What occurs to trust when attention is prioritized over the truth?

      TL;DR: Social media hasn't caused anger or dishonesty, but it has created an efficient way to spread these feelings. With global trust in news at just 37% and AI making fake content harder to recognize, Booker Loud argues that the focus should shift from whether platforms affect us to what we allow them to highlight. He advocates for digital spaces that foster kindness, connection, and constructive debate. We have developed an internet where attention often outweighs truth, leading to a significant cost in trust.

      The rapid transformation of attention into a form of currency is alarming. Anger, dishonesty, division, and frustration existed long before the advent of smartphones; digital platforms merely facilitate their spread. Outrage drives engagement, creating echo chambers that reinforce existing frustrations, resulting in a bigger issue than just unpleasant online interactions—it leads to a crisis of trust.

      As determining the authenticity of online content becomes increasingly challenging, with AI generating convincing but misleading material, the Reuters Institute’s 2026 Digital News Report reveals that global news trust has plummeted to 37%. Meanwhile, trust in social media and AI-sourced news is even lower, at 22% and 20%, respectively, with 62% of global respondents expressing concern about discerning real content from fake.

      Such statistics are troubling and indicate that people might become so used to manipulation that they lose the ability to recognize what deserves their trust, creating a different kind of dilemma. If individuals start believing everything they see, misinformation proliferates. Conversely, if they become skeptical of all information, the truth’s value diminishes.

      A functional society requires reliable reference points to make informed decisions, engage with communities, hold institutions accountable, and comprehend differing viewpoints. Truth is fundamental to this foundation.

      Individual responsibility is critical here. Each person has the power to choose what to post, share, or verify before spreading information. These decisions carry consequences. Simultaneously, the platforms shape the environment for these choices; if a system consistently favors content that elicits strong emotional reactions, it directly influences what becomes prominent.

      According to the Reuters Institute, a majority in surveyed markets express concern about distinguishing truth from falsehood in online news, with this concern rising to 73% in the U.S. This presents the need for an off-ramp: people can disagree and express strong opinions without hostility, humiliation, or dishonesty and without branding others as enemies due to differing views.

      I've seen interactions that inspire hope. Notably, during Michael Jackson’s birthday, people worldwide celebrated his music and the humanitarian ideals associated with him. This shows that social media can also amplify positive stories, and we must choose to let kindness and connection spread just as outrage does.

      I am increasingly convinced that the future of social media hinges on the rewards we assign. If we prize outrage, we only encourage more of it. Conversely, we also have the choice to create environments where kindness, connection, cooperation, curiosity, and constructive disagreement can flourish.

      This is particularly crucial for children, who absorb social norms from the behaviors of adults. The U.S. Surgeon General has highlighted potential risks that social media poses to youth and called for action from technology companies, families, policymakers, researchers, and communities. This requires adults to confront challenging questions about the lessons they want to impart to their children regarding interaction, attention, and understanding.

      I often reflect on those searching online for validation from like-minded individuals, which creates a powerful cycle: frustration breeds validation, leading to amplification and reinforcement of divisive positions. A solution is imperative.

      Despite this, I remain hopeful because I believe in humanity's potential for improvement. We see it in post-disaster compassion, friendly gestures, job offers, and simple acts of kindness. These moments signify an enduring desire for connection.

      The debate now isn't whether social media influences us—it clearly does—but rather what we want it to amplify. We can develop digital spaces where truth is valued, disagreement has limits, kindness competes for attention, and connection is seen as a worthy goal. Ultimately, while technology plays a role, we are the ones shaping what it becomes.