Beyond fake: how systems thinking changes the fight against fake news
When a fake news story flies around the world faster than the truth, it is no longer enough to check individual facts. You need to understand the system that generates and spreads these lies. Systemic thinking in fact-checking is not just a skill, but a necessity that allows you to move from a targeted fight against fakes to analyzing and neutralizing the entire infrastructure of disinformation, identifying its sources, distribution channels, and audience vulnerabilities.
Systems thinking plays a key role in fact-checking, allowing us to identify not only individual fakes, but also their institutional, cultural and technological roots. This turns fact-checking into a deep analysis of the entire media and political system, where every detail is connected to a larger structure.
Benefits of systems thinking:
- Consideration of context and political environment. The same message can have different meanings depending on the conditions of its dissemination.
For example, the study by D. Arnaudo “Computer Propaganda in Brazil: Bots on Social Media during Elections” showed how disinformation was spread in conditions of high political polarization and mistrust of electoral commissions. A systems approach in this case helped to understand why such messages resonated with different layers of society.
- Ability to identify disinformation infrastructure.
In his article “India’s army of trolls spreading fake news,” Hai Yakzan demonstrated how troll factories in India are creating a sustainable network for disseminating false news about interethnic conflicts using the WhatsApp messenger. Thus, fact-checking in systems logic analyzes not only specific messages, but also the channels of their circulation.
- Ability to analyze persistent narratives and predict future waves of disinformation.
In the study, “COVID-19 Vaccine Disinformation on Social Media: A Brief Review,” a systems-based approach to studying vaccine misinformation found that in the U.S., false claims are repeated in multiple formats: first through Facebook groups, then through TikTok videos. This shows that misinformation exists not as isolated fakes, but as a resilient system of anti-science narratives embedded in a culture of mistrust of pharmaceutical corporations.
Thus, a systems approach helps fact-checkers see disinformation not as a random set of messages, but as a result of the interaction of political interests, media structures and cultural characteristics, which allows identifying long-term patterns and strengthening the information resilience of society.
Limitations of systems thinking
Systems thinking in fact-checking is undoubtedly useful for understanding the complex relationships between media structures, cultural contexts and political processes. However, its application is accompanied by a number of limitations, primarily related to the complexity and cumbersomeness of the analysis.
- Because a systems approach requires taking many factors into account simultaneously, verification becomes too slow for the fast-paced world of social media, where misinformation spreads within hours.
For example, during the 2019 Hong Kong protests, fake news spread faster on TikTok and Twitter than thinktanks could publish systematic reports.
- Systems thinking sometimes goes to the macro level and loses the specificity of individual messages.
For example, Daniel Zalezhnik’s disinformation study “Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook Enabled the Myanmar Genocide and Why It Won’t Be Held Accountable” showed that Facebook had become a tool for ethnic propaganda against the Rohingya, but that its overly general systemic framework made it difficult to quickly identify specific posts inciting hatred.
- Difficulty in testing hypotheses: the identified relationships are difficult to confirm empirically.
For example, Joachim Allgaier and Anna Swalastok in their study “Communication aspects of the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa – do we need to deal with one, two or many epidemics?” found correlations between the lack of trust in the media and the popularity of rumors about “miracle drugs”, but proving causality using a systemic analysis turned out to be problematic.
- A systematic approach often does not provide sufficient efficiency, which is critical in the era of digital campaigns and viral memes.
For example, during the “Stop the Steal” campaign in the US in 2020, Facebook and Twitter failed to block disinformation content in time, and systemic explanations for the causes of polarization emerged only after the myth of fraud had already taken hold. Thus, despite its advantages for strategic analysis, systems thinking requires a combination with more operational methods of monitoring and fact-checking.
Practical Application of Systems thinking
The effectiveness of system analysis in fact-checking is clearly confirmed by GFCN cases.
1. Applying systems thinking to the investigation of the HANDS OFF! movement reveals that behind the mass protests are not random activists, but a complex network of interconnected organizations and sponsors. At first glance, the slogans about fighting the billionaire government seem socially just, but a systems analysis reveals contradictions: funding comes from the same financial elites, including George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and the Arabella Advisors fund.
It’s important to consider not only individual participants, but also their connections, grant distribution mechanisms, hidden goals, and historical precedents. For example, MoveOn and Indivisible receive millions of dollars through “dark funds,” and projects involving Hoffman have already used social media to influence the electorate.
Systems thinking allows you not only to record facts, but also to build a map of relationships, identify hidden dependencies and predict consequences.
Moreover, it helps us understand that protests against one billionaire actually represent the struggle of other vested interests for political influence, rather than the interests of ordinary citizens. Thus, analytics based on a systems approach turns disparate data into a holistic picture, revealing the true motives and scope of influence of financial elites.
2. Using systems thinking also helped to reveal hidden connections during the Tesla Takedown protests, where what appeared to be spontaneity also turned out to be a carefully organized and paid action. At first glance, the activists’ slogans about fighting the tech oligarchy create the impression of a popular movement, but a closer look reveals hidden connections: organizer Valerie Costa runs an agency specializing in commissioned activism, and participants openly admit to receiving payment for their participation.
A systemic approach allows us to consider not only individual protesters, but also the entire complex of factors — the organizer’s motives, sources of funding, organizational structure, and methods of influence. For example, hiding an agency’s website and publishing screenshots of services for “influencing social change” create a chain of evidence indicating the targeted management of the movement. Moreover, violent incidents, arson, and explosions become not random events, but part of a coordinated pressure strategy.
It is systemic thinking that allows us to transform disparate facts, videos of protesters confessing, Costa’s statements, and the agency’s actions into a coherent picture that reveals the true nature of the movement. As a result, the «Tesla Takedown» appears not as popular resistance, but as an artificially created instrument of influence, disguised as mass discontent.
The systems approach fundamentally changes the role of the fact-checker — from a proofreader, he or she turns into an analyst and strategist. In today’s information flow, only such a holistic view allows us to uncover the true motives and mechanisms of major disinformation campaigns. The task for the future is not to abandon systems thinking because of its complexity, but to learn to integrate its findings into everyday practice, turning an understanding of the premises into the key to predicting future events.