Discerning Truth in a Digital World: Critical Thinking, Faith, and Fact-Checking

Discerning Truth in a Digital World: Critical Thinking, Faith, and Fact-Checking

Augustin Tchamba

Adventist University of Africa, Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000402

Received: 10 August 2025; Accepted: 18 August 2025; Published: 13 September 2025

INTRODUCTION

In an age where communication is virtual, truth has become a problem. The internet has changed how production, dissemination, and access to information happen so that more individuals can speak than ever before.[1] However, this democratization of information has brought significant challenges. The volume of information and the speed with which disinformation and misinformation travel have made it difficult to distinguish facts from fiction. Social media sites, news websites, and narratives are crafted to confuse the line between realities, allowing manipulation. Citizens, therefore, struggle to recognize credible sources, which fosters additional public distrust and disillusionment in the public sphere. During the pandemic, various false claims circulated, including that drinking bleach could cure or prevent COVID-19 or that vaccines contained microchips for tracking. These statements not only misled the public but also posed significant health risks. Critics argue that critical thinking is often not as objective as it seems. Individual biases and personal experiences can color one’s interpretation of information.

To navigate this more complex world, there is a need to adopt a framework that integrates critical thinking, fact-checking, and religious ethical guidelines. Critical thinking enables one to deal with information non-biasedly, identify biases, and achieve credibility.[2] Fact-checking is a system of avoiding misinformation through verifiable proof from reliable sources. Schools and universities can redesign curricula to include modules on critical thinking, media literacy, and ethics as core subjects. This would teach students how to analyze sources, evaluate arguments, and identify biases. To several individuals, faith remains a source of ethical guidelines governing ethical decision-making where the unknown dominates.[3] In the current paper, we argued that the convergence of the three gives a holistic solution to the pursuit of truth in the digital age. Due to their role in facilitating reflexive consumption, responsibility, and ethical thinking, individuals and collectives are better positioned to guide the machinations of modern information systems. In today’s digital landscape, where misinformation abounds and the lines between fact and fiction blur, it is imperative that we take proactive steps to safeguard the truth. Integrating critical thinking, fact-checking, and ethical guidelines is not just a theoretical framework but a necessary practice in our daily lives.

Keywords: Truth, Critical thinking, Faith, Fact-checking, Misinformation

The Digital Landscape and Its Influence on Truth

The internet age has changed how individuals can access and perceive information. The rise of the internet and social media platforms has decentralized knowledge, allowing anyone with an internet connection to contribute to global discourse.[4] This has enabled individuals to voice their experiences, counter-dominant discourse, and acquire alternative understandings previously censored by the mainstream media. However, although the democratization of information has expanded the areas where knowledge-sharing can be done, it has also made it increasingly challenging to establish truth.[5] The volume of content generated by users and the speed of information have come together to generate new problems such as misinformation, disinformation, and algorithmic bias, all of which shape public opinion.

Among the most important developments in the online world is the prevalence of social media giants such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and TikTok. These platforms value interaction above all else, with much emphasis often being placed on content that provokes a strong emotional response over content that must be verifiable. Scholars have demonstrated that inaccurate information travels much faster than truth because individuals are more likely to share sensational or emotionally stimulating information without checking to see if the information is authentic.[6] For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation regarding treatments, vaccine safety, and the origin of the disease went viral. It confused the public and caused harm in certain instances.[7] This is the challenge of discerning accurate information from massive online data.

Algorithmic content curation is another aspect that dictates truth in the digital space. Google and social media news feeds utilize sophisticated algorithms to tailor content to an individual’s history, interests, and previous interactions.[8] While this makes the user experience more pertinent in making information more relevant, it also generates filter bubbles—environments where individuals are exposed only to opinions that reinforce their existing positions.[9] This application promotes confirmation bias, a psychological phenomenon where individuals favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, making it harder for them to open themselves to alternative perspectives and critically assess opposing convictions. The 2016 US presidential election is a classic case of the same, where algorithmic echo chambers bolstered political polarization by limiting exposure to other perspectives.[10]

Misinformation and disinformation thrive in such an environment, often blurring the line between truth and falsehood. Both fictional information is pervasive in political, health, and climate communication. For example, climate change denial narratives persist despite overwhelming scientific evidence, mainly because disinformation campaigns have been strategically used to sow doubt.[11] Similarly, false allegations of interference with the votes have destabilized democratic institutions across the globe, demonstrating the actual effect of online disinformation. These examples demonstrate that misinformation plays a significant function in influencing public opinion and actual occurrences.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has put an additional layer of complexity on establishing truth. AI-created content, including deepfake videos and text-based disinformation, has made it increasingly challenging to authenticate. Deepfake technology, a form of artificial intelligence employed to create realistic but completely artificial videos, has been used to impersonate public figures and propagate disinformation.[12] For instance, in 2019, there was a deepfake video of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, where he uttered words he never uttered. [13] Although the video was meant to demonstrate what could be done with AI, it exposed the possible threat posed by counterfeit news media in influencing public opinion. With AI technology getting more advanced, growing alarms over matters of trust and authenticity of digital communications are a testament to the urgent need for effective antidotes for rising issues.[14]

Despite these challenges, online media also offer portals for countering misinformation. Internet sites like fact-checking platforms Snopes, PolitiFact, and Reuters Fact Check attempt to check assertions and relay fact-based information to the public.[15] These platforms play a crucial role in verifying the accuracy of information and debunking falsehoods. Social media sites have also resorted to techniques like content moderation, warning labels, and partnerships with fact-checking institutions to counteract misinformation. These initiatives involve the identification and removal of false or misleading content, the labeling of potentially inaccurate information, and the promotion of fact-based content. All these initiatives aim to ensure transparency and credibility on the internet. However, they are also criticized by those who caution that moderation of the content would be tantamount to censorship and selective application of the law. Steering clear of the spread of harmful disinformation without freedom of speech is a delicate and controversial issue regarding internet regulation.

Critical Thinking in the Era of Information Overflow

The Importance of Critical Thinking in the Digital Age

Critical thinking is carefully analyzing information before believing it is true. It demands skepticism, reasonableness, and the ability for fallacy and bias recognition.[16] In our era, when information travels quicker than facts, critical thinking safeguards against misinformation. Studies discovered that human beings will more readily believe information that aligns with their past experience without scrutinizing it for the truth, a phenomenon called confirmation bias.[17] This has the consequence of entrenching misinformation and informing social and political polarization. Examples include the COVID-19 pandemic, in which the fiction surrounding miracle cures and vaccine hazards had been discredited, but still, people’s beliefs and fears were being stirred by the same.[18] These people who failed to use their thinking faculties critically had a greater tendency to propagate and act on the same misinformation, more likely with catastrophic consequences.

More than just a defense against deception, critical thinking is a catalyst for healthier public discourse. Engaging with different perspectives, questioning assumptions, and demanding evidence leads to a more enlightened society. Without critical thinking, debates can be hijacked by emotional reactions, leading to greater divisiveness and hostility. The prevalence of conspiracy theories, such as the denial of global warming or the belief in election fraud, underscores the far-reaching consequences of failing to critically evaluate information. However, by promoting critical thinking, we can foster a more constructive and respectful exchange of ideas.

Strategies for Enhancing Critical Thinking

It requires practice and work to build good critical thinking. One helpful technique is the exercise of lateral reading, which professional fact-checkers do to check facts. Rather than trusting the source providing the information, lateral reading checks with other sources whether something is true or not.[19] For instance, upon reading an inflammatory headline in a news report, a critical thinker would obtain news reports from credible sources like Reuters, the BBC, or The New York Times to check if the accusations are the same. This enables one to identify disinformation and see bias in reporting.

The second most important skill is sensitivity to logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are forms of error in reasoning that undermine arguments. The most common fallacies include the straw man fallacy, where an argument is misled to make it vulnerable to refutation,[20] and the appeal to emotion, where reason is de-emphasized and emotional manipulation is at the forefront. For example, political leaders employ fear-mongering as a strategy in elections and debates instead of building evidence-based arguments to influence public opinion.[21] Knowing the tricks informs people that emotion-based arguments, as opposed to rational arguments, are being used.

In addition, regular practice in the Socratic method of questioning to identify the validity of an argument can build analytical ability. For instance, if you were answered with a controversial statement, it would be good to have answered back with questions such as “What is evidence for that?” or “What else can explain it?” Such questions prompt thinking. Teachers at colleges using the Socratic Method make sure that students acquire the habit of questioning assumptions rather than believing anything.[22]

The Role of Critical Thinking in Social Participation

Critical thinking is called for in facilitating good social interaction in the age of highly mediated public opinion, with the internet contributing significantly to its formation. Online discussions are often dominated by outrage, misinformation, or ideological echo chambers, where individuals primarily engage with those who share their views.[23] This creates the vicious circle where disinformation gets reinforced day by day. Critical thinking halts the trend by enabling individuals to react to opposing views constructively. Critical thinkers do not dismiss opposing views but attempt to identify the underlying rationales, remaining open to better and more productive argumentation. One of the best examples of this trend is the growing polarization of social media discourse. Studies have shown that algorithmic suggestions for content reinforce users’ own beliefs, in most instances limiting them to exposure to alternative viewpoints.[24] Without critical thinking, individuals are more likely to accept unverified one-sided descriptions without checking their validity. Individuals can search for alternative views, read well-researched pieces, critically examine their biases, and contribute to a more informed and thoughtful public discourse. It supports a more robust exchange of ideas and reverses the polarizing effect of echo chambers. Critical thought is essential for navigating the complex information environment of today. It gives people the tools to think critically about the information they read or hear—to tell the difference between credible sources and the rest. By thinking critically, people can recognize biases in arguments, determine the validity of evidence, and notice logical fallacies that may affect perceptions of the truth. In an information-heavy society, critical thinking fosters a thoughtful relationship to information consumption. It gives people the ability to question the status quo, to look for evidence that supports the claims made upon them, and to think for themselves based on evidence rather than emotion or peer pressure. This leads to a better-informed public that can separate fact from fantasy in the din of misinformation. Furthermore, critical thinking fosters open-mindedness and flexibility. It promotes empathy and helps people see different sides and talk things out. This is particularly relevant in a time when different views frequently polarize. This isn’t just due to critical thinking movers and shakers; critically thinking can bring us together—it can help us better grasp and get to grips with what is going on in the world. And we know that the function of critical thinking extends beyond individual enlightenment, promoting a healthier public discourse and a more resilient society. In the face of such misinformation that corrupts our very conception of the world, being able to think critically will only become more crucial to making informed decisions and ethically engaging in a digital world.

Fact-Checking as a Tool for Truth Preservation

The Importance of Fact-Checking Organizations

Fact-check agencies play a crucial role in verifying claims and combating disinformation. Established fact-check agencies such as Snopes, PolitiFact, and Reuters Fact Check engage in checking information that has been disseminated extensively to verify it and release fact-oriented reports.[25] Fact-check agencies have stern approaches such as cross-checking sources, consulting subject matter experts, and cross-checking primary sources. For example, in crucial political occasions like elections, fact-checkers verify claims by political contestants to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. In the 2020 United States presidential elections, PolitiFact and other fact-check agencies debunked scores of claims on voter fraudulence, safety of vaccines, and economy-related claims to allow citizens to differentiate fact from political words.[26] Their work is essential in building an informed and discerning public.

In the same way, fact-checking has also been essential during public health crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, wrong information about the side effects of vaccines, the effectiveness of masks, and untested drugs spread rapidly.[27] Misleading or entirely fictional medical advice circulated through social media posts and popular videos, and this caused confusion and, at times, peril to lives. Fact-checking organizations teamed up with scientific organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to debunk myths and provide fact-checked information.[28] When COVID-19 was falsely reported to be cured by drinking bleach, fact-checkers moved in swiftly to disprove this dangerous misinformation before injuries could be caused. These institutions establish a norm by which we measure rigor in fact-checking and reporting. By following strong ethical standards, they encourage journalists and content producers to value the truth in their craft. Finally, the fact checking services have an important role in addressing the challenge of fighting misleading news and ensuring the quality of information in the public domain. Their reporting is both informative and educational to the public, and serves to buttress democracy by making certain that citizens may rely on what they hear and read.

The Influence of Fact-Checking on Journalistic Integrity and Public Trust

Fact-checking not only corrects the record but also builds journalistic credibility. Legacy news media have been adhering to verification conventions for decades, cross-checking information before going to press. However, with digital media, where news breaks in minutes, the pressure to publish has sometimes resulted in the dissemination of inaccuracies. Most reputable news sources have set up dedicated fact-checking units to verify accuracy and combat this. Reality Check on the BBC and Fact Checker on The Washington Post are good examples of fact-checking becoming a part of mainstream media reporting.[29]

Despite their important role, fact-checking initiatives are not without controversy. Critics often accuse them of bias, particularly when their findings contradict entrenched political or ideological narratives. When fact-checkers disprove claims about election fraud, climate change, or the safety of vaccines, for example, those who strongly believe such claims will perceive fact-checkers as politically motivated rather than neutral arbiters of truth. This is exacerbated by biased or unreliable fact-checking sites that fact-check selectively to advance some agendas. Therefore, some of the public has grown suspicious of fact-checking efforts as a media manipulation tool rather than an authoritative barrier against misinformation. This points to the challenge of providing credibility and public trust in an increasingly polarized information sphere.

Case Studies Illustrating the Effectiveness of Fact-Checking

Despite the challenges, fact-checking has proven to be a powerful tool in several real-world scenarios. One such example is its impact on election misinformation. In the lead-up to the United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum in 2016, inaccurate claims about the economic benefits of leaving the European Union, such as the widely circulated suggestion that the UK would save £350 million per week, were fact-checked by organizations like Full Fact. The evidence revealed that these claims were misleading.[30] While the correction could not wholly halt the spread of misinformation, it did equip the public with the correct information, empowering them to make informed decisions.

Another example involves the fight against climate change misinformation. For decades, fossil fuel companies and interest groups have spread doubt about the scientific consensus on global warming. Fact-checking websites have tried to counter such misinformation by debunking flawed arguments, highlighting scientific research, and exposing deceptive tactics used by companies to downplay environmental concerns.[31] This has helped move public outrage and policymaking debate to fact-based solutions.

Social networking sites have even begun adopting fact-checking initiatives to prevent misinformation from spreading. Facebook, for instance, works with independent fact-checking institutions to examine and downgrade false content.[32] Deceptive posts are labeled as such and thus disappear from users’ timelines. Though the move has been met with opposition from other users who maintain it is aimed at stifling free speech, research shows that labeling misinformation reduces its spread by limiting engagement with false narratives.

The Role of Faith in Discerning Truth

Amidst the deluge of information and the pervasiveness of inaccuracies, faith emerges as a stabilizing force, empowering individuals to discern what reality truly is. While critical thinking and fact-checking provide intellectual avenues for acquiring information, faith, often associated with religious belief, also instills trust in fundamental values such as honesty, integrity, and justice. This trust in turn acts as a stabilizing force in a digital landscape where truth is frequently challenged and manipulated, providing a sense of confidence and security.

Religion plays a fundamental role in discerning truth by providing moral judgment when information is rendered ambiguous or altered for political or commercial purposes.[33] In a world that is poorly informed, ethical decision-making is necessary. The majority of religions highlight truth and the pursuit of truth. For example, in Christianity, the Bible says, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32),[34] highlighting not only that truth is desirable but also liberating. Likewise, in Islam, the Quran declares truthfulness a trait of righteousness and recommends that believers ascertain facts before relaying them (Quran 49:6).[35] Christianity and Islam account for about 55 % of the world population. These lessons hold one accountable for their actions and words. Thus, they are not part of propagating lies but uphold integrity and honesty.

Faith also offers a roadmap for dealing with uncertainty, particularly where empirical data is incomplete or evolving. Issues such as artificial intelligence, medical ethics, and climate change involve complicated scientific facts that could be difficult to translate to the layperson. Crucially as scientific investigation is, faith offers an interface by extending a differential vision regarding values like responsibility, compassion, and humanity’s long-term welfare. This double approach lets one weigh empirical facts against moral and ethical principles, leading to a more informed appreciation of complicated matters.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, religious leaders largely contributed to countering misinformation by urging followers to apply science alongside moral imperative.[36] Religious denominations showed that religious instruction could be balanced with evidence-based decision-making through vaccine endorsement, promoting safe health practices, and emphasis on shielding vulnerable groups. This synthesis of religion and science not only aided in fighting the dissemination of false information but also reinforced the belief that empirical truths and moral teachings could unite in successfully tackling public health issues.

Religion not only guides personal judgment but also instills a sense of social responsibility in seeking the truth. Religious and faith communities serve as platforms for debating ethical issues, social justice, and moral values, inspiring individuals to combat misinformation and uphold truth. For instance, religious relief agencies, by preferring factual documentation of crises, inspire others to advocate for truth and transparency in their actions. The fight against human trafficking, poverty, and institutionalized oppression, largely championed through religious efforts, serves as a testament to the inspiring role of religion in promoting social responsibility.

However, the quest for truth through religion also has its own set of challenges. Religious beliefs and doctrines have sometimes been used to spread misinformation or rationalize ideological extremism. There are numerous examples throughout history where religious discourse has been co-opted to spread untruths or suppress opposing viewpoints. A notable example is the Galileo Affair in the 17th century, when Galileo Galilei’s endorsement of the heliocentric model posited that the Earth orbits the Sun was fiercely opposed by the Catholic Church.[37] This highlights the importance of a balanced strategy reconciling faith with reflective and reason-based criticism. Religion must never be employed as an excuse to dismiss scientific evidence or unthinkingly obey authority. Instead, it should move individuals to pursue wisdom in humility and discernment, encouraging an open-minded and reflective reaction to empirical and spiritual realities.Top of Form Bottom of Form

Social Engagement and Its Impact on Truth Perception

Social interaction has a powerful impact on how individuals view truth. In this age of electronic communication, people no longer merely take information; they are passive consumers and active participants through channels like debates, opinion exchange, and public narrative construction. Although more of such interactivity results in heightened sensitization to problems, it has problems because truth is preyed upon by ideological slant, group pressure, and emotional exchanges. How individuals interact with their communities online and offline directly affects what they perceive as truth.

One of the strongest influences on how people perceive truth is the phenomenon of online communities and echo chambers. Echo chambers are virtual spaces, often on social media, where individuals interact with people who share similar views, further entrenching shared values.[38] While it might grant room for reasonable debate, it might cause polarization. If someone is exposed to news every day that aligns with what one already holds to be true, then they are less likely to question its truthfulness. Research has found that individuals will be more likely to believe and spread lies if these validate their prejudice, a factor referred to as confirmation bias. For instance, during political campaign periods, misinformation is propagated by party-related groups, and people consume fabricated news without reservation just because it is a reflection of their thoughts.

Aside from echo chambers, viral and online campaigns also shape beliefs about truth. Social movements such as #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and climate activism have used the internet and online media to raise awareness and engage people in action.[39] While these movements have successfully brought about social change, they have also been vulnerable to misinformation. Misleading statistics, made-up tales, and out-of-context pictures have sometimes been employed to advance a cause, demonstrating how activism—successful as it has been—sometimes entails fact manipulation. This implies the need for fact-checking before release, and that social cause activity should be truth-based. For instance, the # MeToo movement, while successful in raising awareness about sexual harassment and assault, has also been criticized for spreading unverified or misleading information about some individuals.

Furthermore, social interaction facilitates group search for truth if room is available for other than one opinion. In face-to-face interaction, people stand a better chance of being exposed to divergent opinions, and arguments get balanced. When in online communities where arguments escalate, people engage in the trading of lies in a bid to legitimize their stance. The presence of “cancel culture” also complicates matters since those who critique hegemonic discourse will be canceled, suppressing free speech. Cancel culture refers to the practice of withdrawing support from public figures or companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. In response, there is a requirement to develop respectful speech and observance of evidence-based communication in promoting truth over social interaction.

Synthesizing Critical Thinking, Faith, and Fact-Checking

In an era where misinformation spreads rapidly, combining critical thinking, religion, and fact-checking is a holistic approach to determining facts. Each of the three serves a different purpose—critical thinking renders one capable of analytical skills to analyze information based on objectivity, fact-checking renders claims liable to be tested by fact, and religion serves as the moral compass while making moral choices. Integrating all three enables one to devise a better system of analyzing facts in a complex digital age.

For instance, at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, false information regarding treatments and vaccines was spread on a broad scale, spreading confusion and disbelief. Critical thinking allowed people to authenticate medical research, and fact-checking organizations worked day and night to eliminate unfounded data on untested medicines and overestimated side effects. During the same time frame, religious ethics promoted moral responsibility and compassion and emphasized that public health is important to preserve. Together, these actions form a coherent set of strategies for combating disinformation and shaping a more ethical and educated society.

The same applies in political discourse. Fact-checking agencies seek to verify what politicians utter so that citizens may access facts. Critical thinking makes people discredit rhetoric, learn about prejudice, and distinguish between fact and opinion. However, religion promotes honesty, fairness, and accountability in leadership. Only when these three foundations, reason, empirical fact, and moral principle, are blended will people be more responsibly involved in political rhetoric and not fall for fallacies.

CONCLUSION

In this digital age, the pursuit of truth is a complex journey that requires critical thinking, fact verification, and trust. The proliferation of misinformation, the algorithmic curation of social media content, and the rise of machine-generated information all pose significant challenges. However, critical thinking equips individuals with the intellectual tools to sensibly challenge assertions, and fact-checking agencies to play a crucial role in establishing the truth. Religion, on the other hand, provides a moral and ethical compass, guiding truth-seekers towards integrity and accountability. This three-legged stool not only helps vet credible sources, but it promotes a public conversation based on both truth and mutual comprehension.

The internet has revolutionized our interaction with information, potentially reinforcing bias and deepening polarization. However, by promoting critical thinking, referencing reliable fact-checking websites, and adhering to ethical codes, we can collectively navigate this challenging landscape. The prevalence of disinformation during national elections and international health crises underscores the importance of a unified, integrated approach to defend truth and promote accountability in the internet age.

It is imperative that future leaders, educators, and citizens prioritize digital literacy. This will enable people to consume information responsibly, promote ethical consumption, and foster nonpartisan discussions. If we incorporate these instruments into educational syllabuses and get people to think with it then we’ll be able to empower citizens without turning every one of them into a new ‘accredited journalist.’ By integrating moral values and rational inquiry, we can cultivate a society that upholds truth, facilitates informed decision-making, and encourages robust public discourse in the modern information era. In this age of misinformation, it’s more important than ever to work towards a more informed world. The truth, and truth’s pursuit, require a certain diligence, an intellectual honesty, a moral determination to create an environment in which truth will be more likely to be heard than ignored. By all means, we should do that, as a way to better understand the challenges and opportunities of the digital age and to build a more truthful and trustworthy public sphere.

REFERENCES

1. Baldwin, J. (2018). In digital we trust: Bitcoin discourse, digital currencies, and decentralized network fetishism. Palgrave Communications, 4(1). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0065-0.pdf
2. (n.d). John 8:32. https://biblehub.com/john/8-32.htm
3. Bliss, K., Morrison, J. S., & Larson, J. H. (2020). The risks of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy within the COVID-19 crisis. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Retrieved: February, 12, 2022. https://www.csis.org/analysis/risks-misinformation-and-vaccine-hesitancy-within-covid-19-crisis
4. Brodsky, J. E., Brooks, P. J., Scimeca, D., Todorova, R., Galati, P., Batson, M., … & Caulfield, M. (2021). Improving college students’ fact-checking strategies through lateral reading instruction in a general education civics course. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6, 1-18. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s41235-021-00291-4.pdf
5. Brooke, S. L. (2006). Using the Case Method to Teach Online Classes: Promoting Socratic Dialogue and Critical Thinking Skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 142-149. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068074.pdf
6. Caceres, M. M. F., Sosa, J. P., Lawrence, J. A., Sestacovschi, C., Tidd-Johnson, A., Rasool, M. H. U., … & Fernandez, J. P. (2022). The impact of misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS public health, 9(2), 262. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9114791/pdf/nihpp-rs4169007v1.pdf
7. Cook, J. (2019). Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. Handbook of research on deception, fake news, and misinformation online, 281-306. https://www.reteclima.it/wp-content/uploads/Cook_2019_climate_misinformation-1.pdf
8. Dahlgren, P. M. (2021). A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure. Nordicom Review, 42(1). https://intapi.sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/nor-2021-0002
9. Diaz Ruiz, C., & Nilsson, T. (2023). Disinformation and echo chambers: how disinformation circulates on social media through identity-driven controversies. Journal of public policy & marketing, 42(1), 18-35. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/07439156221103852
10. Diep, P. P. U. (2022). Check the checks: A comparison of fact-checking practices between newspapers and independent organizations in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). https://krex.k-state.edu/bitstream/handle/2097/42213/PhamPhuongUyenDiep2022.pdf?sequence=5
11. Elsayed, K. G., Lestari, A. A., & Brougham, F. A. (2023). Role of religion in shaping ethical and moral values among the youths in Athens, Greece. https://philpapers.org/archive/ELSROR.pdf
12. Eslami, M., Vaccaro, K., Lee, M. K., Elazari Bar On, A., Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2019, May). User attitudes towards algorithmic opacity and transparency in online reviewing platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3290605.3300724
13. (2025). How is Facebook addressing false information through independent fact-checkers? https://web.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536/?_rdc=1&_rdr
14. Fact, F. (2017). £ 350 million EU claim “a clear misuse of official statistics”. Full Fact, 19. https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/
15. Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. Contributions to education, No. 843. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College. https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
16. Graves, L., & Amazeen, M. (2019). Fact-checking as idea and practice in journalism. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a7450b2f-f5a7-4207-90e2-254ec5de14e2/files/m3da900b71ba84b74d67fbe8c65880f1a
17. Lee, S., Xiong, A., Seo, H., & Lee, D. (2023). “Fact-checking” fact checkers: A data-driven approach. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/lee_fact-checking_fact_checkers_20231026.pdf
18. Li, J., & Chang, X. (2023). Combating misinformation by sharing the truth: a study on the spread of fact-checks on social media. Information systems frontiers, 25(4), 1479-1493. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10796-022-10296-z.pdf
19. McKay, R., & Whitehouse, H. (2015). Religion and morality. Psychological bulletin, 141(2), 447. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4345965/
20. Mendy, L., Karlsson, M., & Lindvall, D. (2024). Counteracting climate denial: A systematic review. Public Understanding of Science, 33(4), 504-520. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09636625231223425
21. Metz, R., & O’Sullivan, D. (2019, June 11). A deepfake video of Mark Zuckerberg presents a new challenge for Facebook. CNN Business. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/11/tech/zuckerberg-deepfake/index.html
22. Mueller, A., Wood-Doughty, Z., Amir, S., Dredze, M., & Nobles, A. L. (2021). Demographic representation and collective storytelling in the me-too Twitter hashtag activism movement. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1-28. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3449181
23. Niu, L., Miraj, M., Chuntian, L., ur Rehman, R., & Shereen, S. (2024). Global coronavirus vaccination campaign: The role of religious workers in vaccine distribution, public mobilization and the eradication of nationalism. Work, 77(1), 3-21. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3233/WOR-230092
24. Peterson, E., Goel, S., & Iyengar, S. (2018). Echo chambers and partisan polarization: Evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign. Unpublished manuscript. https://5harad. com/papers/selecfive-exposure. pdf. https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Iyengar-Partisan_Selective_Exposure_Paper.pdf
25. Qayyum, A., Butt, M. A., Ali, H., Usman, M., Halabi, O., Al-Fuqaha, A., … & Qadir, J. (2024). Secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence-extended reality (AI-XR) for metaverses. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(7), 1-38. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3614426
26. (n.d). https://legacy.quran.com/49/6
27. Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking. https://www.smartcollegeplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Critical-Thinking.pdf
28. Shim, S. Y. (2011). Critical thinking on a logical fallacy. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstreams/7fcf4ada-1769-43e3-99bf-781df7cfc5cc/download
29. Skafle, I., Nordahl-Hansen, A., Quintana, D. S., Wynn, R., & Gabarron, E. (2022). Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on social media: rapid review. Journal of medical Internet research, 24(8), e37367. https://www.jmir.org/2022/8/e37367/
30. Statham, D. (n.d). The truth about the Galileo affair. https://creation.com/galileo-church
31. Swart, J. (2021). Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social media+ society, 7(2), 20563051211008828. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/20563051211008828
32. Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social media+ society, 6(1), 2056305120903408. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305120903408
33. Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2021). Addressing COVID-19 misinformation on social media preemptively and responsively. Emerging infectious diseases, 27(2), 396. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7853571/pdf/20-3139.pdf
34. Waldroff, K. (2020). Fear: A powerful motivator in elections. American Psychological Association URL: https://www. apa. Org/news/apa/2020/10/fear-motivator-elections. https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/fear-motivator-elections
35. Wang, L., & Fussell, S. R. (2020). More than a click: exploring college students’ decision-making processes in online news sharing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 4(GROUP), 1-20. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3375189
36. Weismueller, J., Gruner, R. L., Harrigan, P., Coussement, K., & Wang, S. (2024). Information sharing and political polarisation on social media: The role of falsehood and partisanship. Information Systems Journal, 34(3), 854-893. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/isj.12453
37. Westerwick, A., Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 343-364. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin-Johnson-19/publication/316803129_Confirmation_biases_in_selective_exposure_to_political_online_information_Source_bias_vs_content_bias/links/59e46d790f7e9b97fbf0586e/Confirmation-biases-in-selective-exposure-to-political-online-information-Source-bias-vs-content-bias.pdf
38. Youvan, D. C. (2024). AI-Driven Democratization of Academic Publishing: Leveraging Preprints for Equitable Knowledge Sharing. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas-Youvan/publication/384903742_AI-Driven_Democratization_of_Academic_Publishing_Leveraging_Preprints_for_Equitable_Knowledge_Sharing/links/670d8bf6fe22924808ada612/AI-Driven-Democratization-of-Academic-Publishing-Leveraging-Preprints-for-Equitable-Knowledge-Sharing.pdf
39. Yustisia, I. R., Priyanti, D. D., Mulachelah, N., Kasim, A., Wulandari, M. P., Oktaviani, F. H., … & Illahi, A. K. (2023). The Transformation of Digital Technology: Its Impact on Human Communication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376295682_The_Transformation_of_Digital_Technology_Its_Impact_on_Human_Communication
40. Yustisia, I. R., Priyanti, D. D., Mulachelah, N., Kasim, A., Wulandari, M. P., Oktaviani, F. H., … & Illahi, A. K. (2023). The Transformation of Digital Technology: Its Impact on Human Communication.
41. Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. Contributions to education, No. 843. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.
42. Elsayed, K. G., Lestari, A. A., & Brougham, F. A. (2023). Role of religion in shaping ethical and moral values among the youths in Athens, Greece.
43. Baldwin, J. (2018). In digital we trust: Bitcoin discourse, digital currencies, and decentralized network fetishism. Palgrave Communications, 4(1).
44. Youvan, D. C. (2024). AI-Driven Democratization of Academic Publishing: Leveraging Preprints for Equitable Knowledge Sharing.
45. Weismueller, J., Gruner, R. L., Harrigan, P., Coussement, K., & Wang, S. (2024). Information sharing and political polarisation on social media: The role of falsehood and partisanship. Information Systems Journal, 34(3), 854-893.
46. Caceres, M. M. F., Sosa, J. P., Lawrence, J. A., Sestacovschi, C., Tidd-Johnson, A., Rasool, M. H. U., … & Fernandez, J. P. (2022). The impact of misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS public health, 9(2), 262.
47. Swart, J. (2021). Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social media+ society, 7(2), 20563051211008828.
48. Dahlgren, P. M. (2021). A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure. Nordicom Review, 42(1).
49. Peterson, E., Goel, S., & Iyengar, S. (2018). Echo chambers and partisan polarization: Evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign. Unpublished manuscript. https://5harad. com/papers/selecfive-exposure. pdf.
50. Mendy, L., Karlsson, M., & Lindvall, D. (2024). Counteracting climate denial: A systematic review. Public Understanding of Science, 33(4), 504-520.
51. Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social media+ society, 6(1), 2056305120903408.
52. Metz, R., & O’Sullivan, D. (2019, June 11). A deepfake video of Mark Zuckerberg presents a new challenge for Facebook. CNN Business.
53. Qayyum, A., Butt, M. A., Ali, H., Usman, M., Halabi, O., Al-Fuqaha, A., … & Qadir, J. (2024). Secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence-extended reality (AI-XR) for metaverses. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(7), 1-38.
54. Diep, P. P. U. (2022). Check the checks: A comparison of fact-checking practices between newspapers and independent organizations in the United States (Doctoral dissertation).
55. Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking.
56. Westerwick, A., Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 343-364.
57. Bliss, K., Morrison, J. S., & Larson, J. H. (2020). The risks of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy within the COVID-19 crisis. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Retrieved: February, 12, 2022.
58. Brodsky, J. E., Brooks, P. J., Scimeca, D., Todorova, R., Galati, P., Batson, M., … & Caulfield, M. (2021). Improving college students’ fact-checking strategies through lateral reading instruction in a general education civics course. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6, 1-18.
59. Shim, S. Y. (2011). Critical thinking on a logical fallacy.
60. Waldroff, K. (2020). Fear: A powerful motivator in elections. American Psychological Association URL: https://www. apa. org/news/apa/2020/10/fear-motivator-elections.
61. Brooke, S. L. (2006). Using the Case Method to Teach Online Classes: Promoting Socratic Dialogue and Critical Thinking Skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 142-149.
62. Diaz Ruiz, C., & Nilsson, T. (2023). Disinformation and echo chambers: how disinformation circulates on social media through identity-driven controversies. Journal of public policy & marketing, 42(1), 18-35.
63. Eslami, M., Vaccaro, K., Lee, M. K., Elazari Bar On, A., Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2019, May). User attitudes towards algorithmic opacity and transparency in online reviewing platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14).
64. Lee, S., Xiong, A., Seo, H., & Lee, D. (2023). “Fact-checking” fact checkers: A data-driven approach. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
65. Li, J., & Chang, X. (2023). Combating misinformation by sharing the truth: a study on the spread of fact-checks on social media. Information systems frontiers, 25(4), 1479-1493.
66. Skafle, I., Nordahl-Hansen, A., Quintana, D. S., Wynn, R., & Gabarron, E. (2022). Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on social media: rapid review. Journal of medical Internet research, 24(8), e37367.
67. Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2021). Addressing COVID-19 misinformation on social media preemptively and responsively. Emerging infectious diseases, 27(2), 396.
68. Graves, L., & Amazeen, M. (2019). Fact-checking as idea and practice in journalism.
69. Fact, F. (2017). £ 350 million EU claim “a clear misuse of official statistics”. Full Fact, 19.
70. Cook, J. (2019). Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. Handbook of research on deception, fake news, and misinformation online, 281-306.
71. Facebook. (2025). How is Facebook addressing false information through independent fact-checkers?
72. McKay, R., & Whitehouse, H. (2015). Religion and morality. Psychological bulletin, 141(2), 447.
73. BibleHub. (n.d). John 8:32.
74. Quran. (n.d). https://legacy.quran.com/49/6
75. Niu, L., Miraj, M., Chuntian, L., ur Rehman, R., & Shereen, S. (2024). Global coronavirus vaccination campaign: The role of religious workers in vaccine distribution, public mobilization and the eradication of nationalism. Work, 77(1), 3-21.
76. Statham, D. (n.d). The truth about the Galileo affair.
77. Wang, L., & Fussell, S. R. (2020). More than a click: exploring college students’ decision-making processes in online news sharing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 4(GROUP), 1-20.
78. Mueller, A., Wood-Doughty, Z., Amir, S., Dredze, M., & Nobles, A. L. (2021). Demographic representation and collective storytelling in the me too Twitter hashtag activism movement. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1-28.