Children are not naturally distrustful of the world — it is critical thinking that helps them spot fakes and manipulation. They often pick things up faster than adults, but at a young age, they simply don’t yet have the experience to judge information properly.
Media literacy, in practice, is also about digital safety and recognising fake information online. To see how this works in real life, The Ukrainian Week spoke with Lesya Lytvynenko, founder of the Vseosvita platform and a digital literacy expert.
— At what age do children develop critical thinking — and the ability to recognise deliberately misleading information?
— I don’t think there is a specific age for this. It is a gradual process shaped by many different factors. Even adults fall for fraudulent links. That is why children who grow up in families where there is a lot of communication and enough attention is paid to explaining these things are often better able to recognise deception from a very early age — even in preschool.
I have seen studies suggesting that by the age of six or seven, children are already capable of recognising when an adult is deceiving them, even if they do not always understand that it is being done deliberately. But whether a child recognises the manipulation or not, children are still naturally inclined to trust adults. That is precisely why schools constantly repeat the same simple rules: don’t talk to strangers, don’t go anywhere without your parents’ permission, don’t get into a stranger’s car, and don’t accept gifts from strangers. Adults cannot rely on children to recognise deception on their own. We understand that children are vulnerable, which is why clear rules are so important.
Today, education places significant emphasis on digital literacy and the ability to identify fake news and manipulation. But this alone will never be enough, because as critical thinking develops, fraudulent schemes evolve alongside it. The rise of artificial intelligence has only intensified those concerns: surveys of secondary school teachers in the United Kingdom, in particular, point to a decline in critical thinking among children linked to AI.
— What are the main challenges in teaching media literacy and information hygiene to children and teenagers?
— When explaining anything to children, we understand that saying something once is never enough. You have to find different ways to revisit the topic, reinforce it and check whether they have actually understood it. And children today do not want to simply listen — they expect something engaging, something interactive. That requires far more effort and time than working with adults.
Children pick up new interfaces incredibly quickly, but that does not mean they understand how manipulation works. I really like the approach of encouraging children to think through problems on their own while gently guiding them in the right direction. It is something I increasingly see in modern schools.
— How do we know where the line is between explaining to a child or teenager that some information is outright fake news created by adults — and risking that their trust in the world is undermined in the process?
— If a child comes across information that frightens them, it is important to talk it through from different angles. Children need context, not just reassurance. There are no inherently bad people, but there are harmful actions; there are reasons why people commit them, there are consequences, and people are capable of making mistakes. How those conversations happen ultimately depends on the child’s age and the specific situation. In some cases, if parents feel unable to cope on their own, seeking advice from a psychologist may help.
— Do constant information noise, digital overload, and the sheer volume of online content pose a threat to the development of children and teenagers?
— My personal view is that children should have limits on smartphone use. A growing body of scientific research shows that information overload can be harmful for children.
I previously wrote about the ABCD Study, funded by the US National Institutes of Health, which tracks the development of nearly 12,000 children born between 2005 and 2009 from childhood through adolescence. An analysis of data from more than 10,500 adolescents found that children who received a smartphone before the age of 12 faced a more than 60% higher risk of insufficient sleep and a more than 40% higher risk of obesity. The impact goes beyond behavioural changes — it also affects physiological and psychological processes directly linked to a child’s overall development.
According to these researchers, social media has an even more damaging impact than video games. That is one of the reasons I strongly support the growing global push to restrict social media access for children under 14 or 15. In the Netherlands, for example, the government is considering going further still, with proposals to ban social media for children under 16. Officials argue that social media, like alcohol or gambling, is inherently addictive and should be treated accordingly.
Children are simply not capable of regulating their own screen time. Smartphones become a constant source of distraction — while studying, during walks, and late into the night.
— How are media literacy and information security actually integrated into the school curriculum?
— Media literacy is built into the school curriculum as a cross-cutting skill rather than taught as a standalone subject. In Ukrainian language classes, pupils learn how to analyse news; in history, they work with historical sources; and in computer science lessons, the focus shifts to algorithms and online security.
— In your view, are teachers sufficiently equipped to teach children how to distinguish between misinformation, manipulation and similar forms of content?
— Teachers are ordinary people, just like everyone else. If I cannot always immediately recognise manipulation, there is no reason to expect teachers to do so every time either. Of course, teachers constantly work on improving their skills and consume huge amounts of educational content — it is a profession built around continuous learning.
But we’re living in a world where it’s getting harder and harder to tell what information you can trust. That’s especially true during the war, as Russia pours significant resources into disinformation targeting Ukrainian society.
I believe teachers are knowledgeable enough to navigate these challenges themselves and to teach children how to distinguish between fakes and disinformation. But it is important to remember that all of us are learning in real time, and the rise of AI has made disinformation more sophisticated and far less obvious at first glance.
— Adults are often told to fact-check information — but what should we tell a child who is unsure whether something they have seen or heard is true?
— Children should not be left to navigate the internet on their own in search of alternative answers. They are not yet able to properly analyse information in a critical way. At this stage, simple cognitive checks are more appropriate — for example, asking whether the source is familiar or not, whether it is a real person or an anonymous account, and how the content makes them feel, and whether anything about it seems unusual or suspicious. This kind of basic self-check works best when the topic is straightforward and low-risk. In general, it is better to encourage children to raise important questions with adults rather than try to resolve them alone.
— What, in your view, is the biggest threat when it comes to manipulating children?
— As a mother, I see this primarily in terms of a child’s susceptibility to outside influence. We live in a time when children have access to the entire world and are easily shaped by so-called experts. Bloggers, too, often impose external viewpoints that can be harmful for a child’s development. The same information can be damaging for a 12-year-old and useful for an adult. Children may also find it easier to accept potentially risky situations if they are presented within their own “bubble.”
— Is there a link between school bullying and a lack of media literacy — and understanding the legal and moral consequences for those who organise it against a classmate?
— Bullying refers to systematic behaviour. Not every conflict can be classified as bullying. Where bullying is established, Ukrainian law provides for administrative liability. If the perpetrator is under 16, responsibility falls on their parents. A lack of media literacy may intensify bullying, but it is not its root cause. The digital environment, however, amplifies its scale, making it harder to control and, at times, anonymous.
At the same time, teachers themselves are increasingly becoming targets of bullying by students. In some cases, children record videos or publish photos of teachers accompanied by offensive comments. I believe these trends are more closely linked to a lack of proper upbringing at home than to a lack of media literacy in schools.
— How should we talk to children about the war? Some parents, I’ve read, call explosions “storms” or “thunder”. But does that risk distorting how children understand and process what is actually happening?
— Parents usually know best how to protect their child. Not everyone knows how to talk about war, and I do not think parents act with any intention to cause harm; more often, it comes from a sense of helplessness. Children grow up, and they will inevitably encounter the unfiltered truth at preschool or school. UNICEF is explicit that explanations for children should be adapted to their age and emotional state, rather than being “as authentic as possible”. The key point is that adults should not deny what is happening, and that the child should not be harmed by the way it is explained. Personally, I believe it is better to tell the truth, to explain that we are safe, and that the situation is under control.
— Today’s children and teenagers will grow up in a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence. Will that strengthen their ability to think critically — or weaken it?
— AI is useful in that it provides quick access to a wide range of sources, making it easier to verify suspicious information. But using AI effectively still requires the development of one’s own intellectual capacity.
In a recent analytical report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, experts warn that generative AI tools can create the illusion of learning, without necessarily being backed by a real understanding of the material. Perhaps children will simply need more time to build their own solid critical-thinking skills.
AI is, first and foremost, a tool, and the issue lies not in the technology itself but in how it is used. Overall, I think the development of AI will be beneficial, as technology does not stand still, and access to these tools is increasingly shaped by subscriptions.
