Australian concern about disinformation is at an all-time high — and justifiably so, according to Australian Associated Press FactCheck editor Ben James. 

The AAP checks content on TikTok, Meta and X (formerly Twitter), publishing fact-checked content on its website and social media accounts. 

Disinformation has become “a huge problem”, James says, with AI giving “one person typing a prompt into a keyboard” the ability to produce and disseminate huge amounts of problematic content.

Australians are heavy users of digital media. Digital research lab DataReportal counted more than 20 million Australian user identities on social media at the start of 2025.

In the lead-up to the federal election, with Gen Z and millennials accounting for more than half the voting population, political operators have taken to social media, using influencers and short-form videos to spread their messages. 

Voters have been warned to be alert for manipulative messaging: rumour bombs, contrived events and deep fakes, boosted by bots and potentially shared unwittingly by social media users. 

But Australians are inclined to overestimate their ability to detect false information, according to Australian Electoral Commission spokesperson Alex Morris.  

“No matter how good you are at thinking you can identify it or thinking that you can stop it, you probably can’t,” Morris says.

With social media awash in political advertising, here are some tips and online resources to help you identify and stop the spread of any spurious content that comes your way.

How does it make you feel?

Be particularly cautious about content that seems to work on your emotions, particularly feelings of anger or righteousness. 

Studies of false content have found it tends to be emotionally loaded — by design.

Content that arouses feelings of anger and disgust is likely to increase the user's engagement with fake posts. 

And rumours conveying anger, sadness, anxiety and fear are likely to generate a large number of shares, go viral and be long-lived. 

So, if a political message is emotionally charged, or you notice yourself reacting emotionally to it, take a step back and review it. 

Where does it come from?

Content that’s primarily intended to influence how people vote — and is paid for or communicated on behalf of a candidate or their backers — should carry an authorisation message identifying the person responsible for it. 

With candidates turning to social media to connect with younger voters, influencers have been in the spotlight, leading the AEC to confirm how the authorisation rules apply to social media content. (The same rules apply regardless of the format.)

If an influencer merely interviews a candidate or party, an authorisation is not needed. 

So Abbie Chatfield’s interview with Adam Bandt, for example, was not "electoral matter" and didn’t have to carry an authorisation. 

But if an influencer is paid for the content or posts it on behalf of a candidate or political organisation, an authorisation is needed to identify the person responsible for it. 

Who is paying for it — or benefits from it? 

Meta and Google have searchable ad libraries, providing key details of active and inactive advertisements posted on their platforms. 

This includes details on who is paying for the advertising, how much is spent and the expected audience.  

Does it ring true? 

If it seems implausible, it could be fake news, especially if the person featured in the content is a public figure, behaving uncharacteristically.  

For example, recent posts fact-checked by AAP include a video cut to create a false impression of an opponent’s statement, a photo cropped to remove flags displayed in the background, and authentic vision dubbed with a fake audio recording.

If the account is intended to criticise or satirise a target, the account should be distinguishable from the original account.

X (formerly Twitter) requires the parody account name to include a word such as "fake", "parody" or "commentary" to distinguish it from the original account, while Meta requires the account owner to make it clear if their profile is intended to express support for a public figure or provide commentary or criticism. 

Even when the source is a self-described parody account, the content may nevertheless be taken (and shared) as genuine, as was the case with the inflammatory claim (recently debunked by AAP) that a Greens senator had suggested Anzac Day should be cancelled.

How does it look?

It can be difficult to detect a fake image without bespoke software, but it’s still worth casting a critical eye over an image that strikes you as uncanny or unexpected. Are there any visual inconsistencies? 

Look for physical anomalies, aberrant textures or shadows, and features such as wrinkles that appear or disappear, frame by frame. 

Check it before you share it

The AEC website lists and debunks prominent pieces of false electoral information on a disinformation register and provides a wealth of authoritative information about the electoral system.

Search the AAP’s website and the above-listed platforms’ ad libraries for fact-checked content. 

Still worried? Report it

Complaints about disinformation can be submitted to the platform on which it was posted, while concerns about electoral disinformation should be referred to the AEC. 

MOJO News will be hosting a panel discussion on disinformation as part of its election night coverage, starting 6:30pm on Channel 31.