The real power of fake news is in the UX. It puts YOU, the reader, at the centre of the narrative.

You and your group are the good people who just want to live in peace, but the “depraved vaccine companies / pedophile politicians / murderous immigrants” would do anything to serve their own sick interests. Only you, the heroes in this story, have the power to stop them.

That's the narrative underpinning almost all disinfo (and a lot of Hollywood movies).

Engaging with it makes us feel like we’re part of something bigger. Sharing it makes us feel we're helping our communities. It makes us look smart, like we’re ahead of the game. It gives us status.

Fake news feels good. It’s genius user experience.

And the go-to response of many donors and governments is fact checking websites: sites that post examples of fake news and debunk them. Donors are pumping millions of euros into these projects, but all the data shows they don't work.

Look at any fact checking site from India to the USA: almost all get extremely low engagement –– typically less than 10 comments or engagements per post.

Because when you look at them from a UX point of view, the problems with fact check sites become apparent almost immediately.

User motivation to start with: if you’re not into facts already, you won’t be motivated to look at this content. (And if you like facts already, then this content doesn’t serve you as well as the news media you already consume).

X and Meta are starting to force people to confront facts on posts with debunked ideas. It’s far from perfect, but it fits into the user experience.

Funders, governments and campaigning orgs that want to create real impact on disinformation need to be looking at ways to boost media literacy that mesh with user motivation.