Fake news, social networks… “I don’t believe that the young generation is stupid”

A recent survey by Ifop shows that young people are increasingly deceived by hidden and fake news. How do you interpret these results?

I was worried about this research. I wanted to go further and realized that an Ipsos survey from the end of 2021 gave completely different results, showing that the majority of 18-24 year olds trust the researchers and are interested in the topics…

A recent survey by Ifop shows that young people are increasingly deceived by hidden and fake news. How do you interpret these results?

I was worried about this research. I wanted to go further and realized that the Ipsos survey from the end of 2021 gave completely different results, which showed that the majority of 18-24-year-olds trust researchers and are interested in science topics. Therefore, we should be very careful when interpreting these requests. The way the questions are asked is very important.

All of them are the same 17% who have the impression that science brings more harm than good to a person. This is 11% more than 50 years ago…

First of all, we should keep in mind that most of the time when people say “science” they think of “science and technology”. Then we see that young people from the lowest social class gave the most negative answers. For them, artificial intelligence, machines, etc. Such advances can be considered as a threat to employment. They may also feel that if they are not good at science, it will be more difficult for them to find a job.

This survey shows that social networks are an important source of information among young people. Should we be worried about this?

Considering the state of information spread on these social networks, we can really worry about it. There is no control except by peers and therefore majority opinion. Because an influencer is someone who tells people what they want to hear. On TikTok, information is shared because it is liked, not because it is true.

If in an authoritarian system, and we have observed this many times, this freedom of social networks has a value, then in our democratic countries, the negative side stands out.

Is there any solution?

There may be political answers, but not only. We need to implement educational measures so that the young generation, who will continue to use these social networks anyway, will know how information circulates, how it is produced, verified and unverified. He should learn the difference between a newspaper and a content producer. This is part of media education.

Is this media education enough?

Wish there was more of it. But because it’s not a discipline — and I’m not advocating that it be one — it’s still poorly integrated. That’s what worries me. Media literacy should not be limited to learning about TikTok and “fake news”. For me, the most important thing is to train young people to recognize the “good news”, to identify the right sources, to use the right information.

It is no longer enough for someone to tell them that the theory of evolution is true, they must be led to understand why it is true. What makes knowledge knowledge? What is the process, verification strategy? We should also explain to them how scientists, journalists and researchers work. This is the key to developing their critical thinking: you have to give them the necessary knowledge and willingness to question themselves.

Critical thinking comes naturally. No one likes to be deceived, it is an instinct, a reflex given to man during evolution.

Are young people less critical than they were fifty years ago?

Critical thinking comes naturally. No one likes to be deceived, it is an instinct, a reflex given to man during evolution. Research has shown that 3-year-olds can choose their sources when two adults give them conflicting information.

But if we have no less critical spirit than two generations ago, on the other hand, we need more knowledge to equip it, and this can get us into trouble. For example, scientific information comes to us from everywhere. It’s about vaccines, viruses, climate, biodiversity… If we don’t have a minimum of knowledge, it will be difficult to instinctively feel that one piece of information is more convincing than another.

And it goes further: the more we need to evaluate the information disseminated in the new media, the more we need to know about the activities of this media; the more science uses new methods, the more knowledge about these methods is necessary, and so on.

Will there be changes in our education system to foster this critical spirit?

Changes yes, but not radical. School already has the necessary ingredients, but we should think that one of its roles is to develop critical thinking.

This does not mean changing programs. But it means preparing teachers so that students in every subject, from kindergarten to university, have the necessary tools and knowledge and learn to use them in their daily lives. This is a subtle change, it won’t happen overnight. The good news is that we can rely on this natural motivation that we all have to want to seek the truth in order not to be deceived.

Do you trust the future?

It is obvious that. I don’t believe in progressive “dumbness” of new generations, their intelligence is there. And as we live through dramatic times, we witness the awakening of consciences. For example, among young people who are the first to act on the climate, but also among the older generation who understand the importance of educating their children to better understand the world around them.