Listen to the article
In the wake of Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent retaliation, a troubling wave of misinformation has flooded social media platforms, creating significant challenges for audiences seeking reliable information about the conflict.
Experts are warning that distinguishing between authentic and false content has become increasingly difficult in our tech-driven society. According to the Digital News Report 2023 from the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute, 56% of people surveyed across 46 countries expressed concern about differentiating between real and fake news online—up from 54% in 2022.
This concern is particularly acute in regions near active conflicts. In Slovakia, which borders Ukraine, almost half of those surveyed reported encountering misinformation about the Ukraine conflict, double the rate reported in the UK, United States, or Japan.
The Israel-Hamas conflict has triggered a notable surge in misleading content online. Israeli monitoring firm Cyabra, which tracks disinformation and bot accounts, conducted an analysis of over two million pictures, posts, and videos related to the conflict. Their findings revealed that 25% of the 162,000 profiles examined were fake, with many utilizing automated bots across Twitter (now X), TikTok, and other platforms.
The problem appears particularly pronounced on X, which has undergone significant operational changes under Elon Musk’s ownership. Multiple media reports have highlighted how the platform has become a breeding ground for false claims about the conflict.
In response to this growing challenge, many traditional media outlets have strengthened their fact-checking operations. BBC Verify, launched in 2023, exemplifies this approach. The specialized team employs advanced tools and techniques to investigate, source, and authenticate information, videos, and images—showing audiences exactly how they know their reporting is accurate.
Following the Hamas attack on the Supernova music festival in southern Israel, BBC Verify and other fact-checking units meticulously pieced together events using multiple sources: videos, social media posts, dashboard camera footage, and facial recognition technology such as Amazon Rekognition software.
While technological tools aid this verification process, human review remains essential. As former Reuters Institute acting director emphasizes, automated fact-checking requires human oversight to ensure accuracy and context.
Other major news agencies have similarly stepped up their verification efforts. Reuters recently fact-checked a widely circulated clip falsely claiming to show staged deaths in the conflict. The agency clarified that the footage actually showed behind-the-scenes filming of “Empty Place,” a short Palestinian film released in 2022—not, as was claimed, evidence of fabricated casualties.
AP Fact Check has also been actively combating misinformation surrounding the conflict, providing timely corrections to misleading content spreading online.
These verification efforts come at a critical time when social media platforms are increasingly serving as primary news sources for many people. The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report found that this reliance is affecting people’s confidence in the information they encounter, highlighting the growing need for verifiable, fact-based journalism.
In conflict situations marked by violence and suffering, responsible reporting becomes even more essential. The current information environment seems to validate the prescient words of pioneering broadcast journalist Edward Murrow, who noted: “The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue.”
As the Israel-Hamas conflict continues to unfold, the battle against misinformation remains as crucial as ever, with professional verification efforts serving as a vital defense against the spread of falsehoods in an increasingly complex information landscape.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


32 Comments
If AISC keeps dropping, this becomes investable for me.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
If AISC keeps dropping, this becomes investable for me.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
If AISC keeps dropping, this becomes investable for me.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Nice to see insider buying—usually a good signal in this space.
Interesting update on Social Media Fraud Surge Highlights Critical Need for News Verification. Curious how the grades will trend next quarter.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Exploration results look promising, but permitting will be the key risk.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Interesting update on Social Media Fraud Surge Highlights Critical Need for News Verification. Curious how the grades will trend next quarter.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.