Social media creators are putting animals at risk in fake rescue content
A new report documenting the dangerous phenomenon of “fake animal rescue” content on social media, launches today [1st October] calling on social media companies to tackle the content that is putting financial revenue above animal welfare.
The report, Spot the Scam: Unmasking Fake Animal Rescues, calls on social media companies to do more to tackle fake rescue content on their platforms. It also aims to raise awareness with the public and animal lovers, to ensure they are not exacerbating the problem, by falling for fake rescue content, generating views in the millions for fake rescue content creators.
Fake rescue content features animals who have been harmed or placed in dangerous situations specifically so that the content creator can appear to rescue the animal from that situation to generate revenue from "likes" and "shares", as well as from direct donations from the viewer.
The Social Media Animal Cruelty Coalition (SMACC), made up of 29 animal protection organizations, conducted research into the online trend of fake rescue content. It found:
1022 links showing fake rescue content were collected over six weeks from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter/X.
The links located by SMACC had been watched 572,013,959 times.
Almost 52% of links were found on Meta owned platforms, Facebook and Instagram, with YouTube and TikTok each featuring around a quarter of total content.
21% of fake rescue content asked viewers for donations under the guise of helping animals, usually by Paypal links.
Fake Rescue content shows animals in situations of immense danger; abandoned on the streets, buried alive or trapped in objects, being attacked by predators, and in need of medical attention. Very little is known about what happens to the animals after these video clips; what conditions they are kept in, how they are treated by the content creator, or if they are kept in suitable environments.
Kittens, puppies and young monkeys are predominantly used, presumably due to the availability of these animals and the ease of handling them. Cats were the most featured animal, in 42% of videos, followed by primates, dogs, snakes and turtle species.
The content appears to viewers as a genuine rescue of an animal in need, with many creators mimicking the design and content of real animal rescue organizations. SMACC is concerned that the public are being tricked into donating to these fake accounts, and genuine rescue organizations are missing out.
SMACC Lead Coordinator, Nicola O'Brien stated:
“The work of genuine animal rescuers and organizations must be protected from fraudsters online. Every donation given to a fake rescue content creator, is one less going to real organizations helping animals in need.”
Over a third of the content showed animals apparently “abandoned”, often by the side of the road, in rubbish dumps and bins. In one disturbing trend, multiple videos show mother cats laying on the ground, wide-eyed and unable to move their bodies, as their kittens cry out and try to feed. The content then shows the cats being “rescued” and brought back to full health. Veterinarians who have reviewed this content suspect that the cats may in fact be intentionally drugged for the videos. One such video had over 136,000 views.
Twenty one percent of videos showed animals trapped or stuck in places, under or inside objects. Often the animal is left struggling for periods of time before the “rescuer” attempts to help them. One video showed a puppy with their head stuck inside a bottle for over a minute, which appeared to have been cut to fit the puppies head. The bottle is removed and the dog taken to a vet practice. Our reviewing veterinarian stated
“The video raises concerns. The [veterinarian’s] syringe appears too large for a puppy, and it's unclear where the injection went. Additionally, filming the puppy struggling in a water bottle for one minute, maybe more before the edit, which suggests that the creator focuses on creating dramatic content rather than genuine rescue.”
Some creators pit animals against each other, often showing “prey and predator” interactions such as birds of prey, or huge snakes wrapping themselves around cats, dogs, goats and even monkeys, trying to kill and eat them. Although the creator interrupts this action as part of the “rescue” , veterinarians have commented that the animals may have already sustained serious internal injuries, as well as psychological distress and fear.
Some content appears to have been created to appeal to fans of “pimple popping” videos, showing parasites being removed from the bodies of animals. Content showing dogs infested with ticks are actually beans or seeds stuck to the fur of the animal, which are then removed by the creator with tweezers. Another variation on this theme features the removal of what appear to be small snakes from the ears of monkeys. The technique for attempted removal is poor, as the person “fails” to grasp the snake with the tweezers, suggesting they are intentionally delaying the removal of the snake, in order to keep the situation continuing for the camera. In one video, this is filmed for 12 minutes. This is true in other fake rescue content also, where animals are left to struggle for minutes at a time before the creator attempts to help them.
In addition to severe welfare concerns, SMACC found that endangered species were being used by content creators. Five primate species of particular conservation concern were identified multiple times, including Long-tailed macaques and Stumped-tail macaques.
After widespread media coverage about Fake Rescue content in recent years, some social media companies have implemented policies against such content appearing on their platforms. However, SMACC’s report shows these methods appear to be ineffective in capturing the ever growing variety of Fake Rescue content that exists on social media.
To aid social media platforms and the public, SMACC identified key indicators that can be used to determine what is real and fake. The three most common indicators of Fake Rescue content were:
Lack of information to determine if the creator is a genuine animal rescuer or organization ("No genuine animal organization associated") (100%)
Scenario promoted as a chance or random encounter, but would be very unlikely to be random or appears insincere (“Unlikely to be a random encounter caught on camera”) (88.9%)
Multiple videos or other content on an account with a similar setting, story line, condition or animal. (“Page/account has multiple Fake Rescue or similar posts”) (80.8%)
Nicola continued:
“Fake Rescue content is evolving, and creators are increasingly mimicking genuine animal rescue accounts. Social media platforms need to consult with experts and vets, to make sure their policies are effective and implementable by their moderation teams. They require refinement and maintenance by platforms as content creators come up with new ideas for Fake Rescue content.”
SMACC encourages the public to Remember A.R.C when assessing potential Fake Rescue content:
Authenticity - Always check the source!
No genuine animal organization associated
Page/account has multiple fake rescue or similar videos
No follow up on what happened to the animals
Unprofessional rescue or vet practices
Human ”rescuer” is always the same person
Reality Check - What is really happening?
Unlikely to be a random encounter caught on camera
The same animals appear in multiple videos
Creation - How the content is created
Creator delays assisting the animal to film the situation
Clear editing of videos and multiple camera angles
Comments