What occurs to trust when focus takes precedence over honesty?

      TL;DR: Social media did not create anger or dishonesty, but it has provided a highly effective way to spread these instincts. With global trust in news at just 37% and AI making fake content harder to detect, Booker Loud emphasizes that the key issue is no longer whether platforms influence us, but rather what we choose to allow them to amplify. He advocates for digital environments where kindness, connection, and constructive disagreement can vie for attention. We have created an internet where attention often holds more value than truth, and this decision threatens to undermine trust.

      My concern is how quickly attention has evolved into a form of currency. Anger, dishonesty, division, and human frustration are not new; they existed long before the advent of smartphones. What digital platforms accomplish is an efficient means of spreading these negative instincts.

      Outrage generates engagement and thus spreads; sensationalism leads to clicks and gets repeated. Individuals can find communities that reinforce their frustrations, which can intensify their beliefs. This creates a problem that extends beyond unpleasant online experiences—it leads to a trust crisis.

      We're entering a time when discerning reality online is increasingly challenging. AI can craft convincing images, videos, and written content. Misleading clips can strip away crucial context, fabricated stories can mimic genuine reporting, and even real events can be obscured by commentary designed to provoke emotions.

      According to the Reuters Institute’s 2026 Digital News Report, global trust in the news has dropped to 37%, with trust in news via social media and AI chatbots at just 22% and 20%, respectively. Additionally, 62% of respondents globally are worried about distinguishing real content from fake.

      These statistics should raise concern among all of us. The risk is that we may reach a stage where people become so used to manipulation that they can no longer recognize what is worthy of their trust. This poses a different issue entirely.

      If individuals believe everything they encounter, false information proliferates. Conversely, if they come to doubt all they see, the value of truth diminishes. A well-functioning society relies on dependable reference points. We need to understand enough about our surroundings to make informed decisions, engage in our communities, hold institutions accountable, and comprehend differing viewpoints.

      Truth is foundational to this necessity. I advocate for individual accountability in this discussion. Each of us has the ability to make choices: we decide what to post, what to share, and whether to respond immediately or validate information before spreading it. These choices carry weight.

      Simultaneously, platforms shape the contexts for these decisions. If the systems distributing information predominantly reward content that elicits strong emotional reactions, they shape what becomes visible. The Reuters Institute reports that over half of respondents in its surveyed regions are anxious about differentiating real news from false; in the U.S., this concern reaches 73%.

      This is where I believe we need to create a healthier space for dialogue. People have the right to disagree, to hold strong opinions, and to express frustration. A thriving society requires room for dissent. However, disagreement need not breed hostility, humiliation, or dishonesty, nor should it lead us to vilify others simply due to differing perspectives.

      I've observed interactions that inspire hope. Recently, I witnessed a global celebration on social media in honor of Michael Jackson’s birthday, where people from various countries came together to recognize his music and the humanitarian ideals tied to his legacy.

      We should allow those uplifting stories more space to circulate. It serves as a reminder that social media can also amplify positivity. The question is whether we will choose to let kindness, connection, and hope spread as readily as we do outrage.

      I am increasingly convinced that the direction of social media will hinge on the choices we make regarding what we reward. If we promote outrage, we should anticipate an increase in it. If we prioritize attention above all else, individuals will chase attention at nearly any cost.

      We have an alternative. We can foster environments that allow kindness, connection, collaboration, curiosity, and constructive disagreement to flourish. This is especially crucial for the younger generation.

      Children learn social norms from the environments shaped by adults. The U.S. Surgeon General has cautioned that social media poses significant risks to youth and has called for collective action among tech companies, families, policymakers, researchers, and communities.

      This means adults must confront tough questions. Do I want my child to think that this is how people should treat each other? Do I want them to believe that the loudest voices deserve the most attention? Do I want them to prioritize winning arguments over understanding others?

      Our actions contribute to these answers. I think about this whenever I see individuals online seeking validation from those who echo their frustrations, leading to a powerful cycle: frustration breeds validation, which leads to amplification, further entrenching positions and deepening divisions.

      We need to find a path forward. I remain hopeful because I believe that, at heart, people want to do better. We see it in the aftermath of disasters, when strangers