This writing is about mis- and disinformation. It is based on research I compiled in preparation for a panel I am speaking on. A lot of it will be paraphrased from that research, and I am synthesizing it here, so please don’t consider this my own unique creative writing.

First, let’s start with definitions. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that spreads by mistake. The intent behind it is not to deceive or cause harm. Think of a person sharing a statistic or quote on social media that is inaccurate without knowing it. Then there is disinformation: false information deliberately spread to trick, harm, or take advantage of people. There is clear intent behind it, and it is often connected to power, money, or influence.

Mis- and disinformation persist because there is a supply-and-demand problem. People’s psychology, attention, emotions, and identities create a certain kind of demand for this information. I’ll get into why mis- and disinformation are so desirable to us later. To meet that demand, tech companies and content creators have stepped in with an ample, seemingly endless supply.

The Information Environment

I know most of my blog readers are not chronically online. That is great! But it also means that when you do get online, you might not be as savvy about how mis- and disinformation function online or how easy it is to be fooled.

We’re living in an unprecedented information environment. A commonly cited description of this “information age” claims that the amount of information created every two days is roughly equivalent to everything created from the beginning of human civilization through 2003. The claim is often attributed to Google’s former chief economist, Eric Schmidt, speaking at a 2010 conference. A lot of people say humans are not meant to be surrounded by this much information.

This information overload is due in large part to social media. It has fundamentally changed how people encounter information. When social media first entered the scene, it was truly about friends and socializing. But the algorithms have changed. They now prioritize content that keeps users engaged, including posts from outside a user’s network, content the user did not intentionally seek out and that is not necessarily in their best interest. It is well known that around 85% of Gen Z gets news from social media, which is increasingly becoming a place where young people put their trust.

This age of immense information and social media has also affected our attention. We are now much more selective about what we notice and are increasingly being trained to scroll past anything that does not hook us immediately. The commonly cited “eight-second attention span” is largely a myth, but our attention spans are shortening. The average time people focus on a screen is around 46 seconds today, down by about 2.5 minutes from 2024.

Social media’s business model is built on monetizing our attention, so platforms are incentivized to design and reward content that keeps people hooked. The longer people stay on an app, the more ads the company can show them and the more data and advertising value it can generate. We see this in product design. Former Facebook employee Frances Haugen appeared before a U.S. Senate subcommittee and shared thousands of internal Facebook documents showing that the company knew its algorithms were causing measurable harm, including damage to the mental health of teenage girls. In Haugen’s words, “The company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people.” So we know tech companies can design an environment that selects for sensational content, meaning content tuned for clicks and impact rather than accuracy or true importance. It rewards big emotions such as anger, resentment, conflict, division, outrage, and fear.

Experts sometimes call this “weaponized attention.” In this model, rage bait keeps getting served, systems reward content creators for generating more outrage, and users’ attention is consumed by content instead of going toward real-life relationships, civic participation, serious issues, or other priorities. Those in positions of power, including governments and political actors, can use this maliciously as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy, using social media to keep people divided and distracted while they pursue their own goals.

Why Misinformation Works

Let’s get into why mis- and disinformation work so well on us, though. There’s a saying I like: “Misinformation can run around the world before the truth can even tie its shoes.” A famous 2018 MIT study published in the journal Science found that false stories on Twitter could reach up to 100,000 people, while a true story rarely reached more than 1,000.

This is partly because social media comes with built-in social proof. We are more likely to believe information when friends or family share it or, increasingly, when it comes from an influencer we follow and have a parasocial relationship with. Social media is also highly visual, and people tend to find claims more believable when they are paired with a photo because the image makes the claim feel more concrete.

Let’s get into the psychology of media and persuasion. One thing to understand about humans is how we process information. Experts talk about the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which says we sort information into two routes. The first is the central route, where we carefully evaluate claims, take our time with the information, and put in cognitive effort. Processing information this way requires the time and ability to do so, as well as strong motivation to exert the effort. The second is the peripheral route. This route relies on shortcuts and comes into play when people have limited time, attention, or ability to process information. When we use it, we default to our identities, emotions, assumptions about credibility, appearance, familiarity, and general “vibes” to understand what we are seeing. As you may be guessing, with information constantly surrounding us, we are not using the central route as much anymore. We are using the peripheral route, which we generally prefer because it takes less effort and triggers deep psychological cues such as identity and emotion. The problem comes when this increasingly becomes the only way we process information, or when someone takes advantage of that mode of processing, knowing the information will not be evaluated as deeply or critically.

Another reason false information is so sticky is that it is often clean, punchy, emotional, simple, and lacking in nuance. Accurate information, by contrast, is often slower, more complicated, more nuanced, and less immediately satisfying or triggering. We have also regressed into a culture war that heightens us-versus-them thinking. As a result, some people may not even care whether something is true if it makes them feel as though they are on the “winning team.”

So what can we do about this? I’ll get into it much more deeply later, but one key issue is that we have lost patience for nuance and for considering whether we may not know the full picture. We are stuck in isolated, hyper-personalized algorithms that act as yes-men and prevent us from seeing other sides of a story. We need to practice integrative complexity. This requires differentiation: perceiving different dimensions of an issue. That may mean considering another perspective or opening your mind to another aspect of the situation. It also requires integration: connecting and relating those different dimensions to one another.

Common Disinformation Tactics

One of the most common tactics is simply taking information out of context. That could mean pulling an eight-second clip from a longer event in a way that changes the apparent meaning of the words. There are also cheap fakes, such as cropping part of a picture to remove context, taking an old video and claiming it happened yesterday, or reusing real photos and videos with false captions. These can be hard to spot because the content itself is real in some way, but the framing or positioning is not. Other commonly used messaging tactics include:

• Scapegoating – unfairly blaming a person or group for problems they did not cause and then treating them badly because of that blame.
• False dilemmas – presenting only two options when more choices exist, typically making one option appear more appealing or reasonable while ignoring other valid possibilities.
• Fake experts – citing an authority figure to support a claim when that person has little or no relevant expertise, education, or experience.
• Cherry-picking evidence – selectively presenting only evidence that supports an argument while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.
• Conspiracy theories – explaining an event or situation by asserting that a conspiracy exists when other explanations are more probable.
• Logical fallacies – errors in reasoning that sound convincing but lead to invalid conclusions.
• Creating mistrust of institutions.
• Using “us vs. them” messaging.
• Encouraging people to trust only one source or community.
• Simplifying complex issues into emotionally satisfying narratives.

Social media is also rife with anonymous accounts and ambiguous profiles that lack accountability and make claims harder to evaluate. Meme accounts are one example. There is also artificially manufactured social proof, such as mass-created profiles or bots that comment on specific posts based on trigger words. These accounts can flood comment sections, where much of the discourse on social media happens. You can sometimes spot bots because they repeatedly post the same thing or leave suspiciously basic, formulaic comments, such as “one word + emoji.” Bots can also be purchased to inflate a profile’s follower count, creating a false appearance of credibility. This is more common than you might think. One way to check is to compare an account’s engagement and views with its follower count. If it has an exceptionally high follower count but very low engagement and viewership, either its content is not resonating or some of those followers may not be real.

Other psychological effects also come into play with mis- and disinformation. With recency bias, the thing we remember most easily can feel like the thing that is true. That becomes a problem when the most entertaining or outrageous content is false. The halo effect occurs when we idealize someone and begin to believe everything they say. We see this with the rise of influencers and artificially altered faces: exceedingly beautiful people can seem trustworthy even when they have none of the credentials, education, or experience that would make them reliable beyond their appearance. Then there are elite cues. These occur when messages from trusted opinion leaders, such as tribal or political leaders, strongly influence public opinion. These figures are not necessarily experts in the field, such as scientists or doctors; often, they are influencers within that sphere. Elite cues have been identified as a major driver of public opinion on issues such as climate change. This also plays into the rise of anti-intellectualism, in which people increasingly distrust experts and institutions. Finally, there is the silencing effect, in which people avoid expressing accurate or nuanced views because they fear being perceived as alarmist, radical, disloyal, or biased. For example, someone may downplay legitimate concerns and information about climate change because they do not want to be seen as the stereotypical “alarmist climate change radical,” or a person of color may brush off a microaggression or racial discrimination because they do not want to be seen as an “overly sensitive snowflake.”

All of this might make you think, “Isn’t this psychological manipulation?” Well, yes, it certainly can be. Psychological manipulation targets fears, dreams, insecurities, the desire to belong, the desire to feel special or knowledgeable, and the desire to feel that you understand a confusing world. These are key human vulnerabilities, and bad actors can exploit them for money, power, and influence. When used intentionally, this manipulation may aim to create an “us vs. them” narrative, identify an enemy or scapegoat, undermine trust in institutions or experts, create dependence on a source of information or a community, sell exceptionalism, or make people feel that they belong to a social group. You may hear phrases, or the essence of phrases, like these:

• “Only I can tell you the truth.”
• “Everyone else is lying.”
• “You are smarter than everyone else because you know the secret.”

The harm comes when people do not recognize that psychological manipulation is happening. It can make you want these claims to be true because they protect your sense of identity, worldview, or belonging. It can also make you dependent on the people or entities selling that manipulation to you.

Social Media’s Role

Let’s take a deeper look at social media because this is where people are now beginning their information journey. On social media, influencers dominate the content economy. As their name suggests, they have the power to influence what people believe, which issues they care about, and how they understand political events. We need to be careful about accepting information simply because it comes from an influencer, who is often persuasive, charismatic, attractive, and an excellent communicator. This is the halo effect in play.

It’s also vital to understand that influencer culture is deeply connected to the attention economy. Influencers turn their personal lives and opinions into monetizable content, so likes, views, sponsorships, and engagement are business goals directly tied to earning more money and influence. Those incentives do not always align with accuracy or civic and societal responsibility.

Influencer-led online communities can also create information silos, amplified by social media algorithms. Algorithms build walls around ideas and perspectives by learning what is sticky for you and feeding you more of that content. People can begin to believe that what they see represents the only perspective that exists, reinforcing their belief that they are correct. Be wary when influencers say things that amount to “we are your people,” “only trust us,” or “you can’t trust anyone else.” Relying exclusively on individual creators rather than multiple independent sources can make it harder to establish shared facts and a shared reality.

Social media is also seen as a contributor to what is called a “post-literate” culture. In this kind of society, people still know how to read and write but rely on video, audio, and digital media rather than books and printed text to learn and communicate. Reading for pleasure has reportedly dropped by 40% over the last 20 years, and children’s reading test scores are at their lowest level on record. A few years ago, reports also emerged that some incoming college students struggled to read full books. Today, short-form media has taken over much of the information landscape, making it harder for us to engage with long-form material. Because short-form media must capture attention quickly, populist and influencer-style communication is being adopted more often. That style of communication tends to rely on:

• Simple emotional messaging.
• Simplifying complex policy.
• Authenticity as performance.
• Going viral to avoid being ignored.

We can see some of this in the broader shift from professionalized, formal policy speech toward conversational, “de-professionalized” language designed to bypass mainstream media filters and journalistic gatekeeping. The rise of NYC Mayor Mamdani and Donald Trump is seen in large part as a result of their social media savvy. They use everyday language, limited policy detail, catchy phrases, and simple messaging. They also understand that voters increasingly judge candidates by criteria that resemble dating metrics: appearance, personality, and questions such as “Would I want to hang out with this person?” and “How does this person make me feel?” These dynamics were already present in politics, as we know from the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate, but they are amplified in the social media and short-form-content era.

A post-literate society that relies primarily on short-form content for information creates a civic problem because books and long-form reading have historically contributed to major political and social movements. Reading books requires friction and time; it demands effort and intentionality. Writing and understanding books and other long-form content usually require detail, nuance, and description, whereas short-form content is often stripped of those qualities.

That makes our phones and social media feeds the front lines of the information environment. We are increasingly responsible for curating and monitoring our own credible information streams because we have limited insight into the editorial choices platforms make. Social media can connect people and build community, but the same systems can also divide, isolate, and manipulate.

One important distinction is that influence is not the same as civic participation. An influencer may inspire someone to contact a representative or care about an issue, but the real-life actions taken by ordinary people are what build healthy communities and democratic participation. Communities and societies are ultimately strengthened by what people actually do.

A positive vision for social media is that it can ultimately help connect us to real life. It could better connect people with reliable information, trusted sources and experts, opportunities for civic participation, and real-world relationships.

AI and the Information Environment

AI is also a major contributor to this information environment. First, AI can mean many different things: predictive statistics, machine learning, generative AI, deepfakes, AI-generated influencers, AI-generated misinformation, influence campaigns, AI-generated comment activity, synthetic profiles, and AI-generated summaries.

One thing to remember is that AI is not inherently neutral. Its outputs reflect the data used to train and inform the system. That data can contain historical bias and poor-quality information, and much of the online content used for training is written in English and reflects an American or Western perspective. As they say, be aware of “garbage in, garbage out.”

We may not know when AI-generated information is being fed to us. On social media, some creators are expected to disclose their use of AI, but disclosure is inconsistent and sometimes left to the creator’s discretion. Entire accounts use AI-generated “spokespeople” who are not real people. Our online environment increasingly contains inauthentic content. One major study from an Amazon Web Services AI lab estimated that 51–57% of online text may be inauthentic, including material generated by foreign governments, AI systems, and computer bots. Some forecasts predict that 80% of all internet content could eventually be synthetically generated by the late 2020s. The frightening part is AI’s ability to scale. Content that once required 20–50 people to create may be produced by a much smaller operation relying heavily on AI systems.

Journalism and the Crisis of Trust

Journalism also plays a role in this information age. It has long been seen as the “fourth estate,” meant to hold powerful entities accountable. That is why freedom of the press is such an essential foundation of our democracy. The founders believed a free press was necessary because the public needed trusted, factual information free from political influence in order to participate in government. Journalism is an institution with standards and practices that include using multiple sources, fact-checking, relying on expertise and educational credentials, considering scientific evidence, and sourcing information transparently.

But journalism and traditional media face many challenges. Local journalism is disappearing, anger-based journalism is rising, and the “sportification” of news treats information like a competition in order to keep audiences emotionally activated. Trust in traditional media has also declined: only 28% of Americans now say they trust the media. This is dangerous because low trust can lead people to tune out all media. If they disengage from reliable information entirely, civic engagement can also decline, giving governing institutions more power relative to an informed public.

Why has trust declined so sharply? My research for the panel did not take me deeply into that question. There are many possible reasons and theories, and this article discusses some of them. This is also not my wheelhouse, since I do not work in journalism. I will say that the sheer abundance of information does not help. Quality journalism is harder to find because you have to seek it out intentionally amid a sea of low-quality content. And when strong reporting sits behind a paywall, because journalists need to be paid, it creates another barrier to trusted information while free, unchecked content remains available with the swipe of a finger.

Who is Susceptible to This?

Susceptibility exists on a spectrum and changes depending on the content. Some people are resistant: they tend to be relatively knowledgeable about a subject and less susceptible to misinformation. Others are vulnerable: they know less about the subject and are more easily persuaded by misleading information. Then there are receptive people, who usually make up the largest group. Finally, there are disinformation amplifiers, who may be relatively few in number but can be highly visible, loud, and integral to keeping disinformation in circulation.

The thing is, you should not assume that “other people” are the susceptible ones. We are all susceptible to some degree, and we all have psychological vulnerabilities.

I am not immune to falling for mis- or disinformation. On the less harmful end of the spectrum, I have fallen for real animal videos whose context was changed so that I believed a heartwarming, miraculous story rather than a more benign truth. I have also watched a video that I believed showed a recent protest, only to learn that the footage was from an earlier event.

Democracy, Trust, and Shared Reality

How does all of this relate to democracy, though? Democracy is about our government and the foundations and beliefs of our institutions, while this may seem like merely online discourse.

First, narratives can reshape institutions, not just individual opinions. What circulates in public discourse can influence how leaders shape policy and change structures. For example, if vaccine use is deprioritized because of disinformation, the government may remove vaccine mandates.

Another key point is that democracy is an institution built on a system of trust. In this context, trust is a strategic asset. Disinformation can chip away at trust in science, journalism, government, elections, institutions, and other people. People need to trust their government enough to engage with it. And eroding trust can stall action: for the system to function, it needs public trust and participation.

Freedom of the press and freedom of conscience are fundamental because people need access to information to participate in self-government. There is a reason the press was seen as the fourth estate: it holds power accountable in a functioning democracy. The information people take in shapes their opinions. Public opinion is central to democratic theory. Ideally, the views and needs of ordinary people help drive public policy, and those views are authentic, grounded in facts and real needs, and free from manipulation. That is what it means to have a free, self-governing society based on democratic principles. Public opinion can influence policy through both bottom-up and top-down processes. Bottom-up influence happens when ordinary people share information with one another or when a viral claim shapes public opinion. Top-down influence happens when politicians, organizations, influencers, and other elites introduce narratives that the public then amplifies. We can probably agree that viral claims should not be the basis of public opinion and policy. But we also do not want public opinion to be overly shaped from the top down, especially when powerful people spread mis- or disinformation. What is ideal in a democracy is a healthy balance: genuine public opinion grounded in shared reality and real issues, alongside influential figures who use their power responsibly and within their areas of knowledge.

We also need a foundation of shared reality to have a functioning democracy. That means a baseline agreement about reality and facts. When that shared reality breaks down, people can retreat into tribes, identity, emotion, and us-vs.-them thinking. Experts say we are living through a moment of truth decay: the erosion of agreement on facts and the normalization of claims that previously would not have met basic standards of evidence. We are also seeing an erosion of accountability norms. When disinformation spreads or bad actors are called out, there are often few or no consequences. Misinformation also accelerates political polarization. Identity and partisanship are increasingly intertwined, so challenging misinformation can feel like challenging someone’s identity. That causes misinformation to split along political lines and communication between groups to become siloed in echo chambers. One important function of democracy is to give people with major disagreements a peaceful way to resolve them.

The final issue is foreign interference: any attempt by a foreign actor to subvert or undermine the integrity of a country’s electoral and democratic processes. That can include cyberattacks, foreign funding, disinformation narratives, and propaganda. This is where government communication with the public becomes especially important. Clear communication builds public trust while reducing the space in which foreign interference can take hold.

Systemic Solutions

Personal responsibility alone will not solve the misinformation problem. There is a need for systemic solutions, industry standards, and government regulation. There is a growing demand from consumers for government to step in, especially around AI regulation. 48% of American adults believe the government should take steps to restrict false and misleading information online, up from 39% in 2018.[i]  The test is whether this administration will actually implement strong and effective regulation.

A possible regulatory approach is to establish rules that allow platforms to make money while prohibiting practices that cause serious societal harm. Tech companies resist content regulation on free-speech grounds, but free speech does not necessarily include a legal right to have content amplified by a private platform’s algorithm. Regulatory action also needs to recognize that the problem is not simply that false information exists; algorithms are designed and incentivized to amplify and distribute it. Regulation must also address big tech’s core business model, which is built on harvesting personal data and converting it into behavioral predictions sold to advertisers and businesses.

Experts recommend a public-health approach to mis- and disinformation: helping people who are directly affected, providing education and training, building preventive resilience, and establishing policy and guardrails. All of these measures must be used simultaneously, consistently, and repeatedly to address the problem from every angle. What would that look like in practice? First, the government would provide individual education and inoculation. More on that in a bit. Then it would define and enforce the responsibilities of technology and media companies. Finally, it would enact broader policy and regulation.

One example of government stepping in is in Australia. Australia has pursued legislation aimed at creating a safer online environment and setting boundaries around unacceptable harms. The framework gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority greater power to set industry standards, approve codes of conduct, and issue fines when companies do not comply. They state the potential categories of serious harms as things like directly attempting to alter an election outcome, public-health risks, inciting violence or hatred against groups, disrupting essential services or critical infrastructure, and economic damage. It’s intentionally broad so the government has the flexibility to amend and adjust in this rapidly moving time. We will see in the future if this can be a useful case study for how governments can establish guardrails and balance the act of appropriately and democratically controlling information.

Technology platforms also have a major role in the solution. The public wants to see action: 59% say technology companies should address false or inaccurate information online themselves, even if doing so limits users’ ability to freely access and publish content. Platforms could take a more proactive role in addressing mis- and disinformation by implementing measures such as:

• Warning labels.
• Algorithms that prioritize accurate information.
• Making fact-checking resources easier to find.
• Elevating reliable sources in search results.
• Limiting how far harmful posts can spread.
• Removing content that crosses clearly defined harm thresholds.

The Role of Everyday People

As I said before, the front lines are now our phones and feeds. We can still choose what to believe, what to share and amplify, and what we want to engage with. We all have a role in shaping what the online world looks like. As Viktor Frankl says, the space between stimulus and reaction is where agency exists.

The benefit of this abundance of information is that we have more power to actively seek out and evaluate it. We do not have to simply accept whatever is dropped into our feeds. If we do, we give more control and power to the people and systems deciding what to show us.

The goal is not to become perfectly informed about everything. It is to become better at recognizing manipulation and making intentional choices. You can become more aware of your own psychological vulnerabilities, the people who may be trying to exploit them, and the financial, political, and social incentives behind the information you encounter.

But this is hard. Brandolini’s law is an internet adage coined in 2013 by programmer Alberto Brandolini: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.” In other words, it takes considerably more effort to debunk and correct misinformation than it does to create it in the first place. Debunking is time-consuming and mentally demanding, and it can also mean confronting what someone believes to be their community. That makes this an uphill battle.

So what are some ways we, as everyday people, can confront mis- and disinformation?

Well, experts say that simply fact-checking isn’t enough. Some people are motivated to reject information because of their identity, political beliefs, distrust, or desire to protect an existing worldview. Sometimes they have already rejected the source providing the correct facts. It can be very hard to convince those people with a simple fact-check.

That’s why experts advocate for a preventative inoculation approach. Technique-based and logic-based inoculation teaches people how misinformation works before they encounter it. Research suggests that this approach can work across political groups by giving people agency to evaluate information for themselves. It is explicitly not about simply telling people what to believe. Instead, it teaches the tactics that mis- and disinformation use so people can build pattern recognition and recognize those manipulation techniques when they encounter them in real life. This builds resilience rather than relying solely on correction, giving people “cognitive antibodies.”

This also requires people to develop digital literacy. We need to turn on our critical-thinking brains when using social platforms rather than passively accepting or becoming numb to what appears in our feeds. We should apply this critical thinking to information we agree with as well as information we disagree with. Ask someone who disagrees with you what they see, and genuinely listen. This also requires us to encourage respectful conversations and create spaces where disagreement is possible. Many people avoid conflict because it feels like the safest route, but we may need to become more resilient and more willing to engage in healthy conflict in order to grow and mature.

We should also stop and ask hard questions. If something triggers a strong emotional response, pause and consider questions like these:

• What emotion is this trying to create in me?
• What bias or vulnerability is this hitting?
• Who benefits if I believe or share this?
• Who created this?
• What do they want me to do?
• What information is missing?
• Is this being presented without context?

It is also important to reassure people that it is okay not to know everything. Part of what makes mis- and disinformation appealing is that it can make people feel as though they possess special knowledge, or that the people they are watching know things others do not.

Here are some methods experts recommend. You do not need to apply all of them to every piece of content you see. Just apply them to content that triggers a strong emotion or taps into a deeper psychological vulnerability that makes it especially appealing.

The FLICC Method

One method is to see whether content uses any of the FLICC techniques. FLICC stands for Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry-picking, and Conspiracy theories. If an influencer’s video uses one or more of these tactics, approach the information with greater caution, critical thinking, and evaluation.

The SIFT Method

Another method is SIFT: Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, and Trace claims back to their original context. This can help whenever you encounter information, whether you initially believe it or not, by giving you a structured way to evaluate the credibility of the source and the quality of the coverage.

Three-Click Method

When you think an account may be fake, a bot, or a malicious actor, one way to check is the Three-Click Method. When you encounter something suspicious, first find the original post or source and determine whether the content is being reposted without context. Second, click on the profile that posted it. Look at the account’s history and ask whether it appears to belong to an actual person, whether the content is consistent, and whether there is branding or other evidence of a real organization. Third, look at the section that lists details about the account. Most social media platforms provide basic information about when the account was created, which country it is associated with, and whether it has used different usernames. The goal of this method is to identify bots, coordinated activity, and other signs that the “social proof” presented by the account may not be genuine.

Additional Habits

Other things you can do include following and consistently consulting multiple independent sources. Look for coverage from reputable journalists rather than relying on a single influencer. Journalists are trained to follow professional standards and ethical practices. Compare influencers’ narratives with independent reporting, and do not rely on your algorithm to deliver the news to you. Intentionally follow trusted news organizations.

Look for primary sources when possible. Pay close attention to dates. Check whether a photo or video is actually from the event being described. Look for full versions of clips rather than short excerpts. Ask who benefits from a particular narrative.

You should make these forms of resistance part of your daily routine. Like exercise, they require practice to build the muscle and strengthen your thinking. Remember: don’t feed the machine. Pausing before posting, sharing, or commenting can be a form of civic participation in such a digital age.

We can also push back when misinformation appears in our own circles. Our relationships can be part of the solution. You can ask where a claim came from, share the original source, add context, or point someone toward better information, or at least a different perspective. When doing this, though, remember that the goal is not to “win” the argument. It is to keep misinformation from spreading through our networks.

Some experts recommend what they call Jiu-Jitsu Persuasion. Jiu-jitsu is about using an opponent’s energy and momentum in your next move. With this form of persuasion, you do not simply correct misinformation, which can feel like an attack on someone’s beliefs, identity, or motivations. Instead, you work with their existing motivations and values. You frame solutions in ways that align with what people already care about and communicate through their identities. This does not mean changing the facts; it means adjusting how you present them and the solution you offer.

For example, someone might say, “Climate regulations are going to destroy American jobs and send manufacturing overseas.”

• Instead of: “That’s misinformation. Climate policies create jobs.”
• You can say: “If protecting American jobs is the priority, the question is which energy and climate policies actually strengthen U.S. manufacturing and keep those jobs here. Let’s look at the evidence.”

Or suppose someone is opposed to vaccines because they believe a vaccine will cause their child to develop autism.

• Instead of saying: “Vaccines don’t cause autism. The research proves it.”
• You can try: “If your biggest concern is avoiding unnecessary medical risks for your child, let’s compare the known risks of the vaccine with the risks of the disease it prevents.”

Or suppose someone says the election was stolen.

• Instead of: “The election wasn’t stolen. There’s no evidence of widespread fraud.”
• Say: “If you’re concerned about election integrity, you probably want to know whether there are safeguards against fraudulent votes. Here’s how Texas verifies voter eligibility and counts ballots.”

Hope in Our Agency

As we come to a close, it is reasonable to feel frustrated and maybe even scared by the current information landscape. But we must not give in to resignation. The choices we make online still matter. We can choose to learn and practice digital literacy. We can employ critical thinking and refuse to amplify manipulation. We can seek multiple perspectives before reaching conclusions, making decisions, or taking action. We can support reliable journalism and participate in real-life communities. We can demand better practices from technology companies and support thoughtful public policy.

It is also important to know that you are not powerless against algorithms. You can recognize cheap fakes, promote a healthier form of social media, and contribute to a better information environment.

The ultimate goal is agency. Don’t worry, it is not perfection. We want agency over what we believe, and we want to choose intentionally and carefully. We do not let someone else’s tactics make choices for us. Our power comes from understanding and actively using our access to information.

Democracy depends on people believing they have agency and then exercising it.

Resources

• Ground News: compare how different outlets cover the same story.
• Media Bias/Fact Check: information about outlet bias and accuracy.
• AP Fact Check: fact-checking from the Associated Press.
• org: nonpartisan fact-checking from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
• Snopes: viral claims and rumors.
• PolitiFact: fact-checking political claims and social-media content.
• Lead Stories: fact-checking trending stories.
• Ballotpedia: election information, candidates, offices, and voting records.
• OpenSecrets: money in politics.
• Storyful: tracing the origins and context of online photos and videos.
• AllSides: comparing news coverage across different perspectives.