Truth Be Told

One of the greatest thefts I've experienced in the last decade is the theft of trust -- trust in government, trust in leaders, trust in advertising, trust in institutions, trust in the internet. There have always been untrustworthy actors, but now they are legion and operating with impunity. It's almost expected.

Fast forward to last week. I shared a Facebook post from Occupy Democrats about Canada's establishment of a suicide prevention hotline to serve American LGBTQ+ youth whose access to specially trained workers on the US suicide hotline had been cut off by the Trump administration. I was seduced by the beautiful thought that the Canadian government would do that, despite our poor treatment of our neighbor to the north.

Within a few hours, several of my friends shared it on their FB walls. No telling how many people it spread to.

It's a beautiful concept. Why would it be false?

About 12 hours later, I saw a comment on my post from a friend, saying that Snopes.com had reviewed the meme and found it FALSE.

Sheesh!! I felt duped and ashamed that I fell for it -- as well as grateful to my friend for calling it to my attention. I immediately took down the post and posted Snopes' statement that it was false. Some of my friends did the same with their posts.

A few days prior, I had read Robert Capps' forward-looking piece in the NYT Magazine: "A.I. Might Take Your Job. Here Are 22 New Ones It Could Give You."

His central thesis was that yes, A.I. is being used increasingly for many tasks that humans had performed before -- sometimes, with better results. But A.I. is fallible, and there are some domains where the human touch is needed. He enumerated three categories: trust, integration, and taste.

In this essay, I'd like to focus on TRUST -- because that was my downfall in sharing that FB post without verifying it. Capps cites various tech experts noting that jobs such as "A.I. auditors" will be needed: "people who dig down into the A.I. to understand what it is doing and why and can then document it for technical, explanatory or liability purposes." He also discussed possible roles such as "trust authenticator," "trust director," and "A.I. ethicist."

What I had needed was something less exotic -- I just needed to do some fact-checking. Snopes is right there to do that job, but this human was too trusting and didn't check it out. Mea culpa.

I'm the first to admit that social media has certainly brought us some good things. But it has also brought us disinformation, misinformation, fake news, alternative facts, and bots and trolls that love to spread them.

Since I wanted to be sure of my facts in this essay, I googled "disinformation vs. misinformation", and Google's A.I. generated the following, in a few seconds: "While both misinformation and disinformation refer to false or inaccurate information, the crucial distinction lies in the intent behind their creation and spread."

Further:

"Misinformation: This is unintentionally false information. The person spreading it may believe it to be true and has no intent to deceive. It's simply "getting the facts wrong". For example, sharing a news story with a misleading headline because you weren't aware of a correction is an instance of misinformation.”

"Disinformation: This is deliberately false information, created and spread with the intent to mislead or deceive. It's a conscious effort to confuse fact and fiction, often with the aim of achieving a specific objective. Examples include fabricated news stories or political propaganda designed to manipulate public opinion. "

So what I did was an act of misinformation (spreading information believed to be true with no intent to deceive); whereas, the person or entity that created the original post was probably spreading disinformation (deliberately false information.) Why someone would spread information about that hotline remains a mystery to me and others.

Of course, we all know that we have to be more discerning consumers of social media information, and that our favorite platforms may be rife with both mis- and dis-information. How do we develop those skills?

Well, I saw another meme within the past week or so to the effect that Finland had developed a curriculum for teaching its children media literacy. Not wanting to spread any more misinformation, I first turned to a friend who checked Snopes, and then I checked it for more detail. It said, "I don't have enough information to answer that question. The Snopes Archives provided do not contain any specific information about Finland teaching social media literacy to children." That doesn't mean it's false; it just means that they don't have verified evidence on that topic.

My next stop was to ask Google A.I., which said, "Yes, Finland has integrated media literacy and digital citizenship, which include aspects of social media, into its national curriculum. This focus is part of a broader effort to equip students with the skills needed to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly, and more specifically: "Students are taught how to spot disinformation, debunk hoaxes, and critically evaluate the reliability of social media content. This includes learning how to analyze fake news and verify sources." Verification of this was through "Digital Literacy in Finnish Education: A Model for the World," which appeared on finlandeducationhub.com October 19, 2023. One could go down further rabbit holes, by asking whether finlandeducationhub.com is reputable. But for the moment, I won't do that.

My point is to highlight that we all (myself included) need to be better fact-checkers. It takes more time, but it's important. The more consequential the issue is, the more fact-checking is needed.

My mantra in my professional life was "trust, but verify." Times have changed, and now I think it needs to be "question everything, and verify." It's hard work, especially when we're just scrolling through a social media feed. For things that are really important to us, we should verify before acting on it or sharing it. But just think of all the many posts that we scroll past ... some of those posts probably make a subliminal impression that we don't register at the moment ... but perhaps days or weeks later, we might re-visit it, thinking it was true. It gets very complicated!

We need help with this -- perhaps a new generation of fact checkers and A.I. verifiers. Do you remember V.I.S.T.A. - Volunteers in Service to America? It was created in 1964 as a domestic counterpart to the Peace Corps. It has since been subsumed by AmeriCorps (as AmeriCorps VISTA). Its original purpose was to fight poverty by providing educational and career opportunities in exchange for service to the country. I suspect that combatting mis- and dis-information is outside its remit, but perhaps we could use some version of VISTA to provide service that might involve both fact checking as well as teaching social media literacy.

However, just at a time when innovative programming such as this could be useful, the government announced severe cuts to AmeriCorps and VISTA programs across the country. "Approximately 80% of all AmeriCorps State and National programs received notice of termination. Some states have had every AmeriCorps State program eliminated." (statecommissions.org 4-26-2025)

I am worried both about children who do not have the training or the cognitive ability to be discerning social media consumers, and also about seniors, who have entered the social media world with little formal introduction, perhaps being too trusting. I hate the commercials on daytime TV that appear to prey on the naivete of seniors -- for things like drugs, supplements, reverse mortgages, insurance policies that sound too good to be true. They always show "fine print," but it passes by way too fast for anyone to read it, even it they could read the tiny type.

credit: Substack AI

It looks like we could learn a few things from our neighbor, Finland. (a novel idea)

In closing, I would like to return to the issue that started this -- that "next month, the Trump administration will end specialized Support on the 988 National Suicide Hotline for Young LGBTQ callers, a group that has disproportionately high suicide rates." (John Yang, PBS News Weekend, 6/21/2025). Although the 988 National Suicide Hotline will remain, the administration said that the specialized service for LGBTQ youth was not needed and "was fostering gender ideology beliefs among young people and trying to convince young people of gender ideologies." Youth can still call that number, but they may not be connected to someone with specialized training about their needs. And the needs are significant.

"The Trevor Project estimates that more than 1.8 million LGBTQ+ young people (ages 13-24) seriously consider suicide each year in the U.S. — and at least one attempts suicide every 45 seconds." (from The Trevor Project website)

The specialized service has had over 1.3 million contacts since its inception, including calls, chats, and texts.

Clearly, there is a need for this specialized service. I am aware that the Trevor Project runs a toll-free 24/7 hotline at (866) 488-7386. Their website also says that callers can dial 988 (the National Suicide Hotline) to be connected to specific resources, including the Trevor Project. I do not know the impact of the federal action on its connection with the Trevor Project; that may be one of the features that will be eliminated. This situation appears to be somewhat in flux, so we will have to see how it shakes out. In the meantime, The Trevor Project seeks volunteers and donors, and congressional representatives need to know how their constituents feel.

The thought that our neighbor Canada stepped up to make its hotline available to US youth warmed my heart - I really wanted to believe it. Alas, wanting alone doesn't make it happen. The ad may have been misinformation, but its saying, “Kindness and empathy have no borders,” is truth.

PS: Since drafting this piece, more confusion has swirled about in the media regarding whether the Canadian government is stepping in to provide resources for LGBTQ youth in the US. The answer is no.

Here is a Google AI generated summary of the matter (6-24-25), which comports with an informative article from The Advocate (4-20-25) linked HERE.

No, Canada has not opened a national suicide hotline specifically for American LGBTQ+ youth, according to multiple fact-checking articles.

Here's what the information indicates:

• There were viral social media posts falsely claiming that the Canadian government created a hotline for American citizens due to proposed cuts to US LGBTQ+ youth crisis services.

• These claims were based on misinformation that circulated after reports about possible federal funding changes to the US 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

• The number circulating in these false claims (877-330-6366) is actually the Canadian number for Trans Lifeline, a peer-support service run by and for transgender people in both the US and Canada.

• Trans Lifeline is not affiliated with the Canadian government and is not a general crisis line equipped to support the broader public.

• Health Canada, the federal institution responsible for health in Canada, stated that their national suicide crisis helpline (9-8-8) does not serve the United States.

Important note: While the claim of a Canadian hotline for American LGBTQ+ youth is false, there are still resources available for LGBTQ+ youth in the US seeking crisis support. These include:

• The Trevor Project: Offers 24/7 crisis intervention and suicide prevention services for LGBTQ+ youth aged 13-24.

• Trans Lifeline: Provides peer-led support by and for transgender individuals.

• The LGBT National Hotline: Offers peer support and information.

• Crisis Text Line: Provides text-based support.

• 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: Remains reachable, although identity-specific services may be reduced.

• Rainbow Youth Project: Operates a national crisis line with counselors trained to address the mental health needs of LGBTQ+ youth.

I'd be very interested in your thoughts about mis- and dis-information, as well as any bloopers you'd like to confess (no judgments here; you're in good company.)