Can You Trust What Found You Online?
Critical thinking in the age of social media and AI is no longer just the ability to spot a false headline. It is the habit of asking how a claim reached you, who benefits from your reaction, what evidence would change your mind, and whether a machine-generated answer is being treated as a shortcut for judgement.
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The core challenge is not that people have suddenly stopped caring about truth. Research on misinformation suggests that social media environments often pull attention away from accuracy and towards identity, novelty, outrage, humour or social approval. Experiments on COVID-19 misinformation found that people were better at distinguishing true from false headlines when asked about accuracy than when asked whether they would share them, supporting the idea that platform context can distract users from truth-checking. [PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govPMCFighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social MediaNIHby G Pennycook · 2020 · Cited by 2770 — As described above, some evidence in support of the validity of this self-report sharing…
Why online critical thinking feels harder now
Social media changed the information problem from “Can I find something?” to “Can I judge what has found me?” A search engine query at least begins with a user’s question. A social feed begins with ranking systems, social signals, paid promotion, influencer networks and recommendation algorithms. The result is that people often meet information as a stream of screenshots, short clips, reposted claims and emotionally framed commentary rather than as a clearly sourced article.
The Reuters Institute’s 2025 Digital News Report describes a news environment in which traditional news organisations are struggling with declining engagement, low trust and competition from social and video platforms. That matters for critical thinking because people increasingly encounter public affairs information through mixed feeds where journalism, entertainment, personal testimony, activism, advertising and synthetic content sit beside one another with similar visual weight. [reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk]reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.ukdigital news report202517 Jun 2025 — We find traditional news media struggling to connect with much of the public, with declining engagement, low trust, and…
AI intensifies this uncertainty because it lowers the cost of producing convincing material. A person no longer needs a newsroom, design team or video studio to create a polished-looking explanation, fake quote, synthetic image or fabricated local notice. A 2025 large-scale study of AI-generated misinformation on X analysed 91,452 misleading posts flagged through Community Notes and found that AI-generated misinformation had distinctive features: it was more often entertaining in tone, more likely to come from smaller accounts, and more likely to go viral, even though it was assessed as slightly less believable and harmful than conventional misinformation. [arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Characterizing AI-Generated Misinformation on Social MediaCharacterizing AI-Generated Misinformation on Social MediaMay 15, 2025…
A useful definition follows from this: critical thinking online is not cynicism. Cynicism says, “Everything is fake.” Critical thinking says, “This may be true, but I need to understand the source, evidence, context and uncertainty before I act on it.”
The social feed rewards reaction before reflection
The most important design feature of social media is not the post; it is the incentive system around the post. Likes, shares, comments, stitches, quote posts and algorithmic boosts all make reaction visible. That can support useful public correction, but it can also encourage people to respond before they have checked whether the claim is true.
This is why “think before you share” is not a moral slogan but a cognitive intervention. Pennycook and colleagues’ work on misinformation found that small prompts directing users’ attention to accuracy can improve sharing discernment. Later research has replicated and extended the “accuracy nudge” idea in different contexts, suggesting that some misinformation sharing happens not because users cannot tell truth from falsehood, but because the platform moment does not make accuracy the central question. [PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govPMCFighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social MediaNIHby G Pennycook · 2020 · Cited by 2770 — As described above, some evidence in support of the validity of this self-report sharing…
The problem becomes sharper when content is emotionally charged. A dramatic post about crime, war, health, immigration, elections or children’s safety can feel urgent enough to bypass ordinary scepticism. Local social media groups are a good example: a 2026 UK report covered by The Guardian found that misinformation was substantially more prevalent in “news desert” areas with weaker local journalism, with false claims including fake quotes, AI-generated content and fabricated local authority messages. [The Guardian]theguardian.comThe Guardian'Killer of trust': social media groups fuel misinformation in UK, report findsTopics such as immigration and Islamophobia are the most frequent subjects of false claims. The spread intensifies around elections, with…
The practical lesson is simple: the more a post seems designed to make you angry, frightened, morally superior or instantly certain, the more it deserves a pause. Emotional force is not evidence. It is a signal to slow down.
AI has made “looks real” a weaker test
For years, many people used rough visual cues to judge credibility: a professional layout, fluent language, a plausible chart, a confident voice, a realistic image. Generative AI weakens all of these cues. It can produce confident prose without understanding, fabricate references, create plausible but false summaries, and generate images or video that exploit the viewer’s instinct to believe what appears concrete.
AI “hallucination” is the common term for outputs in which a model produces inaccurate or fabricated information while presenting it fluently. IBM defines AI hallucination as a phenomenon where a model perceives patterns or objects that are not real and produces nonsensical or inaccurate outputs. In public information settings, this is not merely a technical glitch: scholars have argued that hallucinations should be studied as a distinct form of misinformation because they can shape decisions even when there is no human author deliberately trying to deceive. [IBM]ibm.comWhat Are AI Hallucinations?AI hallucinations are when a large language model (LLM) perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent…
This matters because many people now use AI chatbots like search engines, tutors, summarisation tools or writing assistants. A BBC investigation reported in 2025 found that leading AI chatbots produced significant issues when answering questions about news and current affairs, including factual errors, misleading framing and incorrect context. The risk is not that every AI answer is wrong; it is that wrong answers can arrive in the same calm, polished tone as correct ones. [The Guardian]theguardian.comOpen source on theguardian.com.
The critical thinking shift is therefore from “Does this look credible?” to “Can this be traced?” A reliable AI-assisted answer should be checked against primary sources, reputable reporting, official data, or multiple independent references. Fluency is not a source.
The best online readers leave the page
One of the strongest findings from research on digital evaluation is counter-intuitive: skilled fact-checkers often spend less time staring at the original page. Instead, they read laterally. Lateral reading means opening other tabs, searching for the source, checking what independent organisations say, and locating the original evidence before investing attention in the claim itself.
Stanford’s work on civic online reasoning found that many students struggled to judge online credibility, and the Digital Inquiry Group’s Civic Online Reasoning curriculum now teaches free lessons and assessments to help students evaluate online information affecting civic life. [Stanford Online Education]ed.stanford.eduresearchers find students have trouble judging credibility information onlineresearchers find students have trouble judging credibility information online Research on lateral reading found that fact-checkers were effective because they quickly left the original site to investigate the source across the wider web rather than relying on surface features such as logos, design or “About” pages. [SSRN]papers.ssrn.comOpen source on ssrn.com.
For everyday readers, lateral reading can be reduced to a short routine:
- Name the claim. What exactly is being asserted?
- Find the source. Who first published it, recorded it or measured it?
- Check outside the post. What do independent sources say about the same claim?
- Look for the missing frame. Is the date, location, sample size, definition or comparison being hidden?
- Delay sharing. If the claim is still uncertain, do not amplify it as fact.
This is especially useful with AI-generated summaries. A chatbot may give a neat answer, but critical thinking asks whether the neatness has been earned.
Critical thinking is not the same as “doing your own research”
A common online phrase is “do your own research”. At its best, it means taking responsibility for evidence. At its worst, it becomes a licence to cherry-pick, distrust expertise automatically, or treat a long search session as proof of depth. Critical thinking requires method, not just effort.
A strong method distinguishes between types of evidence. A peer-reviewed study, a court filing, a government dataset, a regulator’s notice, a named expert interview, a leaked screenshot and an anonymous viral post are not equal just because they all appear in a feed. Each has a different route to credibility and a different failure mode.
It also distinguishes between uncertainty and conspiracy. Many real-world topics are genuinely uncertain: early reports may be incomplete, scientific findings may change, and official institutions may make mistakes. But uncertainty does not mean every explanation is equally likely. Critical thinking weighs evidence, asks what would be expected if a claim were true, and notices when a theory becomes impossible to falsify.
AI can help or hinder here. Used well, it can generate questions to ask, compare arguments, summarise long documents and suggest where to verify a claim. Used badly, it can launder speculation into confident prose. Research on AI-assisted misinformation tools suggests that context-rich designs, source aggregation and debate-style interaction may support users better than simple chatbot answers, but these systems still require transparency and user control. [arXiv]arxiv.orgOpen source on arxiv.org.
The new literacy is media, information and AI literacy together
Media literacy once meant understanding newspapers, television, advertising and online sources. The social media and AI era demands a broader blend: media literacy, information literacy, algorithm literacy and AI literacy.
UNESCO frames media and information literacy as a way to promote critical thinking, ethical AI use and resilience against misinformation, especially for young people and marginalised groups. It has also warned that AI can make mistakes and that human critical judgement remains essential in AI-shaped information environments. [UNESCO]unesco.orgmedia and information literacy and digital competenciesmedia and information literacy and digital competencies
Algorithm literacy adds a further question: why am I seeing this? A feed is not a neutral window onto public opinion. It is a ranked environment shaped by engagement signals, inferred preferences, platform policies, advertising systems and sometimes coordinated campaigns. Research on algorithm literacy argues that users need practical understanding of how algorithms structure everyday encounters with information, not just abstract awareness that “algorithms exist”. [MDPI]mdpi.comOpen source on mdpi.com.
AI literacy then adds: what can this system do, where does it fail, and how should I use it responsibly? The OECD has argued that as AI advances, education systems need to understand how AI affects learning, reasoning and skills. Its work on media and AI literacy for future PISA assessment also stresses that students need strong foundational knowledge and skills before they can engage critically with AI-mediated production, participation and networking. [OECD]oecd.orgOpen source on oecd.org.
The point is not to make every user a computer scientist. It is to make ordinary users harder to manipulate and better able to ask the right questions.
What good critical thinking looks like in practice
The most useful habits are small enough to use in the moment. A reader seeing a viral post, AI summary or dramatic video can apply a practical checklist without becoming paralysed.
Check the claim, not just the topic. “Crime is rising”, “this image is fake”, “a minister said this”, and “a study proves this” are different claims. Each needs different evidence.
Separate source from messenger. A trusted friend can share a false post. A disliked outlet can publish a true fact. Evaluate the evidence rather than your feelings about the person who shared it.
Look for the original. Screenshots are weak evidence because they detach a claim from date, context, edits and links. Search for the original speech, document, dataset, judgement, article or recording.
Use lateral reading before deep reading. Before spending ten minutes analysing a page, spend one minute checking who is behind it and whether independent sources treat it as credible.
Be careful with AI summaries. Ask for sources, then verify those sources directly. Do not assume that a citation exists, says what the AI claims, or supports the conclusion.
Notice missing comparisons. Statistics often mislead by omitting baselines: compared with when, where, whom, and by what measure?
Treat virality as a warning, not a credential. A claim can spread because it is true, but also because it is funny, enraging, identity-confirming or visually striking.
These habits are not about distrusting everything. They are about giving trust slowly, in proportion to evidence.
Why schools and workplaces cannot treat this as an optional skill
Critical thinking is now part of civic life, workplace competence and personal safety. People use online information to make decisions about health, money, voting, education, relationships and emergencies. AI-generated material can affect all of those domains, while social media can accelerate mistakes before institutions have time to correct them.
There is evidence that critical thinking and media literacy can be taught. Stanford researchers reported that less than six hours of instruction helped students improve at spotting dubious online sources. A Harvard Misinformation Review study on lateral reading found that college students could learn to evaluate internet sources more critically in an online course. [Stanford Online Education]ed.stanford.eduit doesn t take long learn how spot misinformation online stanford study findsit doesn t take long learn how spot misinformation online stanford study finds
But education should not focus only on children. UNESCO’s work on influencers found that many content creators did not routinely verify information before sharing, and it launched training with the Knight Center to improve fact-checking and responsible content creation. That is important because creators often act as informal news interpreters for audiences who may trust them more than institutions. [The Guardian]theguardian.comOpen source on theguardian.com.
Workplaces face a related problem. Employees may use AI tools to draft reports, summarise legal or technical material, analyse competitors, write policy documents or prepare client advice. If organisations reward speed without verification, AI errors can travel through professional documents with a veneer of authority. Critical thinking therefore needs to be built into workflows: source checks, review responsibilities, clear labelling of AI-assisted work, and escalation routes for high-stakes claims.
Platforms and regulators still matter
Individual critical thinking is necessary, but it is not enough. A user cannot personally audit every recommendation system, detect every coordinated campaign, or inspect every AI-generated image at scale. Platforms shape what people see, how quickly falsehoods spread, and what friction exists before sharing.
The European Union’s Digital Services Act requires very large online platforms and search engines to address systemic risks and gives users more rights and transparency in online environments. The European Commission says the DSA requires platforms to minimise risks from illegal and harmful content, including risks affecting children and young people. [Digital Strategy]digital-strategy.ec.europa.euOpen source on europa.eu. The EU AI Act, meanwhile, is presented by the Commission as the first legal framework on AI designed to address AI risks. [Digital Strategy]digital-strategy.ec.europa.euDigital Strategy AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital futureDigital Strategy AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future
Regulation can help by requiring transparency, researcher access, risk assessment and accountability. But it cannot replace judgement at the point of use. A post can be legal and still misleading. A chatbot can comply with a policy and still be wrong. A platform label can help but may not settle the issue. The strongest approach combines better platform design, independent journalism, public-interest research, media literacy education and everyday user habits.
The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report ranked misinformation and disinformation among the leading short-term global risks for the second year running, linking them to threats to societal cohesion and governance. [World Economic Forum]weforum.orgglobal risks report 2025 conflict environment and disinformation top threatsglobal risks report 2025 conflict environment and disinformation top threats That ranking should not be read as a reason for panic; it is a reminder that information quality is now part of social infrastructure.
A balanced way to use AI without outsourcing judgement
AI is not only a source of risk. It can also support critical thinking when used deliberately. It can help generate counterarguments, explain unfamiliar concepts, translate technical language, summarise long documents, identify claims that need checking, and suggest search terms for further verification.
The difference lies in role assignment. AI is useful as a thinking partner, poor as an unquestioned authority. A good user asks it to expose assumptions, list uncertainties, compare interpretations and point to verifiable sources. A weak use asks it for a final answer and stops there.
A practical pattern is:
- Use AI to map the issue.
- Identify the claims that matter.
- Verify those claims through external sources.
- Ask what evidence would change the conclusion.
- Keep uncertainty visible rather than smoothing it away.
This approach keeps the human responsible for judgement. It also avoids two common mistakes: rejecting AI entirely because it can be wrong, and trusting AI too much because it sounds articulate.
The real goal is slower confidence
The age of social media and AI does not require everyone to become suspicious of every image, hostile to every institution, or afraid of every new tool. It requires slower confidence. That means being willing to believe things when the evidence is strong, willing to wait when evidence is incomplete, and willing to revise your view when better information arrives.
Critical thinking is sometimes presented as a defensive skill: a shield against scams, propaganda, fake news and AI slop. It is that, but it is also a constructive skill. It helps people find better explanations, disagree more fairly, use technology more intelligently, and avoid becoming either gullible or reflexively cynical.
The central habit is simple enough to remember: before accepting or sharing a claim, ask where it came from, how it is known, what is missing, who might benefit, and whether a better source would change the picture. In a world where social feeds reward reaction and AI can manufacture fluency, that pause is one of the most powerful forms of modern literacy.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Can You Trust What Found You Online?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Calling Bullshit
Directly addresses evaluating claims, data, media, and online misinformation.
Foolproof: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Im...
Focused on misinformation psychology and resistance.
The death of expertise
First published 2017. Subjects: Higher Education, Sociology of Knowledge, Theory of Knowledge, Internet, Expertise.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.
Endnotes
-
Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Title: PMCFighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7366427/Source snippet
NIHby G Pennycook · 2020 · Cited by 2770 — As described above, some evidence in support of the validity of this self-report sharing...
-
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: digital news report
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025Source snippet
202517 Jun 2025 — We find traditional news media struggling to connect with much of the public, with declining engagement, low trust, and...
-
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: dnr executive
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025/dnr-executive-summarySource snippet
Overview and key findings of the 2025 Digital News Report17 Jun 2025 — This year's report comes at a time of deep political and economic...
-
Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Characterizing AI-Generated Misinformation on Social Media
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10266Source snippet
Characterizing AI-Generated Misinformation on Social MediaMay 15, 2025...
Published: May 15, 2025
-
Source: ibm.com
Link: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-hallucinationsSource snippet
What Are AI Hallucinations?AI hallucinations are when a large language model (LLM) perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent...
-
Source: misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu
Title: new sources of inaccuracy a conceptual framework for studying ai hallucinations
Link: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/new-sources-of-inaccuracy-a-conceptual-framework-for-studying-ai-hallucinations/ -
Source: ed.stanford.edu
Title: researchers find students have trouble judging credibility information online
Link: https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-students-have-trouble-judging-credibility-information-online -
Source: papers.ssrn.com
Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3048994 -
Source: arxiv.org
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22940 -
Source: unesco.org
Title: media and information literacy and digital competencies
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/media-and-information-literacy-and-digital-competencies -
Source: unesco.org
Title: ai can make mistakes why media literacy matters more ever
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-can-make-mistakes-why-media-literacy-matters-more-ever -
Source: mdpi.com
Link: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-6470/4/2/26 -
Source: oecd.org
Link: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/artificial-intelligence-and-education-and-skills.html -
Source: oecd.org
Link: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/the-pisa-2029-media-and-artificial-intelligence-%28mail%29-assessment-will-shed-light-on-whether-young-students-have-had-opportunities-to-learn-and-to-engage-proactively-and-critically-in-a-world-where-production%2C-participation%2C-and-social-networking-are-increasingly-mediated-by-digital-and-ai-tools-/PISA%202029%20MAIL%20Assessment%20Framework%20First%20Draft.pdf -
Source: ed.stanford.edu
Title: it doesn t take long learn how spot misinformation online stanford study finds
Link: https://ed.stanford.edu/news/it-doesn-t-take-long-learn-how-spot-misinformation-online-stanford-study-finds -
Source: misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu
Link: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/lateral-reading-college-students-learn-to-critically-evaluate-internet-sources-in-an-online-course/ -
Source: unesco.org
Title: Examining Media and Information Literacy Responses to Generative
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/examining-media-and-information-literacy-responses-generative-ai-unesco-policy-brief -
Source: misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu
Link: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/cognitive-reflection-is-associated-with-greater-truth-discernment-for-covid-19-headlines-less-trust-but-greater-use-of-formal-information-sources-and-greater-willingness-to-pay-for-masks-among-socia/ -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: Digital News Report 2025
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-06/Digital_News-Report_2025.pdf -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/generative-ai-and-news-report-2025-how-people-think-about-ais-role-journalism-and-society -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: our podcast digital news report 2025 episode 2 ai and personalised news
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/our-podcast-digital-news-report-2025-episode-2-ai-and-personalised-news -
Source: oecd.org
Title: media consumption and privacy 31ab2233
Link: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2024/11/oecd-digital-economy-outlook-2024-volume-2_9b2801fc/full-report/media-consumption-and-privacy_31ab2233.html -
Source: oecd.org
Title: the impact of digital activities on children s lives 4df70664
Link: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/how-s-life-for-children-in-the-digital-age_0854b900-en/full-report/the-impact-of-digital-activities-on-children-s-lives_4df70664.html -
Source: oecd.org
Title: component 7
Link: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-policy-outlook-2024_dd5140e4-en/full-report/component-7.html -
Source: unesco.org
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en -
Source: unesco.org
Title: media and information literacy critical thinking
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/media-and-information-literacy-critical-thinking -
Source: unesco.org
Title: UNESC O strengthens Media and Information Literacy
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-strengthens-media-and-information-literacy-across-ukraine -
Source: unesco.org
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-masterclass-equip-educators-tools-critical-thinking-and-media-literacy-age-ai-and-digital -
Source: purl.stanford.edu
Link: https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934 -
Source: purl.stanford.edu
Link: https://purl.stanford.edu/xr124mv4805 -
Source: stacks.stanford.edu
Title: COR Curriculum Evaluation
Link: https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid%3Axr124mv4805/COR%20Curriculum%20Evaluation.pdf -
Source: arxiv.org
Link: https://arxiv.org/html/2504.13777v1 -
Source: unesco.it
Title: Media and Information Literacy-MIL
Link: https://www.unesco.it/it/temi-in-evidenza/comunicazione-e-informazione/media-and-information-literacy-mil/ -
Source: theguardian.com
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/08/social-media-groups-fuel-misinfomation-uk-[news-desertsSource snippet
Topics such as immigration and Islamophobia are the most frequent subjects of false claims. The spread intensifies around elections, with...
-
Source: theguardian.com
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/11/ai-chatbots-distort-and-mislead-when-asked-about-current-affairs-bbc-finds -
Source: theguardian.com
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/26/online-influencers-need-urgent-fact-checking-training-warns-unesco -
Source: digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Link: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act -
Source: digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Title: Digital Strategy AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future
Link: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai -
Source: weforum.org
Title: global risks report 2025 conflict environment and disinformation top threats
Link: https://www.weforum.org/press/2025/01/global-risks-report-2025-conflict-environment-and-disinformation-top-threats/ -
Source: weforum.org
Link: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/10/media-information-literacy-ai/ -
Source: weforum.org
Title: global risks report 2025
Link: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/ -
Source: reports.weforum.org
Title: WEF Global Risks Report 2025
Link: https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2025.pdf -
Source: weforum.org
Title: global risks report 2024
Link: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/ -
Source: weforum.org
Title: global risks 2025 a world of growing divisions c943fe3ba0
Link: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/in-full/global-risks-2025-a-world-of-growing-divisions-c943fe3ba0/ -
Source: linkedin.com
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/unesco-institute-for-lifelong-learning_in-a-digital-ai-driven-world-media-and-activity-7462019215198191617-Xlgp -
Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12351547/ -
Source: x.com
Link: https://x.com/UNESCO -
Source: facebook.com
Link: https://www.facebook.com/unesco/ -
Source: facebook.com
Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/671022767060782/posts/1935367443959635/ -
Source: europarl.europa.eu
Title: EPRS BRI(2025)779259 EN
Link: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/779259/EPRS_BRI%282025%29779259_EN.pdf -
Source: europarl.europa.eu
Link: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2026/784574/IUST_BRI%282026%29784574_EN.pdf -
Source: comd.hkbu.edu.hk
Title: ai and social media issues of trust and ideology
Link: https://comd.hkbu.edu.hk/research/highlights/ai-and-social-media-issues-of-trust-and-ideology/ -
Source: europeanjournalists.org
Link: https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2024/12/06/unesco-report-highlights-urgent-need-for-media-literacy-training-for-digital-content-creators-who-report-the-news/ -
Source: instagram.com
Link: https://www.instagram.com/unesco/?hl=en -
Source: ai4edu.eu
Link: https://ai4edu.eu/2024/11/12/unescos-ai-competency-frameworks-equipping-educators-and-students-for-the-age-of-ai/
Additional References
-
Source: youtube.com
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLo2DsiyagSource snippet
The Algorithm of Truth | Ezekiel Harmusial | TEDxGlobal Prestasi School Youth...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: The Algorithm of Truth | Ezekiel Harmusial | TEDx Global Prestasi School Youth
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZUSzI9bdkSource snippet
Seeing Beyond the Algorithm | Jenna Hammoud | TEDxYouth@JeffersonStreet...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: Seeing Beyond the Algorithm | Jenna Hammoud | TEDx Youth@Jefferson Street
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjT3tmiRGCcSource snippet
Going Viral: How To Balance Authenticity and Spectacle...
-
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-05233-9Source snippet
(2020) through research on the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 in...Read more...
-
Source: researchgate.net
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349535570_Lateral_reading_College_students_learn_to_critically_evaluate_internet_sources_in_an_online_course -
Source: chouitliteracy.com
Link: https://www.chouitliteracy.com/events/16 -
Source: researchgate.net
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395179320_Addressing_Hallucinations_in_AI-Generated_Content_Strategies_for_Developing_Student_Fact-Checking_and_Information_Evaluation_Skills -
Source: pewresearch.org
Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/american-trends-panel-datasets/ -
Source: researchgate.net
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322326062_Can_Students_Evaluate_Online_Sources_Learning_From_Assessments_of_Civic_Online_Reasoning -
Source: inquirygroup.org
Link: https://www.inquirygroup.org/
Topic Tree
Follow this branch
More on this topic 25
- Accuracy Nudge Can One Pause Stop a False Share?
- AI Tutors Should You Trust a Chatbot Tutor?
- AI Virality Why AI Misinformation Travels So Easily
- Community Notes Can the Crowd Correct the Feed?
- Corroboration Who Else Can Confirm This Claim?
- Deepfakes How to Check a Voice or Video Claim
- Emotional Posts Why Outrage Is Not Evidence
- Evidence Types Not All Evidence Deserves Equal Weight
- +17 more in sidebar