Young people are perhaps one of the most vulnerable groups to disinformation. Due to the extensive amount of time younger generations spend on social platforms, they are disproportionately exposed to it. They also have less experience questioning and assessing information, while adolescence and early adulthood are periods when they are building strong identities and social networks, something that polarising content can target very effectively. But you know what? Young people may also be one of the most resilient groups when it comes to disinformation. They are digital natives fluent in memes and digital culture and they can spot manipulation from the inside. And, in the end, they are the ones who should be most concerned, because they are the ones who will live with the consequences of today’s information environment. But in all of this, when do we actually talk with young people? When does the conversation include us? 

Talking about us, without us 

As an early career IDM research associate, I have had the chance to attend workshops and conferences, in Austria and beyond, focusing on information resilience. I was there, in the room, listening to how we (understand here Gen Z and younger) can be both the problem and the solution. Don’t get me wrong, I do share this view, with nuances. However, it has always felt funny to be talked about and not talked with. A quick look around the room: young people are almost entirely absent.  

Recently, I attended a very interesting discussion about the digital space and disinformation. So interesting that I’ve been twice already: the first time last year as a student, when I had not yet graduated, and the second time this year as a young professional. Beyond being one of the few Gen Z representatives, it was again an opportunity to experience something highly telling: the coffee breaks. Yes, coffee breaks are about networking with new organisations, planning future cooperations and activities, and of course, resting between two sessions. But from a Gen Z perspective, they very often look like bubbles. At a very specific event, very specific experts talk about very specific things, or about the taste of the croissants from the buffet. Nothing wrong with that, except that participants keep on talking about the role of a whole generation without them.  

Reaching out 

And yet, if you are careful, you will see us: at the coffee machine, sitting in the conference room, at the registration desk, as part of the organising team. Surveying young people should not only happen through dedicated NGO activities, it should also be at those events where we meet because of a shared interest, despite different levels of expertise. I do not pretend that we, today’s youth, have all the answers, policy solutions and literacy recommendations; far from it. However, we have the lived experiences, the fears and the concerns. We can tell you how, for some of us, we do not see the problem with disinformation, how it impacts our life and why we should care. We can explain the trust issues we have when it comes to strategic communications. We can show you how handy technologies have become in our lives and how we feel that we are equipped enough to fact-check information.  

If you talk to us at those coffee breaks, we might all realise that the problem is not always a lack of knowledge. Sometimes the problem is the follow-up that didn’t happen or the trust that still needs to be built. Or sometimes it is simply that the information resilience community is speaking a language that does not feel like ours. Instead, through informal conversations, you could not only educate us, you could also see the extent of misconceptions and confidence bias we have, and better grasp our skills and resilience; our determination.   

That being said, it must be acknowledged that we are not an easy group to reach out to. At the IDM, a regional think tank based in Vienna, we also experience difficulties in mobilising young people, talking to them on social media and getting them to come to our events. As a Gen Z, I would guess that most young people do not feel like they belong at a think tank event, which they might assume to be for experts only, and not feel confident enough to enter the room. Or perhaps it is how the think tank community sells the event: are they appealing to an already-convinced audience, when young people may not yet know why they should even care about it? This is where we need to be more creative. 

Let’s meet in the conversation 

In the end, I am not trying to create a generational conflict or to say that the NGO community is doing everything wrong in this regard. On the contrary, I would only suggest a bit more spontaneity. Let’s start the conversation with young people where we are. Rather than waiting for a post to address young people, let’s meet in the comment section of viral posts where the conversation has already started. Rather than holding capacity-building sessions at schools – which may be logistically easier but will probably sound too much like, well, school – why not try reaching us at our extracurricular activities? Work with football trainers, dance teachers and art instructors to first teach how to fact-check the information that matters most on a personal level, before applying it to broader goals.  

Media literacy does not always have to begin with a presentation about media literacy. Let’s invite a panelist simply as a ‘young people’s representative’, no other label, no other expertise. Not because young people have a magical and unified perspective (we don’t). There is no single Gen Z opinion just as there is no single opinion among any other generation. But sometimes, the value of having a young person at the table is precisely that we can bring an experience that cannot be reduced to a professional title. And finally, let’s talk when we are in the same room, when we have all made the effort to be there in person.  

Ninon Bouteloup, IDM Research Associate.