Cyber Victimology 250 of Fake: A Primary Dossier

For the first time, the article outlines an independent problem of victimization of a person from the consumption of false, low-quality or distorted media information. These dangerous initial data were reflected in the generalized concept of fake. The authors substantiate the relevance of a scientific study of this problem, propose a definition of fake, and consider some of its typological features. They propose to understand fake as the manipulation of information, its harmful distribution, which has an independent criminal law significance. They have established that the term “fake crime” in scientific and journalistic literature has acquired at least three different meanings. The authors conclude that despite the criminalization of new compositions of “informational” criminal liability in terms of the spread of fakes, the legislator does not cover a significant segment of these acts. To understand the scale of the problem, the authors propose a typology of fakes in this study. Fakes are distinguished: a) in the political sphere, as information that damages certain political forces, discredits the official power, a specific politician, or is capable of influencing internal and external stability (political fakes); b) in the sphere of property relations, as a tool to acquire other people's money (fake as an element of theft); c) in the sphere of economic activity, as a type of disinformation that harms the participants in market relations (economic fakes); d) in the sphere of interpersonal relations, as a tool for causing harm to a specific person (group of people), a means of attracting the attention of an audience or a way to satisfy other personal needs (interpersonal fakes). In addition, the authors identify the special characteristics of victims of fake information. The following characteristics can be distinguished: (1) poor skills of information hygiene, not following basic safety rules in the network (not checking information sources, disclosing personal data); (2) a high level of trust in Internet sources and a naive belief in the veracity of information transmitted by word from mouth to mouth from ordinary users; (3) displayed impressive emotionality, i.e. increased emotional responsiveness to informational messages of any level; (4) onesided, biased thinking, partiality and bias in assessing acts, actions, and personal qualities of people (bias of thinking); (5) preference of sensational information that causes the WOW effect, a genuine interest in the intimate side of other people's lives (informational voyeurism).

Keywords

Authors

References