Title Creation Request - ChatGPT

can you turn this into a couple of paragraphs

Sure! Please provide the text you'd like me to turn into a couple of paragraphs.

Doubting the idea that "more speech" and critical media literacy alone will solve the problems of misinformation and disinformation is not naive—it's a perspective increasingly supported by research and critical thinkers. The so-called "naive view of information" assumes that simply increasing the amount of information available, or promoting more engagement and critical literacy, will naturally lead to truth and better outcomes. But this view has significant limitations in today's digital world. The "Naive View of Information" and Its Pitfalls Yuval Noah Harari, among others, critiques the belief that more information is automatically better. He argues that when there is an overload of information, low-quality content tends to rise to the top because it is easier and cheaper to produce, while thoughtful, truthful content is "heavier" and often gets buried. In digital spaces, especially with AI-generated content, superficial engagement and "vanity metrics" (likes, comments) can create an illusion of meaningful dialogue, but often fail to foster genuine understanding or connection. Why More Information Doesn't Guarantee Truth Information Overload: The sheer volume of content online means that high-quality, accurate information can be drowned out by noise, clickbait, or deliberate falsehoods. Algorithmic Amplification: Social media algorithms often prioritize sensational or controversial content, not accuracy, making it easier for misinformation to spread. Cognitive Biases: People tend to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs (confirmation bias) and may not objectively evaluate new information, regardless of their media literacy. Epistemic Bubbles: Individuals often inhabit "epistemic bubbles" where they are exposed primarily to information that aligns with their social group or worldview, further distorting perceptions of reality. Limits of Media and Information Literacy While media literacy can help people identify unreliable sources and become more critical consumers of information, it is not a panacea: Effectiveness Varies: The impact of media literacy training depends heavily on the approach, and not all programs are equally effective. Scale and Speed: Media literacy education is slow to implement and may not reach those most vulnerable to misinformation quickly enough. Potential Backfire: Poorly designed media literacy programs can even make individuals more susceptible to misinformation if they teach skepticism without providing tools for discernment. Doesn't Always Change Behavior: Studies show that even when people can identify misinformation, they may still share it, often because they don't consider accuracy when deciding what to post. Structural and Systemic Challenges Critics argue that focusing solely on individual responsibility (through education and literacy) ignores the broader, systemic roots of the problem—such as the economic incentives of the "disinformation economy" and the design of social media platforms that reward engagement over truth. The "marketplace of ideas" theory, which underpins the more-speech-equals-more-truth argument, is itself flawed because it assumes a level playing field and rational actors, which is not the reality in today's information ecosystem. Conclusion Believing that more speech and critical media literacy alone will resolve the challenges of misinformation and disinformation is, indeed, a naive view of information. While these tools are valuable and necessary, they are not sufficient. Addressing the problem requires: Systemic changes to the information ecosystem (including platform design and economic incentives) Institutional responsibility (from governments, tech companies, and media organizations) Ongoing, research-backed improvements to media literacy education Recognition of the psychological and social dynamics that shape how people process and share information In short, depth, authenticity, and systemic reform matter far more than simply increasing the volume of information or engagement.

Certainly! Here's a condensed version of your text transformed into a couple of cohesive paragraphs:

The belief that "more speech" and critical media literacy alone can solve the challenges of misinformation and disinformation is increasingly seen as insufficient. This so-called "naive view of information" assumes that a greater volume of information and enhanced critical engagement will naturally lead to truth and better outcomes. However, in today's digital landscape, this perspective overlooks key limitations. As thinkers like Yuval Noah Harari argue, information overload often means that low-quality, attention-grabbing content floats to the top, while deeper, more accurate insights are buried. Social media algorithms and engagement metrics like likes and comments can further distort public discourse, rewarding superficiality over substance.

Even robust media literacy efforts face real constraints. Their effectiveness varies widely, implementation is slow, and poorly designed programs can backfire—sometimes making people more cynical without equipping them to discern truth. Moreover, literacy alone cannot address structural issues, such as algorithmic amplification of falsehoods, economic incentives driving disinformation, or the design of platforms that prioritize engagement over accuracy. Misinformation spreads not just because people are uninformed, but because they live in epistemic bubbles, influenced by cognitive biases and social pressures. Real solutions must therefore move beyond individual responsibility to include systemic reform, institutional accountability, and a deeper understanding of how people process and act on information. Simply adding more content to the digital sphere won’t fix the problem—what’s needed is depth, authenticity, and structural change.

how might this conclusion change based on this? Conclusion The historical analysis of misinformation and disinformation reveals that false information has been a persistent challenge throughout human history, but the digital age has created unprecedented opportunities for its rapid and widespread dissemination. Contemporary research overwhelmingly points toward education and advocacy, particularly through comprehensive Media and Information Literacy programs, as the most effective and sustainable approach to addressing this challenge. The evidence demonstrates that legal and regulatory approaches, while sometimes necessary for addressing the most harmful forms of disinformation, face fundamental limitations in democratic societies that value freedom of expression. The principle that "the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true" provides a more promising foundation for long-term solutions that strengthen rather than weaken democratic institutions. Effective responses to information disorder must be comprehensive, addressing not only the ability to identify false information but also the underlying factors that make people susceptible to it. This includes supporting high-quality journalism, promoting critical thinking skills, fostering digital literacy, and strengthening the social and economic institutions that provide people with reliable sources of information about their world. The path forward requires sustained investment in education, continued development of effective MIL curricula, support for independent journalism, and international cooperation on shared challenges. While the scale and speed of contemporary information disorder present unprecedented challenges, the historical record suggests that societies can successfully adapt to new information technologies when they prioritize education, democratic participation, and the protection of fundamental rights. The ultimate goal must be to create more resilient democratic societies where citizens have both the skills and the institutional support necessary to navigate complex information environments effectively.

Great question. Integrating your original critique of the "naive view of information" with this more optimistic, historically grounded conclusion would require a nuanced synthesis. Here's how the conclusion might change to acknowledge the strengths of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) without overstating its sufficiency:

Revised Conclusion:

A historical perspective makes clear that misinformation and disinformation are not new phenomena, but the digital age has amplified their reach and speed in ways that challenge traditional responses. Contemporary research affirms the value of education and advocacy—especially through comprehensive Media and Information Literacy (MIL) programs—as critical tools for building long-term societal resilience. However, it is increasingly clear that while MIL is necessary, it is not sufficient on its own.

Legal and regulatory approaches may have a role, particularly in curbing the most dangerous forms of disinformation, but they are constrained by democratic commitments to free expression. The ideal that “the remedy for false speech is more true speech” still holds value, but only when paired with systemic reforms that ensure truthful content can be seen, trusted, and acted upon. Without such structural changes, more speech alone may simply add to the noise.

Effective responses to information disorder must therefore go beyond individual skill-building. They must address the economic incentives, platform designs, and algorithmic systems that often prioritize engagement over truth. Strengthening independent journalism, fostering critical thinking, and supporting social and institutional trust are all essential parts of this effort.

Ultimately, building resilient democratic societies in a digital age requires both individual empowerment through education and collective action to reform the systems that shape our information environment. The historical record offers hope that societies can adapt—but only if they confront the complexity of the challenge with equal complexity in their solutions.

what are some possible titles for this pub? Historical and Digital Wildfires Examining the evolution of false information from ancient times to the digital age reveals that while misinformation and disinformation are not new phenomena, their scale, speed, and impact have been dramatically amplified by modern technology. Historical patterns demonstrate that combating false information has consistently required balancing truth-seeking with protecting freedom of expression, while contemporary research overwhelmingly points toward education and media literacy as the most effective long-term solutions to this enduring challenge. Defining the Information Disorder Understanding the contemporary information landscape requires precise definitions of the three primary categories of false information that constitute what scholars term "information disorder" (Revez & Carujo, 2023). Misinformation is defined as "information that is false, but the person who is disseminating it believes that it is true". This represents false information spread without malicious intent, often resulting from genuine mistakes or misunderstandings. Disinformation, by contrast, is "information that is false, and the person who is disseminating it knows it is false. It is a deliberate, intentional lie, and points to people being actively disinformed by malicious actors". The third category, mal-information, encompasses "information that is based on reality, but used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country". Disinformation Disinformation is information that is false, and the person who is disseminating it knows it is false. “It is a deliberate, intentional lie, and points to people being actively disinformed by malicious actors”. Misinformation Misinformation is information that is false, but the person who is disseminating it believes that it is true. Mal-information Mal-information is information that is based on reality, but it is used to inflict harm on a person, organization, or country. These distinctions matter significantly for developing appropriate responses. While misinformation may be corrected through education and fact-checking, disinformation requires more sophisticated interventions that address the underlying motivations and mechanisms of deliberate deception. The phenomenon has been further complicated by the rise of what some call "fake news," though UNESCO and other international organizations discourage this term, arguing that "if the content is fake, it is not news". Instead, scholars increasingly favor the broader term "information disorder" to capture the full spectrum of false and misleading content that circulates in modern media ecosystems. The prevalence of information disorder has intensified dramatically with digital technology. As one comprehensive analysis notes, "false news has always been spread throughout history, the term fake news was first used in the 1890s when sensational reports in newspapers were common". However, the current environment represents a qualitatively different challenge due to "innovative technologies that enable the dissemination of unparalleled volumes of content at unprecedented speeds". Historical Patterns and Precedents Examining historical examples reveals that information manipulation has been a persistent feature of human communication, particularly during periods of political conflict and social upheaval. The earliest documented case dates to ancient Rome around 44 BC, when Octavian (later Augustus) waged a sophisticated propaganda campaign against Mark Antony following Julius Caesar's assassination. This campaign utilized "short, sharp slogans written upon coins in the style of archaic Tweets" that portrayed Antony as "a womaniser and a drunk, implying he had become Cleopatra's puppet, having been corrupted by his affair with her". The success of this disinformation campaign helped Octavian become the first Roman Emperor, demonstrating that "fake news had allowed Octavian to hack the republican system once and for all". The invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1453 marked a crucial turning point in the history of information disorder. This technological advancement "dramatically amplified the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation, and it ultimately delivered the first large-scale news hoax – 'The Great Moon Hoax' of 1835". The New York Sun published six articles claiming the discovery of life on the moon, complete with "illustrations of humanoid bat-creatures and bearded blue unicorns". This hoax demonstrated how new communication technologies could be exploited to spread false information on an unprecedented scale. Throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, periods of conflict consistently spawned information manipulation campaigns. During World War I, propaganda played a crucial role in recruitment efforts and public opinion formation. The British government's "German corpse factory" propaganda in 1917 falsely claimed that German forces were using soldiers' corpses to manufacture fats and bone meal, a lie that had lasting consequences for public trust during World War II when early reports of Holocaust atrocities emerged. The Cold War era saw the systematization of disinformation campaigns, with both American and Soviet intelligence services deploying false information to influence global public opinion. These historical patterns reveal several consistent features of information disorder across different eras. First, false information tends to proliferate during periods of political tension, social upheaval, or crisis when public anxiety is heightened. Second, each new communication technology, from printing presses to radio to television, has been quickly exploited by those seeking to spread false information. Third, the most effective historical responses have typically involved education, counter-speech, and institutional reforms rather than censorship or legal prohibitions. Moving to Digital - What are Digital Wildfires? Digital wildfires are information disorders in the form of rapidly spreading misinformation or disinformation campaigns that illustrate how viral narratives in digital spaces can affect real-world beliefs, behaviors, and policies. Common Characteristics of Digital Wildfires: They play on emotion: fear, outrage, or moral panic. Often combine partial truths with disinformation. Amplified by algorithms and bad-faith actors using bots or sock puppet accounts. Thrive in environments of low media literacy and high polarization. Examples of current digital wildfires Health Misinformation (Post-COVID Era) Example: False claims about vaccines causing infertility or "permanent DNA damage" Continues to circulate despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Spread through TikTok, Telegram, and Twitter/X influencers. Undermines public trust in science, with real-world consequences like reduced vaccination rates. Climate Disinformation Example: Claims that wildfires in California or Canada were “intentionally set” by the government to control the population Disinformation amplified by anti-government or conspiracy-oriented influencers. Promotes distrust of environmental policy and disaster response. Current Digital Wildfires in Education & Literacy These wildfires often manifest as polarized narratives, oversimplifications, or weaponized research, spreading rapidly through social media, policy networks, and teacher influencer ecosystems. Science of Reading as a Silver Bullet Wildfire Narrative: “If teachers would just follow the Science of Reading, all kids would learn to read.” Problem: Oversimplifies reading instruction by ignoring broader sociocultural, linguistic, and contextual factors (e.g., bilingualism, trauma, poverty). Impact: Used to undermine balanced literacy and critique teacher preparation programs wholesale. Where It Spreads: Instagram reels, Facebook teacher groups, Substacks, and even legislation. “Lucy Calkins Ruined Reading” Wildfire Narrative: “Workshop models and Units of Study are why kids can’t read.” Problem: Fails to recognize local implementation differences, reduces complex pedagogical work to scapegoating. Amplified By: Op-eds, viral tweets, and media coverage that conflate anecdote with data. Impact: Some districts are banning entire curricula without transitional supports. Balanced Literacy = Anti-Science Wildfire Narrative: “Balanced literacy is anti-scientific and must be abolished.” Problem: Paints nuanced pedagogical frameworks with a single brush, despite evidence that skilled practitioners blend phonics, comprehension, and cultural responsiveness. Example: Discrediting culturally sustaining pedagogies as "fluff" or “feelings-based teaching.” Impact: Dismisses equity-driven work in the name of narrow “truth.” AI Will Replace Teachers Wildfire Narrative: “AI tools like ChatGPT are better at teaching writing than teachers.” Problem: Inflates the capacity of generative AI while ignoring the relational, developmental, and ethical dimensions of writing instruction. Spread via: EdTech blogs, investor pitches, viral demos. Impact: Fuels policy discussions about automating writing feedback without educator input. Book Bans as "Parent Rights" Wildfire Narrative: “Teachers are indoctrinating students—parents need to take back control.” Problem: Exploits fear and misinformation to target diverse books and critical literacies. Real-World Fallout: National campaigns like “Moms for Liberty” are leading to legislative censorship. Pedagogical Opportunity: Teaching with These Wildfires You can use these cases as: Archival artifacts in literacy inquiry (e.g., analyze a viral post, op-ed, or TikTok). 5Ws prebunking practice (Who is behind the message? What are they omitting?). Discussion prompts around ideological bias, media literacy, and professional identity. Cross-analysis: Pair policy briefs with youth-centered research to show competing truths. Historical “Digital Wildfires” in Education & Literacy For the purposes of this conference (ELATE), I think we should focus on historical "Information Wildfires" in Charleston & South Carolina. The Stono Rebellion (1739) On September 9, 1739, a group of approximately 20 enslaved Africans, led by a man named Jemmy, initiated a rebellion near the Stono River, about 20 miles southwest of Charleston. Armed with weapons seized from a local store, they marched southward, rallying other enslaved individuals by chanting "Liberty!" and displaying banners with the same message. Their goal was to reach Spanish Florida, where freedom had been promised to escaped slaves. The rebellion resulted in the deaths of over 20 white colonists and was eventually suppressed by the South Carolina militia, leading to the execution of many rebels. Information Dynamics: Misinformation & Suppression: In the aftermath, colonial authorities enacted the Negro Act of 1740, which, among other restrictions, prohibited enslaved individuals from learning to write, aiming to prevent the spread of rebellious ideas. Cultural Misunderstandings: The rebellion was partly fueled by misunderstandings and fears among white colonists regarding the intentions and communications of the enslaved population. Charleston Workhouse Slave Rebellion (1849) In July 1849, Nicholas Kelly led a revolt at the Charleston Workhouse, a facility where enslaved people were punished and detained. The uprising was sparked by the attempted sale of Kelly's sister. Armed with improvised weapons, Kelly and fellow rebels wounded several guards and temporarily liberated 37 enslaved individuals. The rebellion was quickly suppressed, with Kelly and others executed. Information Dynamics: Controlled Narratives: Local newspapers downplayed the event, referring to it as a "riot" or "outbreak," while Northern abolitionist publications highlighted it as a significant act of resistance. Communication Channels: The differing portrayals underscore how information dissemination was manipulated to serve varying political agendas. Denmark Vesey's Conspiracy (1822) Denmark Vesey, a free Black man in Charleston, was accused of planning a large-scale slave revolt. Though the plot was never actualized, Vesey and numerous others were executed. The alleged conspiracy led to widespread fear among white residents and stricter laws governing the behavior and assembly of Black individuals. Information Dynamics: Fear-Induced Legislation: The mere suspicion of a revolt, amplified by rumors and limited evidence, resulted in severe crackdowns on the Black community. Suppression of Literacy: Increased restrictions were placed on Black education and communication to prevent the organization of similar plots. Integrating Historical Insights into Modern Education These historical cases underscore the persistent challenges educators face regarding misinformation: Curriculum Content: Determining what is taught and how it's presented can become a battleground for ideological conflicts. Media Literacy: The necessity for students to critically evaluate information sources has long been evident, even before the digital age. Political Influence: Educational initiatives can be leveraged for political agendas, intentionally or otherwise. By examining these events, educators can better understand the mechanisms through which misinformation spreads and develop strategies to foster critical thinking and resilience among students. These events illustrate how control over information and literacy has been historically used to maintain power structures. In contemporary education, understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering critical thinking and media literacy. Educational Strategies: Comparative Analysis: Encourage students to draw parallels between historical events and modern instances of information manipulation. Primary Source Examination: Utilize archives from the Avery Research Center and the College of Charleston to study original documents, fostering a deeper understanding of historical narratives. Role-Playing Exercises: Simulate historical scenarios to explore the impact of information control on different communities. So what do we do about this? Much of the discussion about how to deal with this situation is primarily focused on social, educational, and technological solutions. There is also a mindset that the best course of action is more speech, counter-speech, and truth. The Role of Counter-Speech and Truth Legal scholars and practitioners have increasingly embraced the principle that the most effective response to false speech is more and better speech rather than censorship. Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court articulated this principle in United States v. Alvarez, stating: "The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth". This approach recognizes that sustainable solutions to information disorder must strengthen rather than weaken democratic discourse. UNESCO's strategies for combating disinformation explicitly seek to "operationalise the position proposed by Justice Kennedy and provide a holistic approach to combating dis- and misinformation, without limiting the right to freedom of expression". This framework acknowledges that while false information can cause significant harm, the long-term health of democratic societies depends on maintaining robust protections for free expression. The counter-speech approach has several practical advantages over regulatory interventions. First, it avoids the definitional problems that plague legal approaches to disinformation, since it does not require authorities to make binding determinations about truth and falsehood. Second, it strengthens rather than weakens democratic institutions by promoting broader public engagement with factual evidence and critical reasoning. Third, it is more likely to be effective in changing minds, since people are generally more receptive to persuasion than coercion. However, the counter-speech approach also faces significant challenges in the digital environment. The speed and scale of online information sharing can make it difficult for accurate information to compete effectively with sensational falsehoods. Social media algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy can systematically disadvantage careful, nuanced responses to false information. Additionally, the fragmentation of information ecosystems means that counter-speech may not reach the audiences most susceptible to false information. A naive view of information The belief that "more speech" and critical media literacy alone can solve the challenges of misinformation and disinformation is increasingly seen as insufficient. This so-called "naive view of information" assumes that a greater volume of information and enhanced critical engagement will naturally lead to truth and better outcomes. However, in today's digital landscape, this perspective overlooks key limitations. As thinkers like Yuval Noah Harari argue, information overload often means that low-quality, attention-grabbing content floats to the top, while deeper, more accurate insights are buried. Social media algorithms and engagement metrics like likes and comments can further distort public discourse, rewarding superficiality over substance. Even robust media literacy efforts face real constraints. Their effectiveness varies widely, implementation is slow, and poorly designed programs can backfire, sometimes making people more cynical without equipping them to discern truth. Moreover, literacy alone cannot address structural issues, such as algorithmic amplification of falsehoods, economic incentives driving disinformation, or the design of platforms that prioritize engagement over accuracy. Misinformation spreads not just because people are uninformed, but because they live in epistemic bubbles, influenced by cognitive biases and social pressures. Real solutions must therefore move beyond individual responsibility to include systemic reform, institutional accountability, and a deeper understanding of how people process and act on information. Simply adding more content to the digital sphere won’t fix the problem. What’s needed is depth, authenticity, and structural change. Conclusion A historical perspective makes clear that misinformation and disinformation are not new phenomena, but the digital age has amplified their reach and speed in ways that challenge traditional responses. Contemporary research affirms the value of education and advocacy, especially through comprehensive Media and Information Literacy (MIL) programs, as critical tools for building long-term societal resilience. However, it is increasingly clear that while MIL is necessary, it is not sufficient on its own. Legal and regulatory approaches may have a role, particularly in curbing the most dangerous forms of disinformation, but they are constrained by democratic commitments to free expression. The ideal that “the remedy for false speech is more true speech” still holds value, but only when paired with systemic reforms that ensure truthful content can be seen, trusted, and acted upon. Without such structural changes, more speech alone may simply add to the noise. Effective responses to information disorder must therefore go beyond individual skill-building. They must address the economic incentives, platform designs, and algorithmic systems that often prioritize engagement over truth. Strengthening independent journalism, fostering critical thinking, and supporting social and institutional trust are all essential parts of this effort. Ultimately, building resilient democratic societies in a digital age requires both individual empowerment through education and collective action to reform the systems that shape our information environment. The historical record offers hope that societies can adapt. But only if they confront the complexity of the challenge with equal complexity in their solutions.

Here are some possible titles for your publication that reflect its depth, historical grounding, and critical engagement with both digital and educational dimensions of information disorder:

🔥 Thematic & Metaphorical Titles

1. Digital Wildfires: How False Information Spreads and What We Can Do About It
2. Lighting the Fuse: Misinformation, Media Literacy, and the Fight for Truth
3. Echoes and Embers: A History of Disinformation from Rome to the Algorithm
4. Feeding the Fire: Education, Algorithms, and the Age of Information Disorder
5. Truth on Trial: Resisting Digital Wildfires in Education and Democracy

🧠 Critical/Academic Style Titles

6. From Coin Propaganda to Clickbait: A Historical and Pedagogical Inquiry into Information Disorder
7. Disinformation Then and Now: Structural Responses to an Enduring Crisis
8. The Remedy Is Not Just More Speech: Rethinking Media Literacy in the Algorithmic Age
9. Information Disorder and Democratic Resilience: Historical Lessons and Contemporary Challenges
10. Beyond Literacy: Structural Change and Counter-Speech in the Fight Against Misinformation

📚 Education-Focused Titles

11. Teaching Through the Flames: Literacy, Misinformation, and Digital Citizenship
12. Critical Literacies for a Burning World: Media Education in the Age of Disinformation
13. Pedagogies of Resistance: Education Against Misinformation in Historical and Digital Contexts
14. From Stono to Substack: Literacy, Power, and the Politics of Misinformation
15. Misinformation in the Classroom and Beyond: Strategies for a Truth-Driven Education

🧩 Mixed Genre/Creative Titles

16. Weapons of Mass Distraction: The Long War on Truth
17. Truth Interrupted: A Story of Literacy, Lies, and Learning
18. Algorithm and Empire: How Misinformation Shapes Minds Across Eras
19. The Misinformation Machine: History, Technology, and the Future of Knowing
20. Fragments of Truth: Navigating the Past and Future of Information Disorder

Would you like to focus on a particular audience (e.g., educators, policymakers, scholars, the general public)? I can refine the tone and format of the titles accordingly.

i'm sending this initial draft to a colleague to start our research process. we're going to have two one hour sessions at the Avery research center in charleston and look at historical documentation to see what we can learn from history and what this means for our future. we're going to pull from the archives to get better insight and bring this to a summer research group for feedback. i need to give my colleague a note on what to do with this chapter draft. ultimately I don't want her to see this and get overwhelmed. I'm just spelling out some of my current research, thinking, and notes and see what she thinks. but for now, she needs to set up times for us to meet at Avery and research and think about how we think about framing this tension of historical analysis, freedom of speech, misinformation/disinformation, naive views of information, and the future of education/advocacy/social interactions, etc

Here's a warm, clear note you can send to your colleague along with the draft to set expectations, reduce overwhelm, and focus your next steps together:

Subject: Starting Point for Our Info Disorder + History Work

Hi [Colleague's Name],

I’m sharing this draft as a starting point—please don’t feel pressure to dive into every section right away. This is more of a brain dump of my current thinking and research: a mix of background context, emerging questions, examples (historical and present-day), and a few early framing ideas around misinformation/disinformation, freedom of speech, and the future of education.

Our goal for now is not to edit or finalize anything, but to use this to help guide our first steps.

Here’s what I’d love your help with next:

• Set up two research blocks (ideally one-hour sessions) for us at the Avery Research Center in Charleston.
• Start thinking about how we might frame the central tension of this work:
  • What can we learn from historical cases of information suppression or manipulation?
  • How do we connect those insights to today’s digital wildfires?
  • What does this mean for the future of education, advocacy, and freedom of expression?

We’ll bring what we find to the summer research group to get some feedback and refine from there.

Thanks again for jumping into this with me—I’m really excited to see where this work takes us. Let me know what times might work to get our Avery sessions scheduled.

—[Your Name]

Let me know if you'd like to tweak the tone or emphasis based on your relationship with the colleague or the nature of the summer research group.