Repetition/Illusory Truth

Before sharing anything, ask yourself one question, "Is this accurate?", because most sharing of false content comes not from belief but from inattention to accuracy, and the question alone measurably improves what people pass on.

Do not treat a consequential claim as established until two sources that obtained the information separately both support it, and check that they really are separate, because ten outlets repeating one origin are still one source.

Expose yourself in advance to a weakened, clearly labelled dose of a manipulation technique together with its refutation, so that when the full-strength version arrives you recognize the move instead of being carried by it.

When you have to correct a falsehood, open with the true statement, mention the falsehood once with a clear warning that it is false, and close by repeating the truth, so that the accurate version gets the prominent positions and the most repetitions.

The four-part debunking structure from the Debunking Handbook: state the fact, flag and state the myth once, name the specific reasoning trick that makes the myth misleading, and restate the fact, so the listener leaves with both the correct information and the means to spot the next version.

When you correct a falsehood, put the true statement in the headline, subject line, first sentence, and image, and keep the false claim out of those positions, because most of the audience will see only that part and will carry away whatever it says.

Draw the argument as a diagram, with the main claim at the top, the reasons for and objections against it beneath, and the support for each of those beneath them, so that gaps, repetition, and unsupported leaps become visible instead of being carried along by fluent prose.

Borrow the competitive debater's note-taking method: write each of the other side's points in a column as they are made, put the responses beside them, and look at what is left unanswered, so that volume and speed cannot substitute for substance.