post. Please note that some social media platforms (eg Snapchat, Instagram/Vanish mode) publish also temporary media, which will be deleted after a specific time period, which prevents verification. In such cases, or if you expect a user may remove a controversial posts, take a screenshot.

Frustratingly, many users post events without sufficient detail (Who? When? Where? What? Source?), which often requires to guess the context (Aggressor? Victim? Sequence of actions in the specific situation?). For example, the simple image of a wounded child could be used by different parties of interest to promote their agendas, if context is missing. In addition, a simple fact such as the date of an event is crucial to assess the urgency and the need for action for a users, eg did an event happen 10 years ago or did it happen yesterday?

• Source:
  • Followers can check the credibility (integrity, knowledge) of the source.
    Note: Mainstream media, alternative media, scientists, citizen reporters or just regular people may all be valid or biased sources of information. In my experience, the reported facts are often similar but the framing and context is often very different. For example, different media may report the fact that rockets were fired by one party to the other party, but it is very important whether it is framed as a barbaric act of terror, unprovoked, but targeted attack, restraint retaliation, an adequate defense, or an error based on miscommunication.
  • Followers can check the credibility (integrity, knowledge) of intermediate sources (ie, users sharing posts of other users).
  • Followers can promote or demote the source (ie, positive or negative comment).
    Note: Depending on whether the source has shared factful information or misinformation/disinformation, the social status or reach of the source can be increased or decreased.
  • Followers can choose other sources of information (ie, follow users who posted factful information, block users who spread misinformation).
  • Adding the original source will protect users sharing posts.
    Note: If a user states, for example, “This is a crime!”, he may be attacked (“Are you a lawyer? How do you know?”), but if you are citing the original assessment by a legal authority, such attacks will be reduced or redirected to the original source.
• Facts:
  • Followers can check facts in the original source.
  • Followers can research more facts in the original source or associated media.
  • Followers can check the completeness, correctness, and framing of the original facts.
    Note: Intermediate sources may have added “spin” to the info, eg by framing the event by omitting information, suggestive choice of words (“collateral damage” vs “murder of innocent civilians”), or casting doubt on the original facts.
• In total, the weight of evidence of your post will be increased and may also increase its usefulness as forensic evidence.

For example, in the Gaza crisis Israel and supporters have strongly operated with propaganda (“hasbara”) to frame Palestinians as terrorists and to dehumanize them to justify the violence against them. Typically, such news which were also repeated by high-ranking politicians (eg, US president Biden) and high-profile newspapers (eg, New York Times) contain graphic, memorable images (eg, mutilations of human bodies, violent deaths especially of children), however, WITHOUT a reliable source, eg, pointing to well-informed insiders, secret fotos and videos, or organisations with heavy vested agenda (eg, secret services, army).

Disadvantages of adding a source

Adding a source to your message may have the following disadvantages:

• A user may have to spend additional time and effort to find a (high-quality) source.
• A user may experience frustration because the retrieved information may be less clear than originally thought and may only partially support or even contradict the message.
• A lengthy link may make the message less visually appealing (Tip: Use URL shorteners, such as https://tinyurl.com).
• A lengthy link may take away from the limited character count (Tip: Use URL shorteners, such as https://tinyurl.com).

References:
[0] https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/stand-firm.html
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model
[2] https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-faster-true-stories-0308
[3] https://science4fun.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Roots-of-Plants.jpg