Fake News: Offensive or Defensive Weapon in Information Warfare

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Rumors, disinformation, and fake news are problems of contemporary society. We live in a world where the truth no longer holds much importance, and the line that divides the truth from lies, between real news and disinformation, becomes increasingly blurred and difficult to identify. The purpose of this study is to describe this concept, to draw attention to one of the “pandemics” of the 21st-century world, and to find methods by which we can defend ourselves against them. Materials and methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted based on a sample of 442 respondents. Results. For 77.8% of the people surveyed, the concept of “fake news” is important in Romania. Regarding trust in the mass media, a clear dominance (72.4%) was observed among participants who have little trust in the mass media. Although 98.2% of participants detect false information found on the internet, 78.5% are occasionally deceived by the information provided. Of the participants, 47.3% acknowledged their vulnerability to disinformation. The main source of disinformation is the internet, as 59% of the interviewed subjects believed. As the best measure against disinformation, the study group was divided almost equally according to the three possible answers, all of which were considered to be equally important: imposing legal restrictions and blocking the posting of certain news (35.4%), imposing stricter measures for authors (33.9%), and increasing vigilance among people (30.5%). Conclusions. According to the statistics based on the participants’ responses, the main purposes of disinformation are propaganda, manipulation, distracting attention from the truth, making money, and misleading the population. It can be observed that the main intention of disinformation, in the perception of the study participants, is manipulation.

1. Introduction

The concept of fake news defines “prefabricated information”. Fake news is not a novel phenomenon. What has changed, however, are the techniques by which it emerges. Ambiguous information, and discrediting people, information, and values have always been a part of society. According to the current trend, the main purpose of fake news is, in fact, disinformation. Therefore, it has the power to influence the decisions, behavior, and opinions of the population. The unlimited ability of the internet to copy and send information everywhere in a fraction of a second has destroyed the concept of provenance or authorship; therefore, the source of information is devalued (Weiss et al. 2020; Lazer et al. 2018).

There has been clear evidence over the centuries that fake news has always existed. For example, in Rome, in the XVI century, there was a famous person known as Pasquino who disseminated untrue information and embarrassing rumors to defame and discredit elite people. Also, in France, in the XVII century, there was a newspaper called “Canard” that sold fake news on the streets of the capital. Fake news also appeared in Germany in the XIX century when, because journalists had a hard time and significant cost associated with travelling abroad to observe life beyond borders, fake reporters appeared who invented attractive news and articles. Thus, it can be said that throughout history, similar to today, the motivation for creating fake news was economic and financial (Baptista and Gradim 2020).

Although the concept has considerable seniority, the modernization of technology and the advance of civilization has led to the emergence of new definitions that better show the current meaning of fake news. Marwick and Lewis describe the concept as a controversial term, but it generally refers to a wide range of disinformation online and in the media. The Cambridge Dictionary describes fake news as fake stories that become news, spread and cheat people online or via another media outlet, and are usually created to influence the business world (Marwick and Lewis 2017; Kalsnes 2018).

Studies show that one of the main reasons why fake news enjoys huge distribution is the social motive, with people aspiring to be appreciated when sharing emotionally impactful news. The distribution of information that is not true can also serve as a financial source (Baptista and Gradim 2020; Tsfati et al. 2020; Raza and Ding 2022; Domenico et al. 2021).

Fake news can manifest itself either through rumors, conspiracy theories, or through distorted photo–video materials, especially using social media platforms as a means of propagation (Velichety and Shrivastava 2022; Gupta et al. 2023; Obadă and Dabija 2022).

The boundless ability of the internet to copy and send information everywhere in a fraction of a second has broken the concept of provenance or authorship. This means that if an author is listed at the end of an article, or a post/video material/photo material has an author, it does not mean that he created all of the information. Objective information depends largely on the credibility of the author, which is harder to identify accurately nowadays (Weiss et al. 2020).

Politics is one of the areas that is most exposed to the emergence of untrue news. One of the most widely used methods in politics for spreading fake news is propaganda. The origin of the word “propaganda” is Latin and this definition better explains the meaning of this word, namely to propagate or to disseminate. Propaganda is defined as a method by which one disseminates, deliberately propagating information by which one wants to model perceptions, manipulating thinking, and behavior in order to achieve the desired results. Propaganda is used in politics to maintain power and control the population at the will of the ruler. Unlike other articles, propaganda is not meant to inform the population but to convince them of an ideology, event, or thought. Propaganda will give the population only a portion of the adversarial information to change reality and lead to conclusions that would otherwise not have occurred had absolute truth been offered. The researchers concluded that the line between propaganda and advertising is a very blurred one and the difference between these two is very difficult to identify (Rahmanian 2022).

As areas of application for disinformation, perhaps the most important is the medical field, where pseudoscience and conspiracy theories can even lead to the bewilderment of the population, by increasing distrust in healthcare professionals and confusion, and delaying the time to receive medical care, especially evidence-based care. Inaccurate, misleading, and blatantly false information creates confusion among people, they become distrustful of health professionals, and this prevents people from receiving the medical care they need. The COVID-19 pandemic has created an overwhelming increase in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well as an “infodemic”, a portmanteau term from “information” and “epidemic”, used to describe how disinformation spreads like a virus from person to person and can affect people like a disease (Simon and Camargo 2021; Iwendi et al. 2022).

Infodemics cause confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. During health emergencies, when an outbreak may intensify or prolong, infodemic management is another burden for health authorities. In the management of infodemics, risk-based and evidence-based approaches and analyses are used systematically to reduce the impact on participants’ behaviors (Bermes 2021).

Fighting fake news is a battle in which the weapons used are quick verification and artificial intelligence. In its first years of existence, “verified” has helped over a billion people with over 5000 items of information in over 60 languages to limit the spread of COVID-19. This program has become a model for future problems to come [https://shareverified.com/2022/06/08/fighting-misinformation-where-it-happens-striking-first-and-often/] (accessed 22 June 2024).

The news and information provided by social media are not always fraudulent. However, the amount of false information, of disinformation, is a major problem. In order to identify it and not fall into its trap, we need to better understand what we are dealing with. The purpose of this study is to describe this concept, to draw attention to one of the 21st century “pandemics”, and to find ways to defend ourselves against it.

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted based on a sample of 442 respondents. The inclusion criteria for the sample were the selection of a population encompassing people from all age groups, people from both rural and urban backgrounds, both females and males, people with a higher education, and people without a higher education.

Data collection was carried out randomly and voluntarily. The data collection period was 5 months. The subjects completed a digital questionnaire that was distributed on social media networks (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) due to better population compliance and the ease of centralizing responses. The subjects were informed of anonymity, data confidentiality, and the scientific purpose of the study; thus, by completing the questionnaire in full, we considered that the respondents were eligible for inclusion in the study. Questionnaires that were not completed in full were excluded from the study. The questions were mostly closed with ordered answers or closed with unordered answers, but binary questions were also included with a maximum time of 15 min to complete. There were instructions for each question on the type of answers: single or multiple.

The graphical representation of the data used Microsoft Office Excel 365 and the statistical processing used SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science) (Version 2023). Descriptive statistics of responses and inferential statistics were performed.

To determine the association between potential risk factors and the spread of fake news, we used the chi-square test. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value < 0.05.

3. Results

For 77.8% of the people surveyed, the concept of “fake news” is important in Romania. Regarding trust in the mass media, a clear dominance (72.4%) was observed among participants who have little trust in the mass media.

A total of 98.2% of participants noticed the presence of fake news on social media sites. Study participants were asked about how often they were deceived by fake news: 78.5% said they were occasionally deceived, 12% said they were never cheated, 4.8% were cheated monthly, 2.5% were cheated weekly, and 2.3% said they were cheated daily.

Of the participants, 47.3% acknowledged their vulnerability to disinformation. The main source of disinformation is the internet, as considered by 59% of the interviewed subjects. Television was the source of false information for 39.8% and the rest of the respondents (0.7%) chose newspapers and the radio. We would be tempted to believe that information that is accompanied by video and/or photo material is more credible. Of the 442 people who participated in this study, 61.5% stated that this type of information is more credible and associated with an increased risk of misleading.

The study participants chose manipulation (85.3%) as the main purpose of disinformation, along with propaganda (55.0%), and a financial purpose (63.1%).

The participants who completed the questionnaire were asked about the areas in which disinformation is most widespread, with several answer options available. The results show that 69.2% claimed that the most disseminated false information is in the medical field, whereas 91.2% considered that disinformation is not present in the field of sports.

The device used for information in 86.7% of cases was the phone, only 13.3% using laptops, personal computers, and televisions. Participants in the study were asked about their allotted time spent using the media. Over half (50.7%) stated they spent less than an hour a day using it, followed by a 41% using it between 1 and 3 h, 6.1% between 3 and 6 h, and 2.3% over 6 h a day.

As the best measure against disinformation, the study group was divided almost equally according to the 3 possible answers that were considered to be equally important: imposing legal restrictions and blocking the posting of certain news (35.4%), imposing stricter measures for authors (33.9%), and increasing vigilance among people (30.5%), (

Table 1. Relations between the questions in the survey and the question: Is disinformation a problem in Romania?

		Is Disinformation a Problem in Romania?		Total	p-Value
		Yes	No
Sex	Female	315 (72.2)	5 (83.3)	320 (72.4)	0.54
Age	Under 20	52 (11.9)	2 (33.3)	54 (1.2)
	20–29	268 (61.5)	2 (33.3)	270 (61.1)	0.34
	30–39	4 (11)	1 (16.7)	49 (11.1)
	40–49	35 (8)	1 (16.7)	36 (8.1)
	50–59	33 (7.5)	0 (0)	33 (7.5)
How much do you trust the information provided by the media?	I trust it	51 (11.7)	3 (50.0)	54 (12.2)	0.03
	I trust it a little	317 (72.7)	3 (50.0)	320 (72.4)
	I do not trust it at all	68 (15.6)	0 (0)	68 (15.4)
Do you think you are vulnerable to disinformation?	Yes	209 (47.9)	0 (0)	209 (47.3)	0.02
Is the concept of “fake news” important to you?	Yes	340 (78.0)	4 (66.7)	344 (77.8)	0.50
Do most cases of disinformation belong to the field of medicine?	Yes	303 (69.5)	3 (50.0)	306 (69.2)	0.30
Have you noticed the presence of “fake news” on social media websites?	Yes	429 (9.4)	5 (83.3)	434 (9.2)	0.006
	I have not noticed	6 (1.4)	0 (0)	6 (1.4)	0.77
Where did you come across such “fake news”?	Facebook	415 (95.2)	5 (83.5)	420 (95.0)	0.18
	Twitter	45 (10.3)	1 (16.7)	46 (10.4)	0.61
	Instagram	196 (45.0)	3 (50.0)	199 (45.0)	0.80
	Snapchat	17 (3.9)	0 (0)	17 (3.9)	0.62
	TikTok	5 (1.1)	0 (0)	5 (1.1)	0.79
	WhatsApp	2 (0.5)	0 (0)	2 (0.5)	0.86
	The news	6 (1.4)	1 (16.7)	7 (1.6)	0.003
	Google	5 (1.1)	0 (0)	5 (1.1)	0.79
	YouTube	6 (1.4)	0 (0)	6 (1.4)	0.77
	Reddit	2 (0.5)	0 (0)	2 (0.5)	0.86
Have you ever been deceived into believing that some information you thought was true was actually false?	Monthly	21 (4.8)	0 (0)	21 (4.8)	0.40
	Never	51 (11.7)	2 (33.3)	53 (12.0)
	Occasionally	343 (78.7)	4 (66.7)	347 (78.5)
	Weekly	11 (2.5)	0 (0)	11 (2.5)
	Daily	10 (2.3)	0 (0)	10 (2.3)
What do you think is the source of most disinformation?	Internet	255 (58.5)	6 (100.0)	261 (59.0)	0.14
	Radio	1 (0.2)	0 (0)	1 (0.2)
	Television	178 (40.8)	0 (0)	178 (40.0)
	The newspaper	2 (0.5)	0 (0)	2 (0.5)
What do you think the purpose of disinformation is?	Propaganda	239 (54.8)	4 (66.7)	243 (55.0)	0.56
	Manipulation	372 (85.3)	5 (83.3)	377 (85.3)	0.89
	Attracting the audience	140 (32.1)	1 (16.7)	141 (31.9)	0.42
	Parody	105 (24.1)	1 (16.7)	106 (24.0)	0.67
	Discrediting	159 (36.5)	1 (16.7)	160 (36.2)	0.31
	Entertainment	148 (33.9)	2 (33.3)	150 (33.9)	0.97
	Misleading the population	228 (52.3)	4 (66.7)	232 (52.5)	0.48
	Distraction from the truth	275 (63.1)	2 (33.3)	277 (62.7)	0.13
	Financial purposes	275 (63.1)	4 (66.7)	279 (63.1)	0.85
	All of the above	95 (21.8)	1 (16.7)	96 (21.7)	0.76
What risk can this disinformation have?	Disturbing the health system	227 (52.1)	0 (0)	227 (51.4)	0.01
	Psychological impact	327 (75.0)	3 (50.0)	330 (74.7)	0.16
	Creating confusion	368 (84.4)	3 (50.0)	371 (83.9)	0.02
	Loss of public confidence in the media	295 (67.7)	2 (33.3)	297 (67.2)	0.07
	Fraudulent investments	146 (33.5)	2 (33.3)	148 (33.5)	0.99
	Encouraging violence	25 (5.7)	0 (0)	25 (5.7)	0.54
	Distraction from the truth	1 (0.2)	0 (0)	1 (0.2)	0.90
Which of the following devices do you use the most?	Laptop	34 (7.8)	1 (16.7)	35 (8.0)	0.58
	PC	13 (3.0)	0 (0)	13 (2.9)
	Telephone	378 (86.7)	5 (83.3)	383 (86.7)
	Television	11 (2.5)	0 (0)	11 (2.5)
How much time per day do you spend watching social media posts?	Under one hour	196 (45.0)	3 (50.0)	199 (45.0)	0.78
	1–3 h	170 (39.0)	2 (33.3)	172 (38.9)
	3–6 h	55 (12.6)	1 (16.7)	56 (12.7)
	Over 6 h	15 (3.4)	0 (0)	15 (3.4)
What do you think is the most reliable source of information?	Books	19 (4.4)	0 (0)	19 (4.3)	0.10
	Internet	221 (50.7)	2 (33.3)	223 (50.5)
	Radio	46 (10.6)	0 (0)	46 (10.4)
	Television	44 (0.1)	3 (50.0)	47 (10.6)
	The newspaper	69 (15.8)	1 (16.7)	70 (15.8)
	None	35 (8.0)	0 (0)	35 (7.9)
How much time per day do you spend reading social media posts?	Under one hour	220 (5.5)	4 (66.7)	224 (50.7)	0.82
	1–3 h	179 (41.1)	2 (33.3)	181 (41.0)
	3–6 h	27 (6.2)	0 (0)	27 (6.1)
	Over 6 h	10 (2.3)	0 (0)	10 (2.3)
Do you think technology and social media have made you a smarter/more informed person?	Yes, but I am not always sure that the information I read is untrue	230 (52.8)	5 (83.3)	235 (3.2)	0.26
	Yes, because I read a lot and verify the authenticity of information	123 (28.2)	0 (0)	123 (27.8)
	No, I do not trust what I read	84 (18.9)	1 (16.7)	84 (18.9)
Do you check internet addresses and other factors to make sure that what is written is also true?	Yes	335 (76.8)	3 (50.0)	338 (76.5)	0.12
Have you ever posted something on social media based only on the title without reading the entire article?	Yes	32 (7.3)	1 (16.7)	33 (7.5)	0.38
What do you think is most publicized in our country?	Entertainment	68 (15.5)	0 (0)	68 (15.5)	0.76
	Politics	3 (0.7)	0 (0)	3 (0.7)
	Health problems	82 (18.8)	1 (16.7)	83 (18.8)
	National security issues	17 (3.9)	0 (0)	17 (3.8)
	Economic problems	132 (30.3)	2 (33.3)	134 (30.3)
	Social issues	130 (29.7)	3 (50.0)	133 (30.0)
	Sports	3 (0.7)	0 (0)	3 (0.7)
What is the best measure against disinformation?	Increased vigilance among people	133 (30.5)	2 (33.3)	135 (30.5)	0.14
	Imposing stricter measures for news authors	146 (33.5)	4 (66.7)	150 (33.9)
	Imposing legal restrictions and blocking the posting of certain news	157 (35.9)	0 (0)	157 (35.4)
Should websites take greater responsibility to protect readers from disinformation?	Yes	431 (98.9)	6 (100.0)	437 (98.9)	0.79
Is the information that is accompanied by photo–video material more credible?	Yes	268 (61.5)	4 (66.7)	272 (61.5)	0.79
Why do you think disinformation would be a problem?	Negatively affects people’s lives	129 (29.6)	2 (33.3)	131 (29.6)	0.09
	It distracts from the truth	126 (28.9)	1 (16.7)	127 (28.7)
	It induces fear	34 (7.8)	1 (16.7)	35 (7.9)
	All of the above	147 (33.7)	2 (33.3)	149 (33.7)

We bolded to better see the significant p-value values.

).

Inferential statistics revealed an important aspect, namely the relationship between trust in the media and the problem of disinformation. We noted a percentage of 72.7% of those who believe that disinformation is a problem and have little trust in the media (p-value 0.03).

Regarding the age of the study participants, a statistically significant association was observed between the age groups and the importance of the concept of fake news (p-value 0.001). The importance of this concept is greater in younger age groups, as these participants are more interested in the idea of “fake news” than respondents of older ages (

Table 2. Relationship between age groups and whether the concept of “fake news” is important to me.

p-Value 0.001		Age (Years)					Total
		Under 20	20–29	30–39	40–49	Over 50–59
The concept of “fake news” is important to me.	Yes no (%)	35 (64.8)	231 (85.6)	32 (65.3)	26 (72.2)	21 (63.6)	344 (77.8)
	No no (%)	19 (35.2)	39 (14.4)	17 (34.7)	10 (27.8)	12 (36.3)	98 (22.2)
Total		54	270	49	36	33	442

).

The psychological impact of disinformation is mainly due to confusion. In the present study, the association between the risk of confusion and age was statistically significant (p-value 0.001). For participants aged 20–29 years, disinformation creates confusion to the greatest extent (

Table 3. Relationship between the effect of disinformation and age groups.

p-Value 0.001		Age (years)					Total
		Under 20	20–29	30–39	40–49	Over 50–59
Disinformation creates confusion	Yes no (%)	41 (75.9)	241 (89.3)	41 (83.7)	27 (75.0)	21 (63.6)	371 (83.9)
	No no (%)	13 (24.1)	29 (10.7)	8 (16.3)	9 (25.0)	12 (36.3)	71 (16.1)
Total		54	270	49	36	33	442

).

4. Discussion

In the digital age, the circulation of information has accelerated exponentially, and easy access to multiple sources has fundamentally transformed the public space. At the same time, this environment favors the proliferation of fake news, which affects democratic processes and social cohesion. In Romania, the phenomenon is aggravated by factors such as the low level of media education, political polarization, and the lack of an effective legislative framework. This study is a statistical one that follows the epidemiology of fake news, namely how much is known in terms of what is the opinion of the population on this subject, what are the risks of disinformation, what effects this untrue information may have, and what measures are taken to minimize the effects of this phenomenon. At the same time, a multidimensional analysis was carried out on the impact of fake news on Romanian society, from the perspective of their interaction with the social, cultural, and political environment.

Rumors, disinformation, and fake news are problems of contemporary society. We live in a world where the truth no longer holds as much importance, and the line that separates truth from lies, between real news and disinformation, becomes increasingly blurred and difficult to identify. People choose truth based on what they most like to hear, truths that fit their values and their own ideologies. Thus, we can say that we live in a “post-truth” era in which absolute truth has become very difficult to identify. With the advent of the internet and its recognition as a means of communication, scientists have identified it as a danger for the emergence of fake news and now, as the years go by, this is proving to be a worldwide problem (Bondielli and Marcelloni 2019).

The way we access news has changed radically over the past decade. After a period when the main sources of access to news were the television and the newspapers, nowadays, this trend has been replaced by access to the internet and social media from any corner of the world, from almost any device. The concept of fake news is not a recent one. The rapid evolution of technology and instant access to information and, above all, the right to publish articles freely, have opened the way for the emergence of untrue, more appealing news. Social media and mass media, in general, have become so important that they are the main sources of guidance of the population. Disinformation has the power to influence people’s decisions, behavior, and opinions.

New communication and social media technologies have made it easier to produce, distribute, and consume untrue information in large amounts. Technological advancements and the rise of social media were expected to increase access to truth and reduce disinformation. Paradoxically, the exact opposite has happened.

The concept of fake news is gaining ground among younger generations. A 2017 study on social media and fake news during the 2016 United States presidential election demonstrated that younger generations are much more susceptible to disinformation, while older generations, who generally show less interest in this topic, have the ability to discern information appropriately (and therefore prevent the spread of false information) (Allcott and Gentzkow 2017).

In this study, there is a statistically significant association between the most frequently used social media websites and the age groups. Younger generations (under 29 years old) have moved from Facebook to Instagram, the latter being the most used by these generations. Studies demonstrate the same tendency of young people to use Instagram more often. Among the causes of this shift of the younger generation towards Instagram is their need to have a space where the average age of users is closer to theirs, the need to have a social space where they are not always followed by their parents. Studies have shown that young people with a well-defined social status and a good financial background are more inclined to choose Instagram as their primary social media platform, while young people with precarious economic and social status use Facebook more as a social networking platform (Belanche et al. 2020; Le 2024).

One of the most dangerous areas where disinformation has the most drastic effect is the health sector. Nearly three thirds (69.2%) of the participants in our study chose the health sector as a breeding ground for false information. Fake news about drugs, treatments, and therapies can lead to choosing the wrong treatment option or even abandoning the right treatment. Fake news about vaccines, for example, can fuel the mistrust of patients, generating a lower vaccination rate and, implicitly, different epidemics.

Unlike disinformation that has emerged during natural disasters, healthcare disinformation has a much longer lifespan and spreads beyond the borders of a country. Studies that examined disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic concluded that disinformation varies from country to country, culture to culture, and language to language, and also differs depending on religious beliefs. Those who are naive, that is people who believe that science can be reached quickly, are the individuals who accelerate the spread of fake news online (Muhammed and Mathew 2022; Hartley and Vu 2020).

Some share their treatment experiences online. The problem in this case is that each individual is unique and diseases do not manifest in the same way in all, which is why individualized treatment is needed. In comparison, specialist websites and articles use specialized language. Posts and video materials spread by people who are not in the medical field are more intelligible, but they may omit information that would be important for the patient.

Some studies have shown that pseudoscience and conspiracy theories have only increased the number of deaths. Pseudoscience is a term that refers to invented, exposed information that claims to be scientific evidence. Disinformation in the health field is completely different from other fields because it provokes horror and desires. Horror is a more severe form of panic with harmful consequences. For example, after the emergence of COVID-19, disinformation was widely spread on social networks (Modgil et al. 2021; Ceron et al. 2021).

Another area where disinformation has a significant impact is politics. This was the field of the main sources of fake news pointed out by 85.1% of the participants in this study. Fake news in politics can have a significant impact on political decision-making and elections. Disinformation about candidates and political parties can influence public opinion and, thus, lead to incorrect elections with drastic effects on the well-being of society (Linvill and Warren 2020).

The proliferation of manipulative digital content over the last decade has profoundly transformed the landscape of political communication. In this context, fake news, as a form of digital impact on credible sources of information, have become an effective instrument of influence, especially in electoral campaigns or in periods of social instability. Romania, as a young democracy vulnerable to polarization and disinformation, provides fertile ground for the spread of these practices. Fake news is a weapon of subtle and dangerous influence, operating at the intersection of technology, social psychology. and political manipulation. In Romania, the polarized political context, combined with educational and institutional vulnerabilities, facilitates the proliferation of this type of disinformation. Only through a coherent inter-institutional and educational effort can the phenomenon be diminished and controlled, in favor of a functional and transparent democracy.

The third area where disinformation is more harmful than in others is the financial field, as indicated by 52.9% of the participants in our study. Fake news in the financial sector can cause serious damage to investors, the economy, and financial markets. Untrue news about companies or investments, can cause stock prices to rise or fall, which can affect the value of shares. Disinformation about the economic situation of a country can lead to panic among the population and, thus, destabilize the financial system (Kogan et al. 2019; Aïmeur et al. 2023).

One last area where fake news has significantly more damaging effects than in others is the environment. Disinformation in this area can have an impact on political decisions and people’s actions. False information about climate change and the impact of human activities on the environment can lead to a misunderstanding of problems and inadequate decisions. Erroneous information about organic products and green practices can also lead to public disinformation (Green et al. 2021).

The statistics gathered from the participants’ responses in this study show that, concerning people, the main purpose of disinformation is manipulation (85% of participants chose manipulation as the primary goal of fake news). This result is consistent with the literature that supports this motivation of manipulation with a view to obtaining political and economic benefits. Disinformation can be used to discredit political opponents or to promote political and economic ideologies, or even to undermine the authority and trust of government institutions and the mass media (Pennycook and Rand 2021).

Disinformation and fake news seem to be problems against which we would have no solutions, something that only specialized companies with special computers could solve, but each individual can help slow their spread or even stop them. These actions will have a positive impact on the community.

One solution would be for each news item to have a label on the status checked by specialists. If it is true news, it would have a specific logo so that people know whether to pay attention or not. But, we cannot become like Odysseus who had to be tied to the support pillar of the ship so that he would not be seduced by the sirens who were singing irresistibly.

The main occupation of organizations that detected disinformation was to identify them in written texts, but with the advancement of technology, there was a need to develop strategies for identifying fakes in images and videos. Manipulations of images and videos are much harder to detect. The technology developed to identify fakes in images and video is far behind that which identifies them in the text. One solution to this problem would be to use artificial intelligence to trace the origin of the images (Voicu 2022).

In 2020, the “verified” campaign was founded under the tutelage of the United Nations. The goal of the program was to fight disinformation. COVID-19 has created an “infodemic”, an overwhelming increase in disinformation, which has made safety measures harder to implement. In the first years of its existence, “verified” has helped over a billion people with over 5000 pieces of information in over 60 languages to limit the spread of COVID-19. This program has become a model for future problems that may arise [https://shareverified.com/2022/06/08/fighting-misinformation-where-it-happens-striking-first-and-often/] (accessed 20 June 2024).

In addition to the reliable information provided by this program, it also prepared a set of helpful questions for the average person to help identify disinformation. It aimed to educate the population to detect disinformation and thus stop its distribution. It recommends a set of five questions before distributing items/information. The first question is as follows: Who published the article? It is very important to check whether the author can be given sufficient credibility that we distribute the information further. Question number two is as follows: What is the source of information in the article? It is important to check whether the information displayed has clear evidence, that is, whether it is evidence-based. The third question is as follows: If it is a distributed article, what is the source of where it comes from? The next question is as follows: Why would you want to share this article/information? Before distributing, it is advisable to evaluate whether the distributed information will help the community or create confusion. And, the last question to ask before the decision to distribute an article/news or not is as follows: When was the news published? The information provided, although spectacular, may have “expired” or may no longer be relevant to the current situation, and if the information is very old it may be that, since that time, other conclusions and information that were once relevant have been reached, becoming disinformation.

Disinformation is a real threat to society and democracy. This means is frequently used for manipulating the public and electoral processes. Combating this involves a collective effort, which aims both to improve the public’s media literacy and to develop technological tools to help identify and eliminate fake news from online platforms. It is important to promote a culture of source verification and critical thinking so that the public is able to recognize and avoid fake news. At the same time, the development of technologies that enable fake news to be automatically identified and removed from online platforms must be supported.

5. Conclusions

The vast majority of study participants have little confidence in the media. Although a large percentage stated that they regularly read news and spend time on social media platforms, the trust level of information that they read is low. The results show that, although the place where most disinformation is found is the internet, it is still the place where the most reliable information can be found, depending on the individual’s ability to identify it.

Over 85% of the participants in this study have been deceived by fake news through both devices that provide news and social media websites. They stated that this topic concerns them and they consider it an important and current subject. The main means by which they receive disinformation are the television and the internet. The main platform where fake news has been identified is Facebook. Younger generations are more concerned with this topic than the older ones, but the latter are more immune to fake news.

According to the results, the study participants stated that the most unreliable areas of information where most disinformation can be found are the medical and political fields, while the safest areas are sports, entertainment, and science.

The fake news phenomenon has a multidimensional impact on Romanian society, reflecting and amplifying structural vulnerabilities. In the absence of coherent measures, disinformation risks eroding democratic values and public trust in institutions. An integrated approach is essential, including: systematic media education introduced in schools; transparent regulation and cooperation between the state, civil society, and online platforms; and support for quality journalism as a real barrier against manipulation

Ultimately, fake news must be understood not as an anomaly of the digital age, but as a strategic instrument embedded in broader political, technological, and epistemological transformations. Its efficacy lies not merely in its content but in the conditions it exploits—polarization, algorithmic bias, institutional distrust, and the erosion of shared epistemic foundations. Addressing these vulnerabilities is essential for preserving not only national security, but also the integrity of democratic deliberation and informed citizenship in the 21st century.