Building Resilience Against Misinformation
In September 2025, after Charlie Kirk was killed, social media platforms saw a flood of misinformation. Users blamed left-wing conspirators and right-wing extremists often without evidence. Some were the result of uninformed speculation, while others were driven by malicious actors. For example, a user on X falsely accused a transgender woman from Seattle of being the perpetrator who killed Kirk. As a result she received hate-filled messages and death threats. The effects of misinformation extend beyond individuals too: misinformation amplifies broader divisions within society by making basic facts polarized. When misinformation mixes fact with fiction, people lose a shared foundation for engaging in the dialogue that makes democracy what it is.
There are generally two options for solving the problem of misinformation: restricting its creation or reducing its influence. The issue with restricting the creation of misinformation is that it raises questions about free speech and who gets to determine what information is permissible. All it would take is authorities changing what constitutes the “truth” to suppress legitimate speech. And so, fighting misinformation should prioritize minimizing the effects of misinformation instead. This requires a broader cultural shift over how people engage with information. There are three main ways this can be accomplished:
First, it’s important to create an environment where misinformation cannot take advantage of the audience. Today, people go back and forth between political content, entertainment, and breaking news in a matter of seconds on social media platforms. As users scroll, they can end up in a passive mode of consumption where they absorb content without actively evaluating it. Because they are used to this casual consumption, they may not switch into a more critical mindset when they encounter false or misleading claims. Platforms should implement regular notices to interrupt users' feeds reminding them that content can be misleading and encouraging users to verify extraordinary claims.
Second, platforms should make debunking more effective. Debunking is the process of identifying false or misleading information and explaining why it’s wrong. Debunks reinforce the first approach by reminding users that misinformation exists on the platform, so they should consume information cautiously. More importantly, they directly refute false information. When users encounter false or misleading claims, they can be corrected and are less likely to internalize the misinformation. Community notes, used on platforms such as X and Instagram, offer one strategy for debunking. Contributors can add context to posts, often citing evidence that readers can examine themselves. These notes provide counter-evidence to challenge the false claim and, at the very least, prompt users to be more skeptical of the original claim. In their current form, debunks are not widely employed, so their usage should be scaled up.
Third, society should invest in inoculation. Inoculation refers to educating people about common misinformation strategies, such as scapegoating or faulty reasoning. Inoculation would reduce belief in misinformation by changing how people respond to it. By better preparing people to recognize misinformation, its existence is less threatening since people are less likely to believe it. This could also encourage more effective debunking since an inoculated public would be better equipped to contribute to reliable community notes. One way to inoculate citizens is through schools. Primary and secondary schools should invest in curricula that help inoculate students against misinformation online. Students already learn about basic digital safety and this should be expanded to also explain how misinformation works. Additionally, there should be investment in public campaigns to teach and remind people about misinformation. These campaigns would equip people with the ability to interrogate information quality by explaining basic concepts like deepfakes or emotional manipulation.
These three methods aren't exhaustive, and they won’t make misinformation disappear or stop everyone from internalizing false information, but they represent a step in the right direction. By shifting the focus from the presence of misinformation to building resilience against it, society can better combat misinformation while protecting free speech and preserving a shared foundation for democratic dialogue.