The 'facts' presented here have been verified using factinsect.com.
Working in the teacher-training area, January is typically a heavy month. So, one of my wishes for 2025 was to have a calmer and quieter January. Mark Zuckerberg's recent decision has made this wish unattainable.
His decision to ban fact-checking from Meta’s ecosystem days before Trump takes office (supported by Musk, in a volatile political climate) has an impact on literally everyone around the globe, when it comes to the level of misinformation and disinformation it can help spread. But in fact, it hurts twice as much if you break your back working in the educational area. Trying to look at this from the educational angle, here are some of the potential drawbacks:
Spread of Misinformation and Disinformation
Without fact-checking, false and/or misleading content can run free and fast, leading to the rapid spread of information that may – eventually – impact the decision-making process. Considering the latter is normally taught and developed along critical thinking in schools, and taking into account Vygotsky’s (1978) notion that linguistic rules are naturally acquired through environmental exposure, making the quality of that environment (and the information passed down to it) crucial, the whole process of construction of meaning and critical analysis may be at risk. So, in a society where what’s important is the speed at which people have access to the information and NOT the information itself, mechanisms that check the quality of information before it is spread are vital.
Impact on Daily Discourse and Character Building
Existing biases are reinforced by terms that are allowed when information is offered without mediation, and facts are not checked. And as a journalist, linguist and educator, I need to state the basic difference between mediation and censorship: the former is about choosing the words, structures and styles that can be used to present facts or opinions in a clear and respectful way, which helps secure the level of civilizational progress humankind has achieved (in most contexts). Censorship has to do with the control of information, when it is deliberately suppressed, withheld, or manipulated by the government, society or organizations of all sorts.
With that in mind, the lack of mediation can lead kids, for instance, to replicate in their own contexts some of the terms they hear or see adults using. They may think it is fine, for instance, to use derogatory terms when referring to their classmates and teachers. They may form new discourse communities, with the unconscious construction of inappropriate rules, as suggested by Chomsky (1986), which – in turn – may help form adults who will have less respectful discourse practices. Besides, false/misleading facts and messages that are not mediated may lead to the free engineering of narratives whose goal is to manipulate the public opinion or even change the understanding of the past, which is intrinsically connected to how unreliable sources of information can be used for the sake of maintaining power, as discussed by Hobsbawn (1994). Decisions like Meta’s can end up sending a message that will cascade down to learners, telling them it is acceptable to create facts and use disrespectful language as long as their own ideas ‘prevail’. An absolute loss of ethical standing.
Implications for Democracy
Needless to say, and as we have already seen, the lack of mechanisms to check facts can lead to election interference by allowing the spread of fake news. There are famous cases of elections being impacted by this, being the US and Brazil clear examples. But what does it have to do with education and democracy? Simple. When it comes to power, the challenge lies in using language to “convey the truth” (Crystal, 1987:393) and it is thus the most efficient tool for attacking or defending democratic ideals, the same ones on which the very educational system of democratic countries is built upon. In a nutshell, why would the truth matter to learners if, in the real world, everyone says whatever they feel like using in the unsupervised, unchecked and unfair social-media arena – today’s most powerful information broadcast? And how can a democratic state survive in this new order, from forming a line to move out of the classroom to becoming the president of a country?
What can we do as citizens and educators?
This last comparison may sound weird and silly, but it’s not. That’s just how much very young children could possibly perceive a system in which rules are created and followed by everyone – the very definition of democracy. So, what’s the fix? Eliminate social media? Well, much as I like the idea, it is probably not viable today, for a number of reasons. For instance, platforms like Instagram and TikTok are the basis of a lot of businesses nowadays. However, each one of us can take proactive steps on a daily basis to minimize the negative impact of Meta’s recent decision to ban fact-checking and to add ‘credibility’ to posts and businesses. If you intend to keep using Facebook, Instagram and Threads, here's what you can do:
1. Critically evaluate and cross-check all content (and help learners do it), regardless of its source. (see a list of tools at the end of this article).
2. Practice responsible sharing and teach others to do the same.
3. Help learners become critical thinkers and question information.
4. Teach learners to be courteous and present data when replying to information they think is fake.
5. Support and demand transparency and accountability.
6. Use (and teach others to use) information-check tools in all the projects you are involved in.
What will I do?
I know the power of Instagram and Facebook for personal for businesses matters, and maybe I will (reluctantly) keep the use of my business Instagram and Facebook accounts. However, apart from trying as much as possible to follow the suggestions above, I do intend to reduce (even more) my participation in those platforms through my personal account. I am not mentioning WhatsApp here because it I reckon belongs with another class of Apps, given the level of cryptography involved.
Anyway, we should all do something. Otherwise, very shortly we will be selling 'credibility' as a commodified asset or differential as in, ‘Do our courses because we always tell the truth’.
Just too sad.
References:
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger Publishers
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hobsbawm, E. (1994). The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. London: Michael Joseph
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Apps and tools (free and paid):
Bình luận