In June of this year, a North American judge fined two lawyers for using false information obtained from an artificial intelligence application. Using unverified information was considered an “act of bad faith”.

We can draw three lessons from that story. First, users behave naively when they believe that the Internet provides reliable information. Second, when people do not analyze messages, they put themselves and others at risk. Third, failure to verify information is an act of bad faith. However, digital tools have arrived that, together with the Internet, are conquering all professional fields and everyday communication.

So, today the scenario is complex and thanks to the Internet, citizens are exposed to various media and messages; That is, they are surrounded by a sea of ​​digital tools, information of different quality, structure and degree of truth. In this sea of ​​options, true news, fake news, personal and social grievances, popular expressions or simply street commentary coexist. That’s how we end up getting tangled up.

Untangling is difficult, because communication on the web has tricks designed to ensnare the public. Thus, the speed of information, bright colors, the presence of emoticons, avatars and others attract the reader. This presents a challenge to societies that must teach their members to analyze messages, distinguish between sources and prioritize what has elements of seriousness and truthfulness.

The political digital scene also runs the risk of polarizing and manipulating opinions, as algorithms surround internet users with similar messages derived from search history. Thus, the paradox occurs that by browsing the open Internet we find information that suits our taste and interests, but by using it unverified we put ourselves in danger.

If the medium… is able to highlight its truthfulness and quality of information, it can become a reference…

Messages on the Internet are a mixture of information, misinformation and confusion. However, we will not always have judges verifying information and sanctioning bad intent. Nor can digital media censor or demand correction as traditional media does, where the source of information is verified and there is a name that is responsible for the information provided.

One option for this scenario is a public warning. As is done today with food traffic lights that warn the user about the amount of fat, salt and sugar. Likewise, it is necessary to make a traffic light of the informativeness of the website that shows the degree of precision, completeness and responsibility of the information, in order to protect companies from anonymous and suspicious messages.

The current scenario is ideal for traditional media to show their value and become a place of trust for the population. If the media is able to highlight its truthfulness and informativeness, even in a scenario of confusion, it can become a reference for citizens. (OR)