為什么野火陰謀論又開始廣為流傳？

視頻內(nèi)容

-As the wildfires continue to ravage southern California bogus information is spreading online. We saw claims the Hollywood sign was in flames, looters were calmly walking out of homes with TVs, and confusion over a picture that's not even from California. Scammers are feeding on this misinformation, trying to take advantage of victims Melissa Mahtani is the executive producer of CBS News confirmed. She is here to help us sort fact from fiction. Good morning.

隨著野火繼續(xù)肆虐南加州，虛假信息在網(wǎng)上傳播。有傳言稱好萊塢標(biāo)志著火了，搶劫者冷靜地走出家門拿著電視，還有一些關(guān)于一張圖片的混亂，實(shí)際上那張圖片根本不來(lái)自加州。騙子們正在利用這些錯(cuò)誤信息，試圖利用受害者。梅麗莎·馬赫塔尼是CBS新聞確認(rèn)的執(zhí)行制片人。她今天來(lái)幫助我們分辨事實(shí)與虛構(gòu)。早上好。

-Good morning.

早上好。

-So how can people tell when something is real? I know this is like the basic focus of your life's work, but especially in terms of a natural disaster, what should people be looking for?

那么，人們?nèi)绾畏直嫘畔⒌恼婕倌?？我知道這是你工作中的基本重點(diǎn)，但尤其在自然災(zāi)害期間，人們應(yīng)該注意哪些方面呢？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

-Right, so in times of natural disasters, it gets more difficult because people are very emotional. They're vulnerable, so they're not thinking properly, right? Let's take a look at the images that you just showed, and let's go through them one by one, and I'll give you some clues. So the first one is Hollywood sign on fire, now, this is actually AI generated. There were various versions of this, one of them was quite obvious, it actually had the Grok logo at the bottom, and Grok is ***'s AI-generated image tool, so that was kind of a giveaway. Some of them were quite realistic, though, especially if you've only seen the Hollywood sign in the movies, so what do you do? You check the source, who is the account or the person that is sharing this information and why? Do they have a track record of sharing reliable information? Second, check the official sources, so the Hollywood sign is so famous that it actually has its own social-media account, and it was saying that, no, the Hollywood sign is not on fire. Equally, fire-tracking apps are showing where the fires were in California, they clearly showed that there were no fires around the sign. So that's another giveaway. Now, if those sound like too much work to do, the easiest and most simple thing to do is just google it. Like, is the Hollywood sign on fire, right? You get off social media, you go and cross-check what other media is saying, and you'll very quickly see if something is gaining traction if it's real or not. That's quite a simple one.

對(duì)，在自然災(zāi)害時(shí)，分辨真假信息變得更困難，因?yàn)槿藗兦榫w激動(dòng)，容易受影響，思維不夠清晰，對(duì)吧？我們先來(lái)看你剛才展示的那些圖片，一張一張地分析，我會(huì)給你一些提示。首先是好萊塢標(biāo)志著火了，這其實(shí)是AI生成的。實(shí)際上有好幾種版本，其中一個(gè)版本底部明顯帶有Grok標(biāo)志，而Grok是**的AI圖像生成工具，所以這是個(gè)明顯的提示。不過(guò)其中一些版本看起來(lái)非常逼真，特別是對(duì)于那些只在電影中見(jiàn)過(guò)好萊塢標(biāo)志的人來(lái)說(shuō)，所以該怎么做呢？你應(yīng)該檢查信息的來(lái)源，分享這個(gè)信息的人或賬號(hào)是誰(shuí)？他們有可靠的信息分享記錄嗎？
其次，要檢查官方渠道，好萊塢標(biāo)志如此著名，甚至有自己的社交媒體賬號(hào)，而它在發(fā)布消息表示，好萊塢標(biāo)志并沒(méi)有著火。還有，火災(zāi)追蹤應(yīng)用顯示了加州的火災(zāi)位置，清楚地顯示好萊塢標(biāo)志附近并沒(méi)有火災(zāi)。這也是一個(gè)提示。如果這些方法看起來(lái)太麻煩，那么最簡(jiǎn)單的方式就是直接搜索一下：好萊塢標(biāo)志著火了嗎？你離開社交媒體，去看看其他媒體的報(bào)道，很快你就能判斷出這個(gè)信息是真是假了。這是一個(gè)非常簡(jiǎn)單的方法。

-And don't spread it.

然后不要傳播。

-You need to pause before you share this stuff because people want to take advantage of you, they want you to kind of see something, share it, it gives them more followers. Sometimes it's for a gain for them that could be nefarious, so if we move on to the next one, you'll begin to understand why. This image purported to show a mosque with a red roof that had survived all the fires and stood standing in California. Actually, this image is an old image shared as if it was new, and it's of a red-roofed house that survived the Hawaii fires in 2023. Now, do you guys remember the last time I was here and we were talking about tools you could use? And we talked about a reverse image search, so that's exactly, essentially, it's a Google image search, but it's a Google search for images. It sounds complicated, but you could put this picture in and you would see the history of where it had been posted and you would see that it actually came from Hawaii. If you didn't want to put the image in, you could, again, just google red-roofed mosque, did it survive California? Very simple thing to do, right? But again, check the source, who is posting this? This is from a religious account. So, again, why might they be trying to do that? Sometimes the person who's receiving it, they might want to believe that a mosque had survived, so you need to pause, you need to check your emotions, but this third one, this is quite difficult, and I will say it's very easy to do. This was video, I believe we can show it, and this was video that was shared with a misleading caption, but the video is actually real. And this was basically friends who were helping family evacuate their house, so you could see a guy in a hoodie, he was helping move stuff out of the house. This video was shared saying looting, and again, this is where you really, really need to pause and cheek your emotions. Oftentimes, people are posting inflammatory content, because it's something that people want to believe and they'll share it very, very quickly. But you need to do your due diligence, check who's sharing it, think about why, check your emotions, check official sources, and cross-check the information that you're seeing online.

在分享這些內(nèi)容之前，你需要暫停一下，因?yàn)橛行┤讼Ｍ憧吹揭恍〇|西并分享出去，這樣他們就能獲得更多的關(guān)注。有時(shí)候這是為了他們自己的利益，甚至可能是惡意的。所以如果我們繼續(xù)看下一個(gè)例子，你會(huì)明白為什么了。這張圖片聲稱展示了一座屋頂為紅色的清真寺，它在加州的火災(zāi)中幸存下來(lái)。
事實(shí)上，這張圖片是一張舊圖片，假裝是新的，實(shí)際上它是2023年夏威夷火災(zāi)中幸存的一座紅屋頂房子。如果你記得我上次來(lái)時(shí)我們談到過(guò)的工具，我們討論過(guò)一個(gè)反向圖像搜索工具，基本上就是谷歌圖片搜索，但它是搜索圖片的來(lái)源。雖然聽起來(lái)有點(diǎn)復(fù)雜，但你可以將這張圖片上傳，然后你會(huì)看到它曾經(jīng)被發(fā)布的歷史，看到它實(shí)際上是來(lái)自夏威夷。
如果你不想上傳圖片，簡(jiǎn)單的方法就是直接搜索“紅色屋頂清真寺”，看看它是否在加州幸存。很簡(jiǎn)單對(duì)吧？但同樣，檢查信息的來(lái)源，發(fā)布信息的人是誰(shuí)？這來(lái)自一個(gè)宗教賬號(hào)。那么，他們?yōu)槭裁匆@么做呢？有時(shí)候，接受這些信息的人可能希望相信清真寺幸存了下來(lái)，所以你需要暫停一下，檢查自己的情緒。至于第三個(gè)例子，這個(gè)比較復(fù)雜，我得說(shuō)它非常容易誤導(dǎo)。
這是一段視頻，帶有誤導(dǎo)性的說(shuō)明文字，但這段視頻本身是實(shí)事求是的。這實(shí)際上是朋友們幫助家人撤離房屋的視頻。你可以看到一個(gè)穿著衛(wèi)衣的男士，他正在搬東西。這個(gè)視頻被錯(cuò)誤地分享，配文說(shuō)是搶劫事件，而這正是你需要暫停并檢查自己情緒的地方。很多時(shí)候，大家在分享煽動(dòng)性的內(nèi)容，因?yàn)樗侨藗兿胂嘈诺臇|西，他們會(huì)很快分享出去。但你需要做你的調(diào)查，檢查發(fā)布者是誰(shuí)，為什么發(fā)布，檢查官方來(lái)源，交叉驗(yàn)證你看到的信息。

-Lots of checking, that's why they say do your research, I guess. Is your job changing in any way, now, that Meta is going to strop independently fact checking？ So they had partnered with these organizations, they've later said that they thought they weren't good organizations for this job. Now the community will do its own fact checking. How does that change your job, and what advice do you have for people who are in thar community who are going to be fact checking themselves?

很多檢查，所以他們說(shuō)做研究是很重要的。你認(rèn)為你的工作會(huì)有所變化嗎？Meta現(xiàn)在宣布將停止獨(dú)立事實(shí)核查。曾經(jīng)與這些組織合作，但后來(lái)他們表示認(rèn)為這些組織不適合這個(gè)工作，現(xiàn)在社區(qū)將自己進(jìn)行事實(shí)核查。那對(duì)你的工作有何影響？你對(duì)那些將要進(jìn)行自我事實(shí)核查的社區(qū)成員有什么建議？

-So in terms of our job, we are always checking ourselves and not relying on other people. But for people who are out there, our viewers, this is going to mean that they need to take more control of what I call their media diet. So all the tips that I just ran through, this needs to become second nature to people, and CBS News confirmed has put together a quick checklist, so people at home can take a screenshot of this and just run through each thing that I talked about. So check the source, are they reliable? do they have a track record of being reliable? You want to check the date because, as I just talked about, there's old media that is often shared as new. You want to cross-check your information, google it, see what other news outlets are saying about it. And this one is the last one, but it's really the most important is check your emotions, we're all guilty of seeing a headline on social media and sharing it.

就我們的工作而言，我們總是自己檢查，而不是依賴別人。但對(duì)于那些在外面的觀眾來(lái)說(shuō)，這意味著他們需要更加關(guān)注他們的“媒體飲食”。所以，剛才我提到的所有提示，這些應(yīng)該成為每個(gè)人的第二天性，而CBS新聞確認(rèn)也準(zhǔn)備了一份簡(jiǎn)短的清單，大家可以截圖下來(lái)，逐項(xiàng)檢查。
首先，檢查來(lái)源，它是否可靠？他們是否有可靠的記錄？你要檢查日期，因?yàn)檎缥覄偛盘岬降模f媒體常常被當(dāng)做新的來(lái)分享。你要交叉檢查信息，谷歌一下，看看其他新聞機(jī)構(gòu)怎么說(shuō)。最后一點(diǎn)，雖然它是最簡(jiǎn)單的，但也是最重要的：檢查自己的情緒。我們每個(gè)人都有過(guò)看到社交媒體上的標(biāo)題就急于分享的經(jīng)歷。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

-And especially in a time like this.

尤其是在這種時(shí)刻。

While investigators work to find out what caused multiple wildfires in the Los Angeles area, some conspiracies about the fires' origins have spread on social media platforms.
Posts about baseless theories — ranging from celebrity involvement to secret government weapons — have racked up millions of views.
Despite fact-checking efforts, researchers say conspiracies of this kind regularly emerge after large wildfires.
"I think that the more emotionally overwhelming it is, the more likely we are to just see high volumes of conspiracy theories to cope and make people feel like they have control," said misinformation researcher Abbie Richards.

在調(diào)查人員努力查明洛杉磯地區(qū)多起野火起因的同時(shí)，一些關(guān)于火災(zāi)起源的陰謀論也在社交媒體平臺(tái)上傳播開來(lái)。
從名人參與到政府秘密武器等毫無(wú)根據(jù)的理論帖子已經(jīng)獲得了數(shù)百萬(wàn)的瀏覽量。
研究人員表示，盡管對(duì)事實(shí)進(jìn)行了核實(shí)，但在大型野火發(fā)生后，這類陰謀論還是會(huì)經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)。
虛假信息研究員阿比-理查茲（Abbie Richards）說(shuō)："我認(rèn)為，越是在情緒上難以承受的情況下，我們就越有可能看到大量的陰謀論來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)，讓人們感覺(jué)自己能夠控制局面。"

Directed energy weapons conspiracy resurfaces

定向能武器陰謀再起

Misleading videos have fueled false claims that directed energy weapons, often referred to as DEWs, ignited the flames. The conspiracy theory suggests that governments or secret organizations use lasers or microwave systems to ignite fires.
Experts have repeatedly debunked these claims, attributing irregular burn patterns to natural factors like wind, terrain and vegetation.
While the U.S. has developed and tested DEWs for military applications — such as disabling enemy drones or missiles — there is no credible evidence of DEWs being employed in civilian settings, including for igniting wildfires.
The DEW theory also surfaced during the California wildfires of 2018, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claiming in a now-dexed social media post the fires could be caused by lasers from space. And online users spread the conspiracy during other disasters including the Canadian and Maui fires in 2023 and the Texas Smokehouse Creek wildfire in 2024.
"Most people will see this sort of stuff and completely reject it because it doesn't match with how they already view the world. But there are people who view the world through a conspiratorial lens," said Joseph Uscinski, co-author of "American Conspiracy Theories."

誤導(dǎo)性視頻助長(zhǎng)了關(guān)于定向能武器（通常被稱為 DEWs）點(diǎn)燃大火的虛假說(shuō)法。這種陰謀論認(rèn)為，政府或秘密組織使用激光或微波系統(tǒng)點(diǎn)燃大火。
專家們多次駁斥了這些說(shuō)法，將不規(guī)則的燃燒模式歸因于風(fēng)、地形和植被等自然因素。
雖然美國(guó)已經(jīng)開發(fā)并測(cè)試了用于軍事用途的定向能武器，如使敵方無(wú)人機(jī)或?qū)検?，但沒(méi)有可信的證據(jù)表明定向能武器被用于民用環(huán)境，包括點(diǎn)燃野火。
2018年加州野火期間，DEW理論也浮出水面，眾議員馬喬里-泰勒-格林（Marjorie Taylor Greene）在一篇現(xiàn)已刪除的社交媒體帖子中稱，大火可能是由來(lái)自太空的激光造成的。而在其他災(zāi)難期間，包括 2023 年的加拿大和毛伊島大火以及 2024 年的德克薩斯州斯莫克豪斯溪野火，網(wǎng)上用戶也在傳播這一陰謀。
“大多數(shù)人看到這種東西會(huì)完全拒絕，因?yàn)檫@不符合他們已經(jīng)形成的世界觀。但也有人會(huì)從陰謀論的角度來(lái)看待這個(gè)世界，"《美國(guó)陰謀論》的合著者約瑟夫-烏辛斯基（Joseph Uscinski）說(shuō)。

Claims that weather is manmade

天氣是人造的說(shuō)法
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Claims have circulated that the government could have geoengineered rain to stop the Los Angeles wildfires.
Theories that the government has some control over the weather have surfaced after several natural disasters, including hurricanes Helene and Milton. And meteorologists and agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have debunked these claims.
People blame the government or company executives because it's easier than facing structural problems, like drought conditions," Geoff Dancy, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, told CBS News.
"That is more attractive to people that are desperate for order amid catastrophe," Dancy said.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a December assessment on cloud seeding at least nine states are using the technology, which is "primarily funded at the state level or below" and there is little federal intervention.
For cloud seeding to be effective, the atmosphere around greater Los Angeles would have required more moisture in the clouds for water vapor to be condensed, Katja Friedrich, a cloud physics expert and professor at Colorado University at Boulder, told PolitiFact.
"The L.A. area is currently so dry that there is not enough water that you could condense," Friedrich said.

坊間流傳著一種說(shuō)法，稱政府可能通過(guò)地球工程造雨來(lái)阻止洛杉磯野火。
在海倫颶風(fēng)和米爾頓颶風(fēng)等多起自然災(zāi)害發(fā)生后，關(guān)于政府對(duì)天氣有一定控制權(quán)的說(shuō)法也隨之出現(xiàn)。而包括美國(guó)國(guó)家海洋和大氣管理局在內(nèi)的氣象學(xué)家和機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)駁斥了這些說(shuō)法。
多倫多大學(xué)政治學(xué)教授杰夫-丹西（Geoff Dancy）告訴哥倫比亞廣播公司新聞（CBS News）："人們指責(zé)政府或公司高管，因?yàn)檫@比面對(duì)結(jié)構(gòu)性問(wèn)題（如干旱狀況）更容易。
丹西說(shuō)："這對(duì)在災(zāi)難中急于尋求秩序的人們更有吸引力。"
美國(guó)政府問(wèn)責(zé)局在 12 月的一份關(guān)于云播種的評(píng)估報(bào)告中說(shuō)，至少有 9 個(gè)州正在使用這種技術(shù)，“主要由州一級(jí)或州以下提供資金，聯(lián)邦幾乎沒(méi)有干預(yù)。”
云物理學(xué)專家、科羅拉多大學(xué)博爾德分校教授卡佳-弗里德里希（Katja Friedrich）告訴 PolitiFact，要使云種子技術(shù)有效，大洛杉磯周圍的大氣需要云層中有更多的水分，水蒸氣才能凝結(jié)。
弗里德里希說(shuō)："洛杉磯地區(qū)目前非常干燥，沒(méi)有足夠的水可以凝結(jié)?！?/b>

0