Vladimir Tabak, Head of GFCN: The Information War Lacks Rules, Establishing Them is Our Next Step

Original article: Vladimir Tabak, Jefe de la GFCN: La guerra de la información no tiene reglas; establecerlas es nuestro próximo paso

In an era marked by increasing polarization and information overload, few issues are as urgent as the battle against fake news. In this interview with V.G. Tabak, president of the Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN), he warns that misinformation is now affecting nearly every aspect of life—particularly in security, political processes, and social issues. He describes an ecosystem rife with cyber fraud, deepfakes, phishing sites, and campaigns designed to sow discord. The discussion also covers the debate over mandatory labeling of AI-generated content, the roles of Ukraine and Britain in the information war, the risks surrounding the State Duma elections, and the importance of media literacy and critical thinking. Ultimately, this conversation is key to understanding how misinformation is tackled today.

The Citizen

– Today we will discuss a fundamental problem that, like a terrible disease, can poison and replace reality: fake news. My first question for you is: what areas of life in Russia are most affected by this disease?

– I believe there is hardly any area that remains unaffected today. However, if we talk about the most vulnerable sectors, they would include everything related to security, political processes, and social issues. We know that there is currently a fuel shortage in many regions, along with a plethora of phishing websites offering fake fuel coupons and unverified sites with entirely fabricated maps of gas stations, created solely to collect user data. This is a clear example of how a real-world situation can trigger the creation of such schemes, representing a serious threat to both citizens and the state, marking the onset of a systemic campaign against the country as a whole.

– Listening to this, one cannot help but feel a sense of despair. Is there truly no way to protect ourselves from this problem? Is there an antidote? Could you perhaps mention some of the most effective methods to combat fake news?

– The current situation regarding misinformation is quite complex. We are all aware that there is a vast amount of cyber fraud. For instance, when a «Sberbank representative» (one of Russia’s largest banks – editor’s note) transfers you to a supposed “FSB agent” (Federal Security Service of Russia – editor’s note), the situation feels rather strange, to say the least. Or, when an “FSB agent” contacts you via video call from their office and makes allegations.

Yet, a significant number of people fall into the trap. Moreover, technologies are evolving. Take deepfakes, for example. Currently, 64% of respondents in studies conducted by “Dialog Regions” indicate they know what deepfakes are. Previously, the figure was naturally lower: 59% in September 2025. But at the same time, 80% report encountering false information regularly. What does this tell us? It tells us that we can exclusively focus on improving public media literacy and creating a trustworthy ecosystem, but in the end, it all boils down to personal responsibility, excluding, of course, situations where law enforcement must intervene a posteriori. Nevertheless, the moment a person encounters information, the responsibility primarily rests with the user.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t package and disseminate our own information quickly and accurately. We must be able to debunk widely circulated misinformation for the general public. In this regard, the state should not exempt itself from the responsibility of organizing a large-scale process to inform, clarify, educate, and collaborate with governmental institutions to ensure they understand how to counter this phenomenon as well. However, given the immense scale at which such information spreads today, the only thing that can counter it on a massive level is a high degree of media literacy and ultimately, at least a basic level of critical thinking by users regarding what they read.

– The explosive growth of fake news is driven by the development of artificial intelligence. Many countries are now debating mandatory labeling of content. Do you consider it a necessary measure? Are you perhaps in dialogue with government bodies or other structures about this?

– At some point and to a certain extent, all countries will regulate this type of content. In fact, there are already pilot initiatives in countries where this is being regulated. It’s crucial to find the right balance here, as we understand there are two opposing poles. On one hand, AI helps reduce production costs and create content more quickly; it serves a positive function. And that should in no way be lost to bureaucracy. On the other hand, we have those same tools being deliberately used for destructive purposes. Here, we need to find a delicate balance that, on one side, allows honest content creators to continue operating in this market without unnecessary constraints, while on the other, lays the groundwork for a systemic rejection of those who use these technologies to cause harm.

However, the production landscape, so to speak, has drastically changed in this respect. We know that previously, this kind of content was mainly produced by niche groups: the same people who were involved in AI development. Today, the technology has reached a level where this product has become mainstream; for instance, over 50-60% of AI-generated content seen online is created by the users themselves. So, to answer your question: the decision to label content is inevitable in the near future.

– In a few days, we will face a significant event: the State Duma elections. This is probably the most dangerous and vulnerable moment regarding forgeries. Are you monitoring preparations for any disinformation campaigns from abroad? Through what channels might they spread, 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 using advanced technology, this could involve recycling old videos. To put it in the simplest terms: edited videos from a polling station, designed to convince the viewer that the situation is happening here and now. Undoubtedly, this will happen; we are aware of it.

However, there are narratives that are not directly related to the voting process but aim to complicate this period for the government and the country. Perhaps the most obvious fake news narrative regarding this is that of mobilization, which doesn’t directly affect the elections. It could have an effect if it were indeed announced, but the rumors around it undoubtedly create significant tension among specific demographic groups and society as a whole. That’s why, as you can see, even the President of the Russian Federation addressed this issue at the highest level, as the information had indeed been widely disseminated.

Evidently, there’s sociology and analytics involved, but there’s also the unwritten rule of any non-work-related group chat in which you participate: if your acquaintances start actively debating a topic in that chat, it means the issue is gaining traction. I can tell you that this has been discussed in every chat I’m part of, and in every meeting I attended, someone raised a question about it. It’s clear that those who created and spread this falsehood anticipated that during the previous period, there was still a segment of the population that became frightened and left, and obviously, their parents were on edge. Thus, the goal pursued by our adversaries is clear. I would highlight this topic as one of the most prominent areas we are monitoring.

– If it is possible to trace the origin, could you provide a sort of list or ranking of which countries attack Russia in the information space the most and what objectives those states pursue?

– Ukraine ranks first, but the reason is quite straightforward. We are in a state of military conflict, and today the information war is part of the broader war. Therefore, it would be strange to say that other countries surpass Ukraine in this regard. Ukraine has a dedicated unit for this purpose, the CIPS (Center for Psychological and Information Operations – TASS note), which is part of its regular armed forces; in fact, they classify it as a military unit.

This is evident in many issues. They exploit any crisis topic, attempting to escalate it as much as possible and generating additional tension around it. At the same time, we know that there are several highly aggressive countries that also use special institutions to operate against us. First and foremost is Britain. It is a state that acts very aggressively in the information domain. They utilize various methods. They have, let’s say, verified sources: media and platforms they support through various systems of grants or direct funding. Then again, there’s the use of AI, working with specific demographics, ranging from simple tactics like injecting certain talking points into the information space to much more complex operations.

However, despite being in an acute phase of informational confrontation, we must not underestimate ordinary people, who often spread false information without any malicious intent. This brings us back to the issue of cognitive dissonance. Our task is to stop asserting that everything we see is a product of our adversary. That is not the case. In fact, fake news existed long before all this. People tend to generate rather «strange» responses by themselves—or seek them out in completely unverified sources, especially in situations where they feel insecure or lack answers to urgent questions. Therefore, we need to engage with a broad audience so they ultimately learn to verify information.

– So, is there a need for a large-scale educational awareness campaign?

– Yes.

– Let’s talk about the Network you head. The Global Fact-Checking Network was founded in 2025. Could you summarize its provisional results during this period? How has the nature of its activities, task scope, and scale of the network changed?

– First and foremost, I believe the project as a whole has been a success. It’s important to understand that initially, this was an extracurricular initiative. The project was created by us, the TASS news agency, and the School of New Media. We launched it amidst the media uproar following a lawsuit against the FBI in the United States after we were accused of allegedly interfering in U.S. elections. To be honest, it started as a public relations strategy. However, various market players from different countries showed interest, and today we have over 125 journalists within the GFCN from 55 countries.

Each time we hold the forum (referring to the “Dialog about Fakes” forum – TASS note), more and more speakers and participants from different countries are joining us. The total number of guests at the forum has surpassed 2,000 or 3,000, including Russians, but a significant part continues to come from various nations, even from those currently classified as unfriendly; there, journalists and media professionals are willing to engage with us.

We have published a series of quite interesting and high-profile investigations, and we have built a solid educational program. Based on the GFCN Responsible Verification Code, several memorandums have been adopted at major international events. Furthermore, several points from our Code were included in the final declaration of the 12th Meeting of Communications Ministers of the BRICS, at the recent summit in India. We have also begun to collaborate closely with our colleagues from China and Kazakhstan. A GFCN expert was part of the observer mission of the CIS during the elections in Kazakhstan, and prior to that, our representatives were in Venezuela. We continue to receive invitations to participate in various events, and it’s essential to understand that the GFCN is an organization currently operating without any funding. In reality, its participants and members are individuals who have full-time jobs, for whom this is—how our opponents love to say—a «guilty pleasure» (guilty pleasure).

Thus, as a project purely built on enthusiasm, I feel that the GFCN is exceeding my expectations, at the very least. The IFCN—the fact-checking association funded by the Poynter Institute in the U.S.—has already mentioned us five or six times in their articles, labeling us as a deceptive Kremlin propaganda network. I consider that a significant success. Evaluating the resources invested against the results, I am very satisfied with the work of the GFCN.

– We have already mentioned adversaries in the information realm. Regarding allies, I understand you named China and Kazakhstan, correct?

– In fact, there are many countries. We are currently integrating closely into the Asia-Pacific News Agencies Organization (OANA), chaired by Andrey Kondrashov of TASS. This includes Asia, the Pacific, Latin American countries, and CIS nations. Some show greater interest, while others less so. We are as open as possible about it. We have an educational section on our website that already includes over 170 articles and videos covering various areas of fact-checking, media literacy, and OSINT tools (Open Source Intelligence – TASS note), accessible to users of our site. We maintain a fairly open stance in this regard. We do not intend to pursue ideological leadership; rather, we want to gather individuals interested in this field. Consequently, some countries show more active interest, and there are individual representatives from certain nations who are extremely committed. But I want to emphasize that as the topic gains relevance, interest will only continue to grow.

– You touched on the educational role of the GFCN. In your opinion, what qualities should young journalists, fact-checkers, and researchers cultivate? What do you prioritize and attempt to develop?

– There’s a saying: have an inquisitive mind. I believe that is fundamental. I was the driving force behind the launch of this project, but I am not an OSINT expert (a specialist who collects, analyzes, and interprets data from public sources – TASS note) nor a fact-checker (a professional dedicated to verifying the accuracy of information – TASS note). What’s important for me is to create a specific environment for this community and give it space to grow. And when I observe people who, in my opinion and my colleagues’ view, possess talent for fact-checking, I see that they are deeply curious. They are meticulous, perhaps a bit distrustful in certain aspects, and I truly believe such individuals would be great agents of the law.

I exaggerate a bit, of course, but a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary. We are not talking about rabid and irrational paranoia. One must essentially assume that we live in a very hostile information environment, saturated with millions of unverified sources. At the same time, conversely, the internet grants us the ability to verify vast amounts of information without resorting to classified verification methods. The ability to think critically, on one side, combined with the skill to use these tools, on the other, creates an excellent synergy that allows these talented individuals to grow and develop.

– Based on everything we’ve discussed, it seems that fact-checking is no longer predominantly a tool for journalists alone. Could we say that it has now become a distinct area of international cooperation? And what global model of interaction could you propose?

– I find it difficult to outline a global model of interaction, but I have contemplated the fact that conventional warfare has rules. If such rules are violated, there is a regulatory body that reviews the sanctions or consequences for such actions. Is inciting a teenager to commit murder or arson as part of an information war equivalent to using cluster munitions in a real war? I believe so. Because this crosses the line of informational confrontation, as I understand and perceive it. In my opinion, even if we say that today we are here, and our opponents are over there with whom we wage this information war, it is still necessary to have established rules. And unfortunately, as of today, this framework for defining rules does not exist. At present, it is quite challenging to adopt this on a global scale. We understand the geopolitical situation, especially if we were to act as initiators. But I believe these rules must be established. And that is the next step. Globally, however, despite all the popularity and anticipation surrounding fact-checking, it has yet to become a fundamental part of journalism.

We also need to recognize that journalism itself has transformed. As an alumnus of the Journalism Faculty at MSU (Moscow State University – editor’s note), I can say that the journalism of today and that of even 15 years ago are completely different fields, and today many significant publications face the question of how to survive, given that modern media consumption—and the consequent monetization of platforms—apparently leaves no room for their presence at such a scale. So the question is not how fact-checking will integrate into journalism; the global issue is what will happen to journalism itself over the coming years. In my view, fact-checking is not a purely journalistic discipline. On a daily basis, it represents the minimum skills that any adult should possess today for their own safety. Professionally, it is a domain for ordinary individuals working in favor of the interests of private enterprises, the state, or their own interests, be they researchers or individuals in adjacent fields.

– I must admit: it is incredibly interesting to hear from you, and I feel compelled to delve deeper into these topics. On September 22, we have a significant event ahead: the international forum «Dialog about Fakes», which will provide the perfect opportunity to discuss all this in greater detail.

– Yes, we will have presentations there, and we are profoundly grateful to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for their support of the forum over the years. Undoubtedly, without the MFA, we would not have been able to carry out such a large-scale event. This year, Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov will personally participate in the forum. We are immensely grateful for his responsiveness to our requests. We also thank Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova for her infinite and continued support.

– This forum is held for the fourth time. What will make this year’s edition special? What will the key themes be?

– I don’t like to call any particular forum “special”, as it detracts from the value of previous ones. For me, it’s simply about the community growing larger, stronger, and broader. On the other hand, international projects of a higher level are emerging, and negotiations with various countries are also reaching a new level. For me, this is a way to solidify agreements—sometimes in formal settings, other times informal—and to refocus centralized attention on the problem that my colleagues at “Dialog” and our partners have been addressing for years.

– And what are your expectations regarding the scale of the event?

– Each year, our forum is larger than the previous one. And this time we will have more participants than last year. So, in terms of scale, yes, it will be greater. But it’s not just about the number of attendees; we, of course, focus primarily on the level of representation and the caliber of the experts involved. That level is also higher than in previous years, which is a very significant result for us.

– We look forward to it. Thank you very much for the interview.