Critical thinking was demanding enough in times when we mostly dealt with real intelligence-or the lack thereof-as well as national media, local newspapers, and an internet in its infancy.
Researchers now believe it is nearly impossible to critically assess every message, actor, and agenda that appears daily in our feeds via digital platforms. The media landscape is too extensive and complex. This is especially true for children and young people, who are still working to acquire the knowledge and skills required for good source evaluation and media literacy.
Artificial intelligence has disrupted the equation, along with major global platforms and algorithms that we struggle to understand and navigate.
We Are Born Critical, but What Good Does It Do?
Basic intuitive abilities for critical thinking are naturally present within us from early childhood. This is according to Ingrid Lossius Falkum, a professor of linguistics and the philosophy of communication at the University of Oslo (UiO).
" For a long time it was believed that children are very gullible and trust everything said to them blindly. But research shows this is not the case. They are source-critical in quite advanced ways, even from the age of two," she explains.
According to the article 'To trust or not to trust? Children's social epistemology', published in 2010 by Fabrice Clement at the University of Lausanne, various experiments have shown that children possess cognitive filters. These enable them to evaluate statements and the person making them without being completely deceived. They are relatively good at rejecting claims and statements that contradict what they already perceive as true, provided the informant appears neutral.
What does this mean when facing today's complex media landscape, featuring artificial intelligence and content pushed at children and young people online and via social media?
"It is promising that even very young children have the ability and willingness to evaluate who they should trust most in different situations," says Falkum.
Marte Blikstad-Balas, a professor at the Faculty of Educational Sciences at UiO, agrees.
However, she does not subscribe to theories or views where children and young people are described as "digital natives" or "globally digital natives" in the sense that they are proficient at navigating source evaluation in today's global media culture.
The fact that the new generation of media users has entirely different media habits than older generations does not mean they automatically or intuitively acquire good source evaluation skills, she stresses.
Critical Media Literacy Is Essential
According to the Norwegian Media Authority, critical media literacy consists of the knowledge and skills we need to make good, informed choices about the media content we consume, share, and create.
Blikstad-Balas underscores that competence in how the media functions is vital when access to information is vast, yet much of it is incorrect or untrustworthy. This can include factual errors, rumors, scams, or politically motivated disinformation.
"My pulse quickens every time someone says that children and young people are digital natives. As far as I can see, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that generations of children gain high digital competence or increased understanding of digital media simply by being exposed to it. It is simply not true," she says.
They may become technically very proficient and understand how things work, but they lack deep competence, she believes. She also warns against confusing technical fearlessness with competence.
According to the 2026 report "Caught in the Feed" (Fanget i feeden) from the Norwegian Media Authority, it is not uncommon for adolescents to watch up to 40 videos per day on TikTok. Some watch several hundred in a single day.
"Critically assessing all the content flooding towards them online and on social media is a near-impossible task. I don't know if it's even possible. No one can be critical all the time; one can easily become passive and numb," Blikstad-Balas suggests.
According to the researcher, young people report finding it difficult to navigate all the information. Algorithms and content generated by AI or actors with widely differing agendas make it extremely challenging, a fact confirmed by the Media Authority's report.
"When we as researchers talk to children and young people about this, they often reply that it is important to be critical and not be influenced. But then we know they are influenced anyway," she says.
Texts Are Never Neutral
An article written by Linda Undrum at the University of South-Eastern Norway describes how pupils struggle to evaluate Instagram posts by influencers. The article shows that teenagers find it difficult to uncover the purpose of the texts and whose interests they serve.
Texts are never neutral; they express underlying attitudes, values, and ideologies. The developers of AI also have agendas, which can influence the texts AI produces. Some of us are nevertheless easily misled into believing that AI has intentions like people. But this is incorrect, says Lossius Falkum.
"Attributing intentions to those we communicate with is a completely natural human inclination. We attribute human characteristics to AI as well, unconsciously and often unintentionally," she explains.
In the 2024 article 'ChatGPT is bullshit', written by Hicks, Humphries, and Slater at the University of Glasgow, it is argued that large language models provide us with 'bullshit'. They argue that language models have no relationship with truth or falsehood; they do not attempt to provide true and correct information and then fail. Instead, language models deliver 'bullshit' in the form of content without intention or meaning, regardless of whether it happens to be correct or not.
"Evaluating content produced by AI requires a great deal of competence. This puts our source evaluation skills under intense pressure. Having to be constantly alert to the possibility of being misinformed is enormously resource-intensive cognitively" says Falkum.
However, she emphasizes that language models are fantastic tools, and it is beneficial if we find good ways to use them that also stimulate learning.
Law Professor Critical of Social Media Age Limits
The Norwegian Media Authority has recently argued that it is the responsibility of the authorities to establish clear frameworks for what is acceptable in services used by children. They recommend, among other things, reducing risk by restricting access.
The government wants a 16-year age limit for social media use, a move both Falkum and Blikstad-Balas welcome. However, the proposal has met criticism from several quarters, including from researchers.
One of these is Stian Øby Johansen, now a professor at the Faculty of Law at UiO. In October 2025, he submitted a personal consultation response regarding the proposed law on age limits for social media. He claims that the purpose of the proposed law-to protect children and young people from the harmful effects of use-is not suited to achieving that goal. He also argues that the bill conflicts with the freedom of expression and information for children, adults, and social media providers.
"We should rather implement measures that make children safe in the digital environment than exclude them from it."
Johansen further claims that, among other things, the E-Commerce Directive (which is part of the EEA Agreement) prohibits Norway from creating unique national regulations on how foreign companies offer information services across borders.
"My conclusion is that the proposal should be put in a drawer, the drawer locked, and the key thrown away," Johansen summarizes.
Sources
To Trust or not to Trust? Children's Social Epistemology
"FANGET I FEEDEN" | Medietilsynet
Høring av forslag til lov om aldersgrense for bruk av sosiale medier - regjeringen.no
