[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”]
\n\t\t\t[et_pb_row admin_label=”row”]
\n\t\t\t\t[et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]<\/p>\n
What may seem like a trivial change in the way social network accounts are managed can actually have very serious consequences in real life.<\/p>\n
Confirmation of how true this is has been provided by the earthquake triggered by Elon Musk’s decision to sell Twitter’s blue tick<\/a> to anyone who wants to buy it. The symbol, which used to be the prerogative of the media and public figures and, therefore, seen as marking an authoritative or at least authentic source, has now become accessible to anyone, not least because it costs only \u20ac8 per month, an amount that all can afford.<\/p>\n This is a change that, according to many, exacerbates the already high risk of social networks spreading fake news<\/strong>. A fear that materialised a few days ago when the news began to circulate on Twitter (which then turned out to be false) of an explosion at the Pentagon<\/a>, accompanied by a photo that portrayed a gigantic cloud of smoke in the immediate vicinity of the US Department of Defense<\/a>.<\/p>\n Police in Arlington, the county in Virginia that is home to the Pentagon, immediately reassured citizens, also through Twitter, that it was fake news. But the sharing wheels had quickly been set in motion and the news had begun to circulate amongst users, spreading panic and reaching as far as Wall Street. This caused the S&P 500 index to plummet, losing 30 points in a matter of minutes<\/strong>. A “flash crash” that cost hundreds of billions in total market capitalisation.<\/p>\n The source that launched the news was, in fact, a blue-ticked account called “Bloomberg Feed”,<\/strong> thus easily confused with the Bloomberg news organisation, with which it turned out to have no connection whatsoever. A trick \u2013 that of slightly altering the name of an authoritative source \u2013 that is very common in the dissemination of false information.<\/p>\n