Advanced · Images, sound and media · module 123 of 155
Recognising deepfakes and misleading images
Check whether an image, video or audio clip is genuine before you share it or act on it.
After this lesson
You check the origin, time, place and context of suspicious media and know why looking at details or using a detection tool is not enough.
In view · Choices and control
Real or fake? Follow the origin
Find the first source and older versions with reverse search.
Compare weather, buildings and signs with the claimed place and day.
See whether recognised media or the organisation involved confirm it.
Part 1 of 3 · Who shared it first?
Your preference for less movement is on. Choose each part yourself.
Why your eyes are not enough
AI can create realistic photos, videos and voices. In the past, strange hands or blurry text gave away a fake image, but those errors are becoming rarer. Conversely, a real photo can look strange because of compression or a filter. A detection tool gives a probability or a score, not proof, and can be wrong in both directions. A real photo can also mislead if it comes from a different time or place. That is why you mainly check the origin and the context (lessons 18 and 84).
Four questions for suspicious media
Who shared the image first, and is that a reliable source? When and where was it made? Use reverse image search to look for older versions. Do details such as weather, buildings, signs and clothing match the claimed place and day? And do independent sources, such as recognised news media or the organisation concerned itself, confirm what the image supposedly shows? The more an image stirs your emotions, the more important it is to check first.
Voices, scams and what you share
An imitated voice can sound like a colleague or family member urgently asking for money or information. So agree on a verification route: call back on a known number, or ask a question that only the real person can answer. Never pay or share anything based only on a voice message or video. If you have doubts about an image, do not share it, or only with a clear statement that it has not been confirmed. Report scams to the organisation concerned and, where necessary, to the police.
New practice example
From explanation to a usable result.
Do not just look at the image itself. Find out who shared it first, when and where it was made, and whether independent sources confirm it.
Fictional practice situationFictional: in a neighbourhood group, a photo is circulating of a supposedly collapsed roof of the local sports hall, “happened today”. The message calls on people to avoid the sports hall.
View a possible solution
This is how it can be done
First to share it: an account without any details. Reverse search: the photo appeared two years earlier with a post about a different hall. The municipality states on its own website that the sports hall is open as normal. I do not share the photo and kindly point out the original source in the group.
Why this works
The origin and an independent, official source together settled the question. Just looking at the image would not have done that.
Make it slightly more difficult
Think of a check question your family can use if someone asks for money using your voice.
Extra practice, at your own pace. You do not need to submit anything. This does not count towards an automatic assessment.
Your workplace · learning by doing
Make something. See what changes.
Checking the AI connection… You can already view the written example.
Present your assignment to Ende.
Read the answer, change one thing, and compare.
Previously held
New version
You remain in control
What do you want to improve in your next attempt?
On this device only. AI answers remain only in this page memory. This is self-review, not a grade.
Why this approach works
The origin and an independent, official source together settled the question. Just looking at the image would not have done that.
A step further
Think of a check question your family can use if someone asks for money using your voice.
Try & discover · no obligation
Become the source checker yourself
Only mark statements that the source does not support. Then check your selection.
Fictional video circulating online: “Flooding in the town centre, this morning.” A colleague lists reasons why the video would or would not be real.
Select which sentences you would correct above. The answer remains hidden until you check your selection.
This trial works locally with fictitious data and does not count towards your lesson completion. It starts anew with a new lesson or reload.
A prompt to get you started
Help me assess a fictional video that is circulating online. Claim: “Flooding in the centre of a Belgian city, this morning.” Make a step-by-step plan to check its origin: who shared the video first, how do I find older versions, which details in the footage can I compare with the claimed place and day, and which independent sources can I consult? Also say what I should do as long as the video has not been confirmed.
Apply it
A colleague receives a voice message from “the director”, urgently asking for an invoice to be paid to a new account number today.
Which approach best fits this situation?
- Don’t pay: call the director back on a known number and follow the standard approval procedure.
- Pay straight away, because you recognise the voice.
- Ask in a reply to the same message whether it is really the director.
With JavaScript, you can check your approach and receive immediate feedback.
Test your insight
A detection tool says that a video is “92% likely to be genuine”. What does that mean?
- The video has been proven genuine.
- It is one indication; you still have to check origin, time, place and independent sources.
- The video is 8% fake and may therefore be shared.
Extra practice
Choose a striking image from the news or your timeline. Carry out three checks from this lesson and note what you found. Do not share anything as long as the origin is unclear.
First sharer: an anonymous account with no previous posts. Reverse search: the same footage already appeared three years ago with a flood in another city. Details: the shop signs are not in Dutch. Conclusion: old footage in a new context. I am not sharing it and I am reporting the post on the platform.
