False social media content dressed as satire is not only driving advertising revenue for its creators but also division and distrust in society, experts warn.
AAP FactCheck has discovered a series of websites pumping out intentionally polarising content which is being loosely labelled satirical but unlike traditional such content, it’s fooling users and even being falsely reproduced as genuine news by shady creators.
Experts say the content is not only undermining social cohesion but trust in journalism.
“It is pure clickbait, designed for a single purpose and that is to rile up polarised audiences and drive them to the website to serve ads at them,” says Queensland University of Technology social theory and misinformation expert Associate Professor Timothy Graham.
Such content poses a threat to legitimate news organisations and to democracy, according to Western Sydney University digital media academic Tanya Notley.
The creators “seed and fuel division” and “reinforce and increase people’s hatred” towards certain groups, Associate Professor Notley says.
“They increase mistrust in all forms of online information including reliable and trustworthy sources.”
AAP has encountered dozens of false claims spreading among Australian social media users that have originated from the so-called satire sites.
They produce content typically focused on transgender issues, the supposed “woke” agenda and culture wars, before pushing it across social media.
Initially, it tends to have some form of satire label attached to it. However, experts say such subject matter should not be confused with traditional satire.
Stephen Harrington, an expert in the genre at the Queensland University of Technology, says satire should have a clear target and be easily recognisable as such to an audience.
“If this was satirical content, the goal would be to expose human folly through humorous critique,” Dr Notley says.
“The content across these sites is used to consistently make false, misleading and inflammatory claims but the content is clearly designed as clickbait.”
One of the organisations behind the material is The Patriots Network which runs the websites SpaceXMania and Esspots.
AAP FactCheck tracked down their operator, 28-year-old Pakistan-based Muhammad Shabayer Shaukat.
While he says it’s ultimately about money, he defends his content as satire and says he is concerned his stories are being lifted and republished by fake news sites.
His small team uses artificial intelligence, in particular Chat GPT, to create content to drive traffic and advertising revenue to his own websites, Mr Shabayer Shaukat says.
Recently published fake stories include Samsung pulling its Olympics sponsorship over the “woke” opening ceremony in Paris, transgender swimmer Lia Thomas being thrown out of a gym and basketball great Michael Jordan describing “wokeness” as a “mind destroyer”.
He says like his inspiration, content creator Christopher Blair who runs a network of “satire” sites called America’s Last Line of Defense, his target audience is conservatives.
“Particularly those who believe anything that fits their worldwide or aligns with what they see on the internet,” he says.
“I mean, they are gullible enough to believe anything they read on the internet.
“They do not see any disclaimers or anything.”
But Shabayer Shaukat’s sites are merely the start of the journey for much of his content.
Several of his stories tracked by AAP ended up on dozens of fake news pages, with all mention of satire removed.
“It’s kind of concerning and, you know, it’s very disappointing for us that our satire is being presented as real news,” he replies when asked if he feels responsible.
“They are not associated with us, we take no responsibility.”
But experts say the damage being done is all too real.
Dr Graham believes it is part of a wider problem in which hyperpolarisation and extreme ideology are being exploited.
“There is a great deal of profit to be made by emotionally charged, extreme identity politics in online communities, where the in/outgroup boundaries are increasingly policed by expressions of allegiance encoded in language,” he says.
“So the term ‘woke’ is a symbolic marker of in-group affiliation and it’s very likely to get hyperpartisans to click on it without thinking about the source.”
Prof Harrington says such content will always cause issues while social media companies incentivise engagement.
“In a lot of cases, you can get that engagement with low-quality content, which might get people angry, or just confirm their existing beliefs,” he adds.
With the continued development of AI, the fear is that the creation and distribution of such content will be available to more people.
