Rhonda Fitzgerald-Hunter

Communications, Marketing & Creative Works

Tag: Information Literacy

  • Who Benefits From My Anger?

    Who Benefits From My Anger?

    How Media Literacy Changed the Way I See the Culture War

    There is something uncomfortable about admitting you were wrong.

    It is much easier to tell a story in which we were always the informed ones. We saw through the propaganda. We recognized the manipulation. Other people were gullible, but we knew better.

    That isn’t my story.

    I have fallen for political framing.

    And realizing that may have taught me more about media literacy than any textbook ever could.

    Years ago, I shared one of those memes that circulated constantly on social media: if people receive government assistance, they should have to pass a drug test.

    At the time, it sounded perfectly reasonable to me.

    If taxpayers are helping you, why should taxpayers subsidize a drug habit?

    Simple.

    Except eventually I started asking questions that the meme never asked me to consider.

    Why had I automatically associated someone receiving public assistance with drug use?

    How widespread was the problem?

    Would mandatory testing actually save taxpayers money after accounting for the cost of administering it?

    What happens to a family when a parent tests positive?

    What happens to the children?

    Most importantly, where had the image in my head of the irresponsible, drug-using welfare recipient come from?

    I realized I had been given a stereotype before I had been given evidence.

    My opinion changed.

    That experience should have taught me something immediately about political messaging.

    It didn’t.

    It took another culture-war issue before I really began understanding what was happening.

    When the Culture War Worked on Me

    I didn’t always follow politics closely.

    I voted. I had opinions. I paid attention to major events. But I wasn’t spending my time reading legislation, checking government databases, comparing headlines with primary sources or asking who funded a particular message.

    Then I started hearing something over and over again.

    Transgender people were replacing women.

    Women were being erased.

    Women’s spaces were being invaded.

    The word “woman” was disappearing.

    And I’m going to admit something that people don’t always like admitting:

    It got to me.

    I’m a woman.

    I’m a mother.

    I’ve given birth. I’ve raised children. I’ve worked. I’ve taken care of a family and a home. I’ve lived more than five decades experiencing the world as a woman.

    So when someone repeatedly tells you that something fundamental to your identity is being taken away, eventually an emotional response kicks in.

    What do you mean I’m being erased?

    What do you mean women are becoming obsolete?

    What are they taking away from us?

    Notice what had already happened.

    Before I had established that something was actually being taken from me, I felt threatened by its loss.

    That’s powerful messaging.

    Then eventually I stopped reacting long enough to ask an embarrassingly simple question:

    How, exactly, can another person’s existence erase me?

    I’m still here.

    I’m still a woman.

    My identity didn’t disappear.

    My experiences didn’t disappear.

    My history didn’t disappear.

    My family didn’t disappear.

    My accomplishments didn’t disappear.

    Someone else’s inclusion did not require my exclusion.

    If terminology on a form becomes more inclusive, I don’t suddenly cease being a mother.

    If another person identifies as a woman, I don’t become less of one.

    Nothing has actually been removed from me.

    And once I started thinking about it that way, the entire framing began falling apart.

    Then I Remembered Erin Brockovich

    Recently, another piece clicked into place from somewhere I wasn’t expecting.

    I thought about the movie Erin Brockovich.

    There is a scene involving a woman whose health has been devastated after living in the area affected by contaminated groundwater. She has undergone a hysterectomy and is dealing with breast cancer. She talks about feeling as though losing parts of her body traditionally associated with femininity has made her less of a woman.

    Erin reassures her, in that wonderfully blunt way the character does, that those things don’t determine her value as a woman.

    And suddenly I thought:

    There it is.

    What actually makes someone a woman?

    If a woman has a hysterectomy, is she less of a woman?

    If she undergoes a mastectomy, is she less of a woman?

    If she cannot have children?

    If she chooses never to have children?

    If she has gone through menopause?

    If she never breastfeeds?

    Of course not.

    We would never tell a woman recovering from cancer that losing her breasts diminished her womanhood.

    We wouldn’t tell a woman struggling with infertility that her inability to give birth makes her less female.

    So why had I allowed political messaging to convince me that recognizing another person’s identity could somehow diminish mine?

    My womanhood isn’t dependent upon somebody else’s exclusion.

    And then I noticed something else.

    We hear constantly about transgender women supposedly “erasing women.”

    But transgender men exist too.

    Where is the equivalent national panic about transgender men “erasing men”?

    Where are the endless declarations that men are becoming obsolete?

    Where are men being told that another person’s identity has somehow taken their masculinity away?

    That discrepancy made me look even harder at the framing.

    Why was female erasure such an effective political message?

    Because it wasn’t merely talking about policy.

    It was talking about identity, fear and loss.

    Bathrooms, Sports and the Creation of Threat

    Then came bathrooms.

    The messaging often wasn’t simply that there should be rules governing public facilities.

    It was much more emotionally charged.

    Women were in danger.

    Men were invading women’s bathrooms.

    Girls needed protection.

    But stop for a moment and visualize an ordinary women’s restroom.

    People walk in.

    They enter individual stalls.

    They close the doors.

    They use the bathroom.

    They wash their hands.

    They leave.

    The political imagery surrounding transgender people in bathrooms frequently bears very little resemblance to the mundane reality of people using a restroom.

    If someone assaults another person, spies on someone, exposes themselves, photographs someone without consent or engages in sexual misconduct, we already have a problem to address:

    the behavior.

    Being transgender itself isn’t evidence that someone intends to commit any of those acts.

    Sports deserve serious policy discussions too. Biological differences can matter in athletic competition, particularly after puberty. Different sports, ages and levels of competition can present different questions.

    Those are legitimate discussions.

    But legitimate questions about competitive classifications can quickly become something else when politicians turn a relatively small population into evidence of a civilization-level crisis.

    That is where I started asking another media-literacy question:

    How large is the problem compared with the amount of political attention being devoted to it?

    And then an even bigger question:

    What Does Any of This Have to Do With My Grocery Bill?

    That question changed everything for me.

    What does fighting about someone’s gender do to lower the price of groceries?

    What does it do about my healthcare premium?

    My prescription costs?

    Housing affordability?

    Wages?

    Jobs?

    Education?

    Infrastructure?

    Utility bills?

    Government fraud?

    The state budget?

    The federal deficit?

    I started looking at politicians telling me whom I should fear and asking:

    Okay. But what are you doing about the things government actually has enormous power to affect?

    That’s when I realized how useful a culture war can be politically.

    If I’m furious at my transgender neighbor, I might not be asking why my healthcare costs increased.

    If I’m terrified that someone is “erasing women,” I might not be asking who voted for a particular tax bill.

    If I’m convinced that another group of Americans represents an existential threat to my way of life, I might stop asking whether the politician promising to protect me has an economic plan at all.

    Culture-war politics can transform a performance question into an identity question.

    Instead of:

    Did you make my life better?

    the question becomes:

    Are you on my side against them?

    That’s an extraordinarily powerful substitution.

    Because a politician doesn’t necessarily have to solve my problems if that politician can keep me afraid of someone else.

    Give People an Enemy

    Once I recognized that pattern, I started seeing it everywhere.

    Find something people don’t completely understand.

    Make it frightening.

    Make it personal.

    Tell them something important is being taken away.

    Give them somebody to blame.

    Then tell them which political team will protect them.

    Immigrants are taking your jobs.

    Transgender people are taking women’s identities.

    Poor people are taking your tax dollars.

    Someone else’s religion is destroying yours.

    Someone else’s family is destroying your family.

    Someone else’s rights are somehow reducing yours.

    The specific target can change.

    The mechanism remains remarkably familiar.

    And that realization is what pushed me toward media literacy.

    Not because I suddenly became immune to propaganda.

    I’m not.

    Neither are you.

    None of us are.

    Media Literacy Isn’t Knowing Everything

    I think we sometimes misunderstand media literacy.

    It isn’t memorizing every statistic.

    It isn’t knowing every law.

    It isn’t having a degree.

    It isn’t watching the “correct” news channel.

    And it certainly isn’t believing that everyone on the other political team is brainwashed while everyone on ours is enlightened.

    Media literacy begins with learning to recognize when someone is pushing our emotional buttons.

    Now, when something makes me immediately angry or frightened, I try to ask questions before sharing it.

    What is the actual claim?

    What is the original source?

    Is the headline accurately describing the underlying information?

    What context is missing?

    How many people are actually affected?

    What does the legislation actually say?

    Who sponsored it?

    Who voted for it?

    Who voted against it?

    What problem is this proposed policy supposed to solve?

    How much will it cost?

    Who pays?

    What evidence suggests it will work?

    And perhaps the most important question:

    Who benefits from my anger?

    Because somebody often does.

    It’s Harder to Fear People You Actually Know

    I also recognize that my personal relationships probably helped me question some of this messaging.

    I have LGBTQ+ friends and family.

    They’re not an abstract political category to me.

    They’re people.

    People I know.

    People I care about.

    People who work.

    People who pay bills.

    People who worry about money.

    People who laugh, cry, fall in love, raise families, get irritated, buy groceries and complain about life’s everyday nonsense just like everyone else.

    It’s considerably harder to transform a group into a frightening stereotype when someone from that group has sat at your table.

    “The transgender agenda” can be made to sound terrifying because an abstraction can become whatever a political communicator needs it to become.

    An actual human being is harder to manipulate into a monster.

    And Then There’s Religion

    This evolution in my thinking eventually brought me to another culture-war issue:

    Religion in government.

    Let me be clear.

    I don’t care what religion you practice.

    Christianity.

    Judaism.

    Islam.

    Hinduism.

    Buddhism.

    Something else.

    Nothing at all.

    Believe deeply.

    Worship freely.

    Live according to your faith.

    That freedom is one of the things this country is supposed to protect.

    But religious freedom cannot mean that one person’s religious beliefs automatically become everybody else’s legal obligations.

    Your Bible can govern your life.

    It doesn’t automatically get to govern mine.

    A Christian has the right to practice Christianity.

    A Muslim has the right to practice Islam.

    A Jewish person has the right to practice Judaism.

    An atheist has the right to practice none of them.

    Government represents all of us.

    So when a politician proposes a law rooted in religious morality, I want something more than:

    “My faith says this is wrong.”

    You are entitled to that belief.

    But if you’re going to use government power to regulate everybody else, give the public a governmental justification that can stand independently of your theology.

    That’s part of living in a pluralistic society.

    We Hired Government to Govern

    This is ultimately where all of this brought me.

    I’m tired of politicians telling me who I’m supposed to hate.

    Tell me what you’re going to do.

    Tell me about healthcare.

    Tell me about housing.

    Tell me about education.

    Tell me about wages.

    Tell me about jobs.

    Tell me about infrastructure.

    Tell me about government fraud.

    Tell me about taxes.

    Tell me about public safety.

    Tell me about the economy.

    And don’t just give me another campaign promise.

    Tell me how.

    How much?

    Who pays?

    What legislation?

    What executive authority?

    What timeline?

    What happens if your plan doesn’t work?

    How will we measure success?

    That’s governing.

    “Be afraid of those people” isn’t governing.

    It’s marketing.

    I Fell for It Too

    Perhaps that’s the most important reason I’m writing this.

    I’m not writing from a pedestal.

    I’m writing as someone who remembers having that emotional reaction.

    They’re erasing women.

    And feeling something.

    I’m writing as someone who once shared the meme about drug testing people receiving public assistance.

    I’m writing as someone whose opinions have changed because I eventually stopped asking:

    “Does this message confirm what I already believe?”

    and started asking:

    “Can this message prove what it just made me feel?”

    There’s a huge difference.

    I will undoubtedly get things wrong again.

    I’ll probably believe something that turns out to be incomplete.

    I’ll probably share something someday and discover that important context was missing.

    That’s being human.

    The goal of media literacy isn’t perfection.

    The goal is developing enough intellectual humility to stop, investigate and change your mind when the evidence demands it.

    Changing your mind after learning more isn’t weakness.

    Admitting you were wrong isn’t weakness.

    Sometimes growth begins with the uncomfortable realization that somebody successfully pushed your emotional buttons.

    And sometimes the most important media-literacy question isn’t complicated at all.

    It’s simply:

    Wait. Why am I angry at these people in the first place?

    And right behind it should come one more:

    Who benefits from making sure I stay that way?

  • A LITTLE MEDIA LITERACY LESSON, COURTESY OF NEWSMAX

    A LITTLE MEDIA LITERACY LESSON, COURTESY OF NEWSMAX

    Yesterday and again today, Newsmax posted a story about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez having student-loan debt while choosing to freeze her eggs.

    And after reading hundreds of comments, I think the reaction to this story is far more interesting than the story itself.

    First, let’s talk about framing.

    Newsmax could have reported that a 36-year-old congresswoman publicly discussed freezing her eggs, something she says she spent years saving for, while talking about the realities women face when balancing careers, relationships, finances and fertility.

    Instead, the headline prominently juxtaposed two things: student-loan debt and an expensive fertility procedure.

    Why?

    Because putting those two facts next to each other invites the reader to make a judgment that the underlying facts don’t necessarily establish:

    She has debt, yet she’s spending money on this.

    And judging from the comment section, it worked beautifully.

    Suddenly people were claiming she doesn’t pay her student loans. That she’s waiting for taxpayers to pay them. That her wages should be garnished. That she’s financially irresponsible. That because she earns $174,000, she shouldn’t have debt at all.

    But where did those conclusions come from?

    Not from the mere existence of a student-loan balance.

    Having an outstanding loan does not mean someone is delinquent. A financial disclosure showing a balance doesn’t tell you the original amount borrowed, the interest rate, the repayment plan, the monthly payment, or how much principal and interest have already been paid.

    This is where media literacy matters.

    Ask yourself what the article actually established and what the framing encouraged you to assume.

    Then something even more revealing happened.

    The discussion stopped being about money.

    People began discussing whether she should reproduce. Whether her eggs were “fried.” Whether she waited too long. Whether anyone would want children with her. Her appearance. Her relationships. Her former job as a bartender.

    Think about that transition.

    We supposedly began with a story about student debt and personal spending, yet somehow hundreds of strangers ended up evaluating a woman’s fertility, desirability and worthiness to become a mother.

    That isn’t financial analysis.

    That’s misogyny.

    And more specifically, let’s talk about female misogyny, or what researchers generally call internalized misogyny.

    Some of the ugliest comments I read about this woman came from other women.

    Women mocking another woman’s fertility.

    Women reducing an accomplished elected representative with a bachelor’s degree in economics and international relations to “the bartender.”

    Women ridiculing another woman because she hasn’t had children on a timetable they consider acceptable.

    Women deciding that another woman’s reproductive choices somehow make her less intelligent, less respectable or less worthy.

    Being a woman does not make someone incapable of perpetuating misogyny.

    Women grow up in the same culture everyone else does. They can absorb the same stereotypes about what women are supposed to look like, when they’re supposed to marry, when they’re supposed to have children, how ambitious they’re allowed to be, and what makes a woman “valuable.” Research on internalized misogyny specifically examines how women can absorb sexist attitudes and direct contempt or disdain toward themselves and other women.

    And that’s what makes some of these comments worth examining.

    You don’t have to like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    You don’t have to agree with a single policy she supports.

    Criticize her votes. Challenge her economic arguments. Debate her policy proposals. Question her record. That’s politics.

    But when your political criticism becomes:

    She’s too old to have children.

    Nobody should reproduce with her.

    She’s just a bartender.

    Her eggs are fried.

    you’ve stopped discussing public policy.

    You’re policing a woman’s femininity, sexuality, fertility and social worth.

    And when women participate in that behavior against other women, we should be willing to call that out too.

    There’s another irony here.

    Americans constantly complain that politicians are wealthy, privileged and completely disconnected from ordinary people’s lives.

    Then a politician talks openly about having student debt, saving for years to afford something expensive, balancing a demanding career with personal goals, and making decisions about her future…

    and people ridicule her for being relatable to millions of Americans who do exactly those things.

    You cannot simultaneously demand politicians understand ordinary people’s financial lives and then shame one because her financial life doesn’t resemble that of a multimillionaire.

    So here’s my media-literacy challenge:

    The next time a headline makes you immediately angry, stop before commenting.

    Ask:

    What facts did the article actually establish?

    What did the headline merely imply?

    What information is missing?

    What assumptions am I filling in myself?

    And perhaps most importantly:

    Would I be making the same criticism if the person in the story were a man?

    Because sometimes the most revealing thing about a news story isn’t the story.

    It’s what the framing teaches the audience to talk about.

    Read NEWSMAX Article

  • Facebook memories will humble you. 😂

    Facebook memories will humble you. 😂

    This popped up from 14 years ago, and I sat here looking at it thinking about how much my thinking has changed.

    At the time, I had no problem with drug testing people who received public assistance. My reasoning was pretty simple: people get drug tested for jobs, so why shouldn’t someone receiving taxpayer-funded assistance be tested too?

    And no, I didn’t believe everyone receiving assistance was using drugs. It just seemed like a reasonable requirement.

    But here’s what I wasn’t asking:

    How much does all that drug testing cost taxpayers?

    How many recipients actually test positive?

    How much money are we supposedly saving after paying to administer an entire testing program?

    And most importantly, even if somebody IS struggling with drug addiction, when did that mean they no longer deserve to eat?

    That’s the part that hits me differently today.

    We’re talking about people receiving a relatively small amount of assistance to buy FOOD. Not cash for a vacation. Not some luxurious lifestyle. Food.

    Addiction doesn’t eliminate hunger. Poverty doesn’t eliminate someone’s humanity. And children certainly shouldn’t go hungry because of something their parent may or may not have done.

    What’s interesting to me about this memory isn’t that I suddenly became smarter sometime during the last 14 years. It’s that I learned to ask more questions.

    The meme gave me a very simple fairness argument:

    “If workers have to take drug tests, welfare recipients should too.”

    And I accepted the premise without examining everything underneath it.

    Who created that framing?

    What does the actual data say?

    What does the policy cost?

    Does it accomplish what we’re being told it accomplishes?

    Who benefits from convincing us that another struggling person is the problem?

    That’s what media literacy does. It doesn’t tell you what political opinion you’re supposed to have. It teaches you to stop accepting somebody else’s premise before you’ve examined it.

    Sometimes growth is being able to look at something you posted 14 years ago and say:

    I understand exactly why that argument made sense to me then. I also understand why it doesn’t anymore.

  • Social Media Doxxing: When Online Arguments Become Real-World Risks

    Social Media Doxxing: When Online Arguments Become Real-World Risks

    The internet has made it easier than ever to connect with people around the world. Unfortunately, it has also made it easier to target them.

    One of the most concerning trends in online culture is doxxing—the act of searching for and sharing someone’s personal information without their consent. While motivations vary, the goal is often the same: to intimidate, embarrass, punish, or silence someone.

    What begins as a disagreement on social media can quickly escalate into a search for personal details that have nothing to do with the original conversation.

    What Is Doxxing?

    Doxxing occurs when someone gathers and publicly shares private or identifying information about another person.

    This may include:

    • Full legal names
    • Home addresses
    • Phone numbers
    • Email addresses
    • Workplace information
    • Family member information
    • Financial details
    • Personal photographs
    • Court records or historical records

    Sometimes the information is published publicly. Other times it is sent to employers, family members, friends, or online communities in an attempt to create consequences for the targeted individual.

    Why People Doxx Others

    Contrary to popular belief, doxxing is rarely about public safety.

    More often, it is about power.

    When someone cannot win an argument, they may try to shift attention away from the discussion and onto the person making it.

    The goal becomes:

    “If I can’t defeat your argument, I will try to damage your reputation.”

    Political discussions, social issues, gaming communities, fandoms, and local community groups have all become common environments for this behavior.

    The Hidden Dangers

    Many people underestimate the risks associated with sharing personal information online.

    Once identifying information is released, it can spread rapidly across platforms and communities.

    Potential consequences include:

    • Harassment
    • Threats
    • Stalking
    • False reports
    • Employment issues
    • Emotional distress
    • Safety concerns for family members

    In extreme cases, doxxing has led to real-world confrontations and criminal investigations.

    What begins as an online dispute can quickly leave the digital world.

    Public Information vs. Ethical Behavior

    One of the most common defenses used by people who engage in doxxing is:

    “The information was already public.”

    While information may be publicly accessible, that does not automatically make it ethical to collect, compile, and distribute it for the purpose of targeting someone.

    There is a significant difference between information existing somewhere online and someone intentionally gathering it to intimidate another person.

    The question is not simply whether information is public.

    The question is how and why it is being used.

    Protecting Yourself Online

    No one can eliminate all risk, but there are steps that can reduce exposure:

    Review Privacy Settings

    Regularly audit social media accounts and limit the visibility of personal information.

    Remove Unnecessary Personal Details

    Avoid posting addresses, phone numbers, daily routines, or location-specific information.

    Separate Personal and Professional Identities

    When appropriate, consider maintaining separate accounts for personal and professional use.

    Monitor Your Digital Footprint

    Search for your own name periodically to understand what information is publicly visible.

    Document Incidents

    If someone begins collecting, sharing, or threatening to release personal information, save screenshots and records of all interactions.

    Disagreement Is Not a License

    Healthy societies depend on disagreement.

    People should be able to debate politics, discuss public issues, challenge ideas, and express opinions without fear that a stranger will attempt to expose their personal information.

    Doxxing represents a dangerous shift away from discussion and toward intimidation.

    The solution to speech we dislike is not harassment.

    The solution to disagreement is more discussion.

    Behind every profile is a real person with a family, a career, and a life beyond the screen. Respecting those boundaries is not just good digital citizenship—it is a basic principle of human decency.

    A disagreement should end when the conversation ends.

    It should never become a search warrant into someone else’s life.

    When Did Bullying Become a Political Strategy?

  • Social Media Stalking: When Curiosity Crosses the Line

    Social Media Stalking: When Curiosity Crosses the Line

    Most of us expect some level of visibility when we participate on social media. We know our comments can be seen, our profiles can be viewed, and our opinions can be challenged.

    What many people don’t expect is how quickly a disagreement can turn into a personal investigation.

    In today’s digital world, it takes only a few clicks for someone to move beyond a discussion and begin searching for information about the person behind the profile. A comment on a political post, a debate in a Facebook group, or a disagreement on a public page can sometimes lead strangers down a rabbit hole of online research.

    The goal isn’t always to learn more. Sometimes it’s to find something that can be used against someone.

    The Rise of Amateur Investigators

    Social media has created an environment where people can access more information than ever before. Public records, old news articles, archived websites, social media profiles, and search engines can reveal years of information in minutes.

    For some people, curiosity stops there.

    For others, it becomes an obsession.

    Instead of responding to an argument, they attempt to discredit the person making it. Rather than discussing facts, they search for personal information, employment details, family connections, past mistakes, or anything that can be used to shift attention away from the original conversation.

    The discussion changes from:

    “Is this statement true?”

    to:

    “Who is this person?”

    Why This Matters

    Social media stalking isn’t always illegal, but it can be invasive.

    Many people have experienced situations where strangers have:

    • Contacted family members
    • Contacted employers
    • Searched public records
    • Sent private messages referencing personal information
    • Dug up events from years or even decades ago

    Often, the purpose is intimidation.

    The message being sent is clear:

    “I know who you are.”

    Even when no direct threat is made, the behavior can make people feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or reluctant to participate in public conversations.

    Protecting Yourself Online

    While it is impossible to eliminate all risks, there are steps everyone can take to improve online safety:

    Review Privacy Settings

    Regularly check privacy settings on social media platforms. Limit who can see personal information, photos, friends lists, and contact information.

    Separate Personal and Professional Accounts

    Consider maintaining separate accounts for professional activities and personal interactions when possible.

    Be Mindful of Location Information

    Avoid posting real-time locations, home addresses, or details that could reveal your daily routine.

    Monitor Your Digital Footprint

    Search your own name periodically to see what information is publicly available. You may be surprised by what appears in search results.

    Document Harassment

    If someone crosses the line from curiosity into harassment, save screenshots and document interactions. Having a record can be valuable if behavior escalates.

    The Human Side of the Screen

    One of the most overlooked aspects of social media is that every profile belongs to a real person.

    People have histories, families, careers, successes, failures, and experiences that cannot be summarized by a single post, headline, or search result.

    Disagreements are part of healthy public discourse.

    Personal investigations are not.

    Before spending time digging into someone’s life, it is worth asking a simple question:

    “Would I want a stranger doing this to me?”

    The internet has made information easier to find than ever before. It has not made it any less important to respect personal boundaries.

    Digital citizenship is not just about what we post. It is also about how we treat the people behind the profiles.

    When Did Bullying Become a Political Strategy?

  • When Did Bullying Become a Political Strategy?

    When Did Bullying Become a Political Strategy?

    There was a time when most of us learned a simple lesson in elementary school:

    Don’t bully people.

    Don’t spread rumors.

    Don’t make fun of someone’s appearance.

    Don’t invent stories about people because you disagree with them.

    Yet somehow, once those same behaviors show up on social media, many adults suddenly forget everything they spent years teaching their children.

    Over the past few weeks, I’ve watched thousands of comments directed at public figures that would never be tolerated in a classroom, workplace, or neighborhood gathering. People mock appearances. They spread rumors without evidence. They repeat conspiracy theories as if repetition magically turns fiction into fact.

    The target changes depending on the day.

    Sometimes it’s a politician.

    Sometimes it’s a celebrity.

    Sometimes it’s an activist.

    Sometimes it’s an ordinary citizen who suddenly finds themselves at the center of an online pile-on.

    The behavior remains the same.

    What concerns me most is not the original comment. Every generation has had people willing to say outrageous things for attention. What concerns me is the crowd that follows.

    A rumor is posted.

    Hundreds repeat it.

    Thousands amplify it.

    Eventually, people stop asking whether it’s true and begin treating it as common knowledge simply because they’ve heard it so many times.

    Psychologists call this the “illusory truth effect.” The more often people hear a claim, the more likely they are to believe it, even when no evidence exists.

    Social media algorithms reward this behavior.

    Outrage drives engagement.

    Engagement drives visibility.

    Visibility drives advertising revenue.

    The result is a system where the most inflammatory content often receives the greatest reach.

    The consequences extend far beyond hurt feelings.

    False information damages reputations.

    Conspiracy theories erode trust.

    Constant hostility teaches younger generations that cruelty is an acceptable form of public discourse.

    Most alarming of all, it normalizes the idea that people we disagree with are somehow less deserving of dignity.

    We teach our children to verify information before repeating it.

    We teach them not to call people names.

    We teach them not to gang up on classmates.

    We teach them empathy.

    Why should those standards disappear when adults log into Facebook, X, TikTok, or any other platform?

    Disagreement is healthy.

    Debate is healthy.

    Criticism is healthy.

    Bullying is not.

    Spreading rumors is not.

    Dehumanizing people is not.

    If we expect better behavior from children, perhaps it’s time we start expecting it from ourselves.

    The internet doesn’t create character.

    It reveals it.

    And every comment we post tells the world exactly who we are.

    The Ethical Implications of Deepfake Technology: Navigating the Digital Dilemma

  • When the Public Stops Arguing and Starts Laughing

    When the Public Stops Arguing and Starts Laughing

    The moment a controversy becomes a meme, leaders have usually lost control of the narrative.

    People will tolerate mistakes.
    People will tolerate delays.
    People will even tolerate expensive failures.

    What they don’t tolerate well is being asked to ignore what they can see with their own eyes.

    When explanations feel disconnected from observable reality, public debate often shifts from criticism to satire. Instead of rebutting claims with detailed arguments, people begin responding with jokes, memes, and sarcasm.

    Humor becomes a form of public fact-checking.

    A leader facing a failed project can choose one of two paths:

    Accountability

    • Explain what happened.
    • Acknowledge mistakes.
    • Present evidence.
    • Outline corrective actions.

    Or:

    Deflection

    • Blame unnamed actors.
    • Suggest conspiracies.
    • Shift responsibility elsewhere.
    • Attack critics.

    The first approach may generate short-term criticism.

    The second often generates long-term ridicule.

    History shows that public trust is rarely destroyed by mistakes alone. It is damaged when people believe they are being given a story instead of an explanation.

    Once citizens begin asking whether the sun, clouds, algae, or hydrogen peroxide should be arrested, the discussion is no longer about the original incident.

    It is about credibility.

    And credibility, once lost, is far harder to repair than a reflecting pool.

  • The Reflecting Pool and the Reflection of Modern Media

    The Reflecting Pool and the Reflection of Modern Media

    Sometimes the most interesting story isn’t the event itself.

    It’s what people choose to believe about it.

    Over the past week, a simple maintenance problem at one of America’s most recognizable landmarks became something much larger. What began as reports of algae growth and peeling paint at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool quickly transformed into a full-blown online narrative war.

    Within hours, social media users were claiming sabotage.

    Some insisted activists had dumped chemicals into the water. Others claimed organized political groups were responsible. Posts spread rapidly, often accompanied by dramatic language, accusations, and certainty unsupported by evidence.

    At the same time, reporters from multiple news organizations were documenting something far less sensational: algae growth, peeling coating material, workers applying treatments to the water, and maintenance crews attempting to address the problem.

    The contrast was striking.

    One side of the internet was watching videos of people pulling large sheets of blue material from the pool and asking questions about construction quality, environmental conditions, and project management.

    The other side was constructing elaborate theories involving vandals, conspiracies, and political enemies.

    What happened next was even more interesting.

    The public began pushing back.

    Comment sections filled with questions that should have been asked from the beginning:

    Where is the evidence?

    Who was arrested?

    What chemicals were used?

    What proof exists that anyone intentionally damaged the pool?

    Why are we assuming sabotage before investigating ordinary explanations?

    Eventually, many conversations shifted from outrage to humor.

    The jokes became relentless.

    Photosynthesis was accused of being the real culprit.

    Algae became a suspect.

    Commenters joked that chemistry itself was being investigated.

    The humor revealed something important: people often recognize when a narrative is stretching beyond the available facts.

    The Reflecting Pool story illustrates a growing problem in modern media consumption. Too often, people begin with a conclusion and then search for evidence that supports it. Facts become secondary. Evidence becomes optional. Speculation becomes certainty.

    The result is a cycle where every event is immediately assigned a villain before anyone understands what actually happened.

    Sometimes vandalism is real.

    Sometimes corruption is real.

    Sometimes sabotage is real.

    But sometimes algae is simply algae.

    And sometimes a maintenance failure is just a maintenance failure.

    The lesson isn’t about a reflecting pool.

    It’s about how quickly stories evolve online and how easily assumptions can outrun evidence.

    In an era where information travels faster than facts, the most valuable question remains the simplest one:

    “What’s the evidence?”

  • The Ethical Implications of Deepfake Technology: Navigating the Digital Dilemma

    The Ethical Implications of Deepfake Technology: Navigating the Digital Dilemma

    Deepfake technology, which leverages artificial intelligence to create hyper-realistic yet fabricated video, audio, and images, presents significant ethical challenges. While the technology offers exciting possibilities for entertainment and creativity, it also has the potential for harm, particularly when used to spread misinformation, violate privacy, or undermine trust in media.

    Ethical Challenges

    The rise of deepfakes has raised alarm due to their ability to create convincing misinformation. These digitally manipulated videos can portray individuals, including politicians and public figures, saying or doing things they never did, which can easily be spread as “evidence” online, influencing public opinion. In the political arena, this could be weaponized to manipulate elections or sow discord in societies (Larry Jordan) (JIER).

    Another significant concern is the violation of privacy. With deepfake technology, anyone’s likeness can be replicated and used without their consent. This has led to the rise of non-consensual pornography, where deepfake images of individuals, primarily women, are superimposed onto explicit content, causing emotional distress and reputational damage. In addition to this, deepfakes have also been used in identity theft, where criminals impersonate individuals to carry out fraudulent activities (IndustryWired) (Larry Jordan)(JIER).

    Solutions and Policy Recommendations

    Addressing these ethical challenges requires a multi-faceted approach. First, public awareness is crucial. People must be educated on the risks of deepfakes and how to identify manipulated content. Technological solutions are also necessary, such as AI-driven detection systems that can identify deepfakes by analyzing inconsistencies in video and audio (IndustryWired).

    On the policy front, stronger legal frameworks are essential to combat the malicious use of deepfakes. Laws must penalize those who use deepfakes to deceive, defraud, or create harmful content, such as non-consensual pornographic material. Ethical standards for AI must also emphasize consent, transparency, and responsibility to prevent abuses of the technology (Larry Jordan) (IndustryWired).

    The ethical implications of deepfake technology underscore the importance of balancing innovation with accountability. As this powerful tool continues to evolve, it is crucial that society develops both the technological safeguards and legal measures needed to mitigate its potential harm.

    References

    Business Insider. (n.d.). What is a deepfake? Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/what-is-deepfake.

    CloudSEK. (n.d.) What are deep fakes: Understanding the Growing Threat in the Digital Age Retrieved from https://www.cloudsek.com/knowledge-base/what-are-deep-fakes-understanding-the-growing-threat-in-the-digital-age.

    IndustryWired. Retrieved from https://industrywired.com/ethics-of-deepfakes-wheretechnology-meets-moral-dilemmas/.

    Roose, K. (2023, February 7). How A.I. is being used to create the ultimate deepfake. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/technology/artificialintelligence-training-deepfake.htm.

  • Navigating Social Media: Engaging Nontraditional College Students

    Navigating Social Media: Engaging Nontraditional College Students

    In recent years, social media has become an essential tool for educational institutions seeking to connect with nontraditional college students – those who may be older, working full-time, or juggling family responsibilities while pursuing their education.  Understanding the types of social media platforms that resonate with this demographic, along with effective strategies and preferred hashtags, is vital for reaching and engaging these learners.

    Types of Social Media Platforms

    1. LinkedIn:  As a professional networking site, LinkedIn is particularly appealing to nontraditional students who are looking to advance their careers.  Colleges can use this platform to share career resources, job postings, and networking opportunities.
    2. X (Twitter):  While its user base tends to be younger, Twitter is effective for real-time updates and engaging in conversations around current trends in education.  Hashtags play a crucial role here for visibility.
    3. YouTube:  Video content is increasingly popular, and YouTube serves as a platform for tutorials, webinars, and testimonials from fellow nontraditional students.  This medium can help demystify the college experience.
    4. TikTok:  Although primarily associated with a younger audience, TikTok is gaining traction among various demographics, including nontraditional students.  Creative and informative short videos can effectively capture this audience’s attention.

    Effective Strategies for Engagement

    To effectively engage nontraditional college students on social media, educational institutions should consider the following strategies:

    1. Authenticity:  Share real stories and experiences from current nontraditional students.  Highlight their challenges and successes to create a sense of community.
    2. Supportive Content:  Provide resources specifically tailored to the needs of nontraditional students, such as time management tips, financial aid information, and study strategies.
    3. Interactive Posts:  Encourage engagement through polls, Q&A sessions, and discussions.  This fosters a sense of belonging and encourages participation.
    4. Consistency: Consistently post content to keep the audience informed and engaged.  A consistent presence helps build trust and familiarity

    Preferred Hashtags

    Using the right hashtags can significantly enhance the visibility of posts targeting nontraditional college students.  Here are some effective hashtags:

    • #NontraditionalStudents:  This hashtag specifically targets the demographic and connects them with relevant content.
    • #AdultLearners:  A fantastic way to reach older students returning to education.
    • #CollegeLife:  General, yet effective, this hashtag can attract a wide audience.
    • #StudentSuccess:  Showcase achievements and support resources.
    • #LifeLongLearning: Emphasizes the value of continuous education, appealing to nontraditional learners.

    Conclusion

    Social media is a powerful tool for engaging nontraditional college students.  By leveraging the right platforms, employing effective strategies, and utilizing targeted hashtags, educational institutions can create meaningful connections and support for this diverse group of learners.  As the landscape of higher education continues to evolve, understanding the preferences and needs of nontraditional students will be key to fostering an inclusive and supportive academic environment.

    By focusing on these strategies and insights, colleges can better serve nontraditional students, enhancing their educational experiences and outcomes in an increasingly digital world.

    References

    McFadden, C. (2020).  “Social Media’s Role in Higher Education,”  Journal of Educational Technology.

    Smith, A. (2019).  “Exploring Nontraditional Students’ Experiences.”  American Journal of Educational Research.

    Pew Research Center.  (2021).  “Social Media Use in 2021.”  Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org.