Every morning, Hoang Van Ban, who was born in 1997 and lives in Hai Chau ward, does not really begin his day until his phone has delivered its first stream of updates. With a few taps, the screen fills with breaking news, trending stories, personal reflections, life hacks, and the latest social media crazes. A wildfire on the other side of the country, a policy debate in the National Assembly, a celebrity scandal, or a touching story about a street vendor in Da Nang can all arrive in the same endless feed, each accompanied by comments, reactions, and arguments from dozens of strangers. For Nguyen Khanh Thao Oanh, a 1997-born resident of Thanh Khe ward, social media has become a natural extension of her daily life, a place where she checks on friends, follows current affairs, and feels connected to a wider world. This convenience, however, has come with a quiet but persistent discomfort. As the news feed grows louder and more crowded, it becomes harder and harder to know what is real. The same platform that allows a young person to learn a new skill or discover a volunteer opportunity can also spread a manipulated video, a distorted quotation, or a cleverly designed rumor. The convenience of instant access no longer feels simple. It demands something in return: vigilance, patience, and the willingness to question what appears before our eyes. Social media has fundamentally changed how Gen Z receives information, and with that change has come an urgent need to think differently about truth, trust, and responsibility.
At the heart of the problem is not a shortage of information but an overwhelming surplus. Young people today no longer need to wait for the evening news or the morning newspaper. They can proactively search for updates, follow multiple sources, compare different viewpoints, and engage directly in conversations that were once reserved for journalists and experts. This is a remarkable shift, full of possibility. Digital platforms allow young people to join community initiatives, share their own experiences, and spread positive values. Yet the same feed that carries official announcements from state agencies and established news organizations also carries personal opinions, sensational posts, and unverified claims from unknown accounts. Eye-catching images, provocative headlines, and high engagement rates make the line between fact and speculation feel blurry. A video clip may be old but presented as new; a statement may be cut from its original context; a photo may be edited just enough to change its meaning. More troubling still, artificial intelligence has made it easier than ever to create realistic fake content. With the help of AI, someone can produce a convincing image of an event that never happened, a video of a person saying words they never spoke, or an audio recording of a voice that was never actually recorded. These tools are not inherently evil, and they bring many benefits, but when used carelessly or maliciously, they deepen the confusion already present in the online world. Hoang Van Ban believes that young people need to change their information consumption habits before they can protect themselves. He points out that simply opening a phone exposes a person to so much content that it is easy to be carried along by it. The more information there is, he says, the more clearly we see the need to be discerning in how we process it. For him, the first step is simple but not always easy: verify before believing, trace the source, compare with official agencies, and only then decide whether to comment or share.
Nguyen Khanh Thao Oanh identifies the biggest challenge not as a lack of information but as the simultaneous flood of so much content, not all of which is reliable. She warns that when something is attracting widespread attention, especially a story that stirs anger or excitement, it is all too easy to be swept along by the crowd and forget to ask the most basic question: is this actually true? Maintaining composure in such moments requires deliberate effort. She suggests that when encountering attention-grabbing content or conflicting opinions, users should take a step back, examine the source of the post, trace the initial information to its origin, and compare it with trustworthy sources. If the evidence is insufficient, the safest choice is to refrain from sharing. This may seem passive, but it is actually a powerful act of responsibility. Misinformation does not always begin with bad intentions. Some people share false content because they trust a friend or a family member. Others want to warn their community about a danger they have heard about but have not checked. Still others read only the headline and react emotionally without ever reading the body of the article. Whatever the motive, the result can be unpredictable and damaging. Once a piece of fake or misleading information begins to spread, corrections often lag far behind. The original post may be deleted, but screenshots, reposts, and reworded versions continue to circulate across multiple platforms. This is why Thao Oanh urges users to ask themselves a set of basic questions before engaging with unusual content: Who provided the information? Where did it come from originally? Can I find a reliable agency or official source to confirm it? Do the images and videos accurately reflect the time and place of the event? Who could be hurt if I share this? Until these questions can be answered honestly, the most sensible response is to pause. If misinformation has already been spread, users can respond by sharing verified facts or using the platform’s reporting tools. More importantly, online discussion must distinguish between constructive criticism and personal attacks, between well-founded feedback and emotional accusations. The internet gives young people a space to express their views and participate in public debate, but that right does not include the freedom to insult others, spread rumors, or expose someone’s private life. Protecting truth cannot be achieved through irresponsible speech.
Education has a crucial role to play in preparing young people for this complex digital environment. Vo Le Minh Anh, a teacher at Nguyen Van Thoai High School, observes that students today are not simply struggling to manage the volume of information; they are struggling to assess its quality and intent. The rapid development of artificial intelligence adds a new layer of difficulty, making it easier to create convincing fakes even as it offers useful learning tools. But she is careful to point out that AI is not the only source of misinformation. Older methods, such as manipulating images, quoting someone without context, reusing old footage, or deliberately twisting the meaning of an event, can still deceive people if they do not take the time to verify the source. This is why digital literacy education must be connected to real situations rather than abstract lessons. Students need to understand not only that false information exists, but why it is created, how it spreads, and what consequences it can bring. They need to practice tracing a claim back to its origin, comparing multiple sources, and recognizing when a story is designed to provoke an emotional reaction. Most of all, they need to develop independent thinking. This means not passively accepting everything they see, but also not automatically rejecting ideas that are unfamiliar or uncomfortable. It means being willing to change one’s mind when the evidence demands it. The role of the family is just as important. When parents take an interest in what their children are seeing online, talk openly about difficult subjects, and verify information together, they create a supportive environment for learning. Prohibition and blame, on the other hand, only push young people to hide their concerns and solve problems alone. If children are guided to ask their own questions and evaluate information critically, they gain the confidence to make independent choices. Meanwhile, mainstream journalism also carries a responsibility to provide accurate, timely, and clear information about matters of public concern. In an environment dominated by short, fast, emotionally charged posts, official news outlets must innovate to reach young audiences. Short articles, explanatory videos, infographics, and interactive digital formats can make trustworthy information more accessible. But innovation must never come at the cost of accuracy. The core values of journalism, reliability, verifiability, and accountability, remain the foundation on which all other efforts rest.
Young people themselves are not just recipients of information; they can also become a powerful force for spreading positive content. In Da Nang, this generation has a unique opportunity to shape how the city is perceived online. They can introduce the beauty of the city’s landscapes, the warmth of its people, the richness of its cultural traditions, and the energy of its community activities. They can share their own experiences, support local initiatives, and connect those in need with resources and volunteers. Content built on real life, clear facts, and responsible presentation has the dual effect of inspiring others and helping the public see the city in a more positive light. But spreading good does not mean simply sharing emotionally engaging stories. Useful content must also be accurate, must respect the privacy of the people involved, and must avoid exploiting the suffering of others for likes and shares. When participating in community activities, young people should think carefully about how they use images and personal information, and about the potential impact that publicly sharing a story may have on those at the center of it. This is not a call for caution to the point of silence. It is a call for thoughtfulness. Sharing a reliable source, correcting a friend’s mistaken belief, using the reporting function when encountering dangerous content, and refusing to amplify unverified claims are all actions that contribute to a healthier digital environment. The online space will not become trustworthy simply because authorities crack down on fake news. It will become trustworthy when each user takes responsibility for their own habits of consumption and sharing. Waiting for others to fix the problem is not enough. Every view, every like, every comment, and every share is a decision. Those decisions, made many times each day, together shape the quality of the public conversation.
Gen Z is growing up in an era of almost limitless connectivity, an era in which information travels faster than thought and distance seems to have disappeared. Yet being connected is not the same as being informed, and having access to vast amounts of content is not the same as understanding the world. The greatest risk of our time is not that young people will lack information, but that they will drown in it without developing the tools to distinguish what matters from what merely grabs attention. What is needed now is not to stand apart from the flow, but to have the courage not to be swept away by it. That courage takes many forms: the courage to pause before sharing, to ask awkward questions, to admit that a story seems suspicious, to resist the pressure of public opinion, and to stand by the truth even when it is inconvenient. Discernment is a skill that grows with practice, and every confusing headline, every misleading video, and every emotionally charged post is an opportunity to exercise it. Responsibility is equally important. Knowing when to speak and when to stop, when to argue and when to withdraw, when to defend a cause and when to protect someone’s dignity, these choices reveal a person’s character more clearly than any number of followers. If everyone learned to verify before believing, to consider before sharing, and to respect the truth in every online action, the digital world would gradually become a place where knowledge is disseminated, positive values are nurtured, and communities are connected by understanding rather than misunderstanding. That is the promise hidden within the problem. For Hoang Van Ban, Nguyen Khanh Thao Oanh, Vo Le Minh Anh, and the many young people of Da Nang, the challenge is not simply to survive the age of information, but to shape it. The future of social media, and perhaps the future of public trust itself, depends on whether this generation chooses to be passive consumers or responsible citizens of the digital world.