President of the Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN) Vladimir Tabak told TASS in an interview ahead of the Dialogue about Fakes 4.0 forum about where most information attacks against Russia originate, how a disinformation campaign targeting elections to the State Duma is being prepared abroad, and which issues that are particularly sensitive to Russians are currently most vulnerable to fake news.

 

– Today we will be discussing a very important problem which, like a terrible disease, is capable of poisoning and replacing reality itself – fake news. And my first question to you is: which areas of Russians’ lives are being attacked by this disease first and foremost?

– It seems to me that today there are no areas that have escaped this disease. But if we are talking about the areas that are most vulnerable to it, those are everything related to security, political processes, and social issues. We know that there are currently certain fuel-related difficulties in the regions. There are also a large number of phishing websites offering fake fuel coupons, as well as unverified websites with completely bogus maps of gas stations that were created simply to collect users’ data. This is a vivid example of how a situation arising offline can prompt the creation of projects of this kind, which can then pose a fairly serious threat to citizens themselves and to the state, because systematic efforts against the country as a whole begin to take shape.

– When you hear all of this, it is hard not to feel a sense of hopelessness. Is there really nothing we can do to protect ourselves from this problem? Is there no antidote? Perhaps you could name some of the most effective methods of countering fake news?

– The situation with fake news is quite complicated today. We understand that there is a huge amount of cyber fraud. For me, even regardless of where I work, when 'a Sberbank representative' (a fake representative of Russia’s largest bank) connects you over the phone to 'an FSB representative' (a fake officer from Russia’s Federal Security Service), that is a somewhat strange situation. (This is a common scam tactic designed to gain the victim’s trust by making the call appear official – TASS). Or when an 'FSB representative' calls you on a video call, sitting in his office, and presents you with some kind of accusations.

But a huge number of people actually fall for this. On top of that, technologies are developing. There are deepfakes, for example. Today, 64% of people in surveys conducted by Dialogue Regions say that they know what deepfakes are. There were, of course, fewer of them before – 59% as of September 2025. At the same time, 80% overall say that they encounter unreliable information. What does that tell us? It tells us that we can focus exclusively on raising the population’s level of media literacy, creating an ecosystem of trust, and beyond that, it will still come down to personal responsibility, apart from situations where law enforcement agencies need to step in afterward. But at the moment when a person encounters one piece of information or another, the responsibility ultimately falls on the user.

This does not change the fact that we need to package and deliver our own information quickly and accurately. We need to be able to debunk disinformation that is spreading widely among a broad audience. In this sense, the state should not absolve itself of responsibility for, so to speak, organizing a large-scale process of informing people, debunking false information, providing education, and working with government agencies so that they, too, understand how to counter this. But given the scale at which this kind of information is being disseminated today, the only thing that can counter it on such a mass scale is a high level of media literacy and, ultimately, a basic degree of critical thinking on the part of users about what they are reading.

– The explosive growth in the amount of fake news has been driven by the development of artificial intelligence (AI). And there is currently a debate in many countries about mandatory labeling of content. Do you consider this a necessary measure? Perhaps you are in dialogue with government authorities or other organizations on this issue?

– At some point and to some extent, all countries will regulate this type of content. In fact, there are already pilot examples of countries where such content is being regulated. What is very important here is to find the right balance, because we understand that there are two opposite poles. At one end, AI helps reduce production costs and makes it possible to create content more quickly – it serves a positive function. And that function definitely should not get lost behind this bureaucratic process. At the other end, we have those same tools being deliberately used for destructive purposes. Here we need to find that delicate balance which, on the one hand, will allow legitimate content producers to continue operating in this market without unnecessary restrictions and, on the other hand, will create the right foundation for systematically countering those who use these technologies to cause harm.

But the production landscape has also changed dramatically, if we can call it that. We understand that previously, this kind of content was primarily produced by small specialized groups, those who were themselves engaged in developing artificial intelligence. Today, technologies have reached a level at which this product has become mass-market, meaning that more than 50–60 percent of AI-generated content, for example, that you see on the internet is content created by users themselves. So, to answer the question you asked, a decision to introduce content labeling is inevitable in the foreseeable future.

– In a few days, we will have an important event – elections to the State Duma. This is probably a period of particularly high vulnerability to fake news. Are you seeing preparations for a disinformation campaign coming from outside the country? Through which channels, perhaps, are they planning to spread fake news, and what narratives will they target?

– There are classic approaches to delegitimizing the electoral process. These include videos related to the voting process itself. Even without taking any particular technologies into account, this could mean, for example, using old videos. I will give the most basic example: staged videos filmed at a polling station in order to convince the viewer that what they are seeing is happening here and now. This will certainly happen; we understand that.

But there are also narratives that have nothing to do with the voting process itself – narratives intended to make this period more difficult for the authorities and for the country. And perhaps the most striking fake news story in this regard is the story about mobilization, which does not directly affect the elections. It could have an impact if mobilization were actually announced. But rumors about it undoubtedly create significant tension both among certain segments of the population and in society as a whole. And so, as you can see, even at the highest level, the Russian president addressed this issue, because the information really did spread extremely widely.

Obviously, there are opinion polls and there is analysis, but there is also a simple rule you can see in any personal chat group: if people you know start actively discussing a particular topic, then you know that topic is genuinely on people’s minds. I can say that this was discussed in every personal chat I am part of, and at every meeting I attended, someone asked a similar question. And it is clear that those who created and injected this fake news were relying on the idea that during the previous period, there was still a certain segment of people who became frightened and left, as well as the parents of those people, who were themselves under considerable stress. So, the objective pursued by our opponents is clear. I would identify this as one of the most prominent narratives we are observing.

– If it is possible to trace the source and, for example, make a list, a sort of tier list, of which countries carry out the most information attacks against Russia, what objectives are these countries pursuing?

– Ukraine is in first place, but this is fairly easy to explain. We are in a state of armed conflict, and today information warfare is part of the larger war. So, it would be strange if we were now talking about other countries dominating Ukraine in this regard. Ukraine has a separate unit, the Center for Information and Psychological Operations, or CIPsO, which is part of the regular armed forces and is classified as a military unit.

This is visible across many different issues. In other words, they get involved in any crisis-related topic and try to escalate it as much as possible and create additional tension around it. But at the same time, we understand that there are a number of countries that are also behaving quite aggressively and using specialized institutions to operate against us. First and foremost, this is Britain. This is a country that behaves quite aggressively in the information sphere. There are different methods. They have, so to speak, verified sources – media outlets and platforms that they support through various grant systems and through direct funding. There is also work involving AI, work targeting specific segments of the population, ranging from simple tactics in which certain issues are injected into the information space to more sophisticated operations.

But despite the fact that we are currently at a fairly acute stage of information confrontation, we should not discount ordinary people who often spread unreliable information without having any malicious intent. Again, this brings us back to the issue of cognitive awareness. Our task is to stop constantly saying that everything we see is somehow a product of our adversary. That is not the case. Fake news existed before. People tend, especially in situations when they feel uncertain or do not know the answers to questions that concern them, to come up with rather strange answers themselves, to put it politely, or to seek those answers in completely unverified sources. So here we need to work with the broader public so that people learn to verify information.

– So, what is needed is broad-based educational and explanatory work?

– Yes.

– Now let us talk about the association that you head. The Global Fact-Checking Network was established in 2025. Can you give us an interim assessment of this period? How has the nature of your activities, the scope of your tasks, and the scale of the network changed?

– First of all, I believe that the project has worked out overall. It is important to understand that this was initially a voluntary initiative. The project was created by us, by Russia’s News Agency TASS, and by the New Media Workshop. We created it amid the publicity surrounding our lawsuit against the FBI in the United States after we were accused of allegedly interfering in the US elections. And, to be completely honest, initially it was something of a PR move. But various industry participants from different countries showed interest, and today we have more than 125 journalists in the Association from 55 countries.

And every time at the forum (referring to the Dialogue about Fakes 4.0 forum – TASS), more and more speakers and participants from different countries attend. The total number of guests at the forum has already exceeded 2,000–3,000, including Russian participants, but a significant share still comes from different countries, including countries that are currently considered unfriendly, yet there are journalists and media professionals there who are willing to engage with us.

We have released a number of interesting and high-profile investigations, and we have developed a substantial educational program. Several memoranda have been adopted at major international events based on the GFCN Code of Responsible Fact-Checking. Some provisions of our Code were also included in the final statement of the 12th BRICS Communications Ministers’ Meeting at the recent summit in India. And today we have begun working quite closely with colleagues from China and Kazakhstan. A GFCN expert was in Kazakhstan during the elections as part of the CIS observation mission, and before that our representatives were in Venezuela. Again, we are invited to participate in various events, and it is important to understand that GFCN currently has no funding of any kind. In other words, we are essentially participants and members who have other, primary jobs, and for whom this is, as our opponents like to put it, a "guilty pleasure."

So, as a project created entirely on enthusiasm, I think the Network has exceeded my expectations in any case. On about five or six occasions already, the International Fact-Checking Network, a fact-checking association funded by the Poynter Institute, has mentioned in its articles that we are a lying Kremlin propaganda network. I consider that a great success. So, when I compare the resources invested with the results, I am very pleased with the work of the Network.

– We have already mentioned information adversaries. As allies, as I understand it, you have named China and Kazakhstan?

– There are actually many countries. We are currently integrating closely with the Organization of Asia-Pacific News Agencies (OANA), which is currently chaired by TASS Director General Andrey Kondrashov. So this includes Asia, the Pacific, Latin American countries, and CIS countries. Some show greater interest, others less. We are as open as possible here. We have an educational section on our website, which already contains more than 170 articles and videos covering various areas of fact-checking, media literacy, and OSINT tools (open-source intelligence research – TASS), all of which are available to users on the website. Our position here is quite open. We are not claiming ideological leadership; rather, we want to bring together people who are interested in this field. So, some countries show more active interest, and there are individual representatives of countries who are particularly active. But I would say that as this issue becomes increasingly relevant, interest will continue to grow.

– You have touched on the Network’s educational role. In your view, what qualities need to be cultivated among young journalists, fact-checkers, and researchers? What do you pay particular attention to, and what are you trying to develop?

– There is an expression: an inquisitive mind. I think that is the most important thing. I was personally the driving force behind launching this initiative, but I am not an OSINT specialist (a professional who collects, analyzes, and interprets information from publicly available sources – TASS) and I am not a fact-checker (a professional who specializes in verifying the accuracy of information – TASS) myself. What matters to me is creating a certain atmosphere for this "community" and giving it an opportunity to grow. And when I look at people who, in my view and in the view of my colleagues, have that kind of fact-checking talent, they are extremely inquisitive. They are meticulous, perhaps even somewhat distrustful at times, but I think people like that could work very well in law enforcement agencies.

I am exaggerating a little, of course, but you need to be appropriately skeptical. We are not talking about some kind of blind or irrational distrust. You need to start from the assumption that we live in a very difficult information environment filled with millions of unverified sources. At the same time, the internet now gives us the ability to verify an enormous amount of information without resorting to any closed or restricted verification methods. The ability to think critically on the one hand and to use these tools on the other, taken together, gives us an excellent synergy for helping these talented people grow and develop.

– From everything we have discussed, it already seems that fact-checking has ceased to be primarily a tool for journalists. Can we say that it has now become a distinct international area of cooperation? And what kind of global model for interaction would you perhaps propose?

– It is difficult for me to say what a global model of cooperation would look like, but I have thought, for example, about the fact that there are conventional rules governing warfare. If those rules are violated, there is a regulatory body where sanctions or consequences for such actions are considered. For example, is inducing a teenager to commit murder or arson as part of information warfare essentially the same thing as using cluster munitions in a conventional war? I believe it is. Because that goes beyond the bounds of information confrontation in the sense in which I see and understand it. And in my view, even if today we are talking about us and our adversaries with whom we are waging this information war, there still need to be certain rules. Unfortunately, as of today, there is no such framework for defining those rules. It would be quite difficult to establish it at the global level right now. We understand the geopolitical situation, especially if we were, so to speak, the ones initiating such an effort. But in my view, these rules need to emerge. And that is the next step.

But globally, despite all the popularity and hype surrounding fact-checking, it has still not become a fundamental part of journalism. And we need to understand that journalism itself has also undergone a transformation. As a graduate of the journalism faculty at Moscow State University, I can say that journalism today and journalism even 15 years ago are completely different fields, and today many major publications are facing the question of how they can continue to exist, because modern media consumption and the monetization of platforms that results from it seem not to provide for their presence on anything close to the same scale.

So, the question here is not how fact-checking will be incorporated into journalism; the broader question is what will happen to journalism itself in the coming years. And fact-checking, in my view, is not purely a journalistic field. At a basic everyday level, it is something that every adult today should possess at least minimal skills in for their own safety. At the professional level, it involves groups of ordinary people who work in the interests of private companies, in the interests of the state, and in their own interests, if they are investigators or people working in related fields.

– I will be completely candid: it is very interesting to listen to you, and it makes me want to delve deeper into these issues. On September 22, we have a major event coming up – the Dialogue about Fakes 4.0 forum, which will provide an opportunity to discuss all of this in greater detail.

– Yes, we will have presentations there, and we are very grateful to the Russian Foreign Ministry for supporting the forum throughout all these years. Without the Foreign Ministry, we certainly would not have been able to put together an event on this scale. And this year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov will personally take part in the forum. We are very grateful to him for responding to our requests. And we are also grateful to Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova for her endless, consistent support.

– This is the fourth time the forum has been held. What will make this year special? What topics will be the key ones?

– I do not like talking about any particular forum as being special, because then we somewhat diminish the value of the previous forums that came before it. In my view, the community is simply becoming larger, stronger, and broader. Again, new international projects of a higher level are emerging, and negotiations with a number of countries are also moving to a new level. For me, this is a way to formalize agreements – in some cases in an official setting, in others in an informal one – and once again to draw centralized attention to the issue that my colleagues at "Dialogue," our partners, and I have been working on for several years now.

– And what are you expecting in terms of scale?

– Every year, our forum is larger than the previous one. And this year we will have more participants than we did last year. So, in terms of scale, yes, it will be bigger. But the issue is not the number of participants; first and foremost, we look at the level of representation and the standing of the experts taking part. That is also higher than in previous years, and this is a significant result for us.

– We will be looking forward to it. Thank you very much for the interview.