Linguistics gives youth tools against fake news

Here are two messages that might appear in your social media feed.

One says: A person who is vomiting, bleeding and very sick might have Ebola. Ebola does not spread through the air like the flu, but contact with blood, vomit or other body fluids can infect you, especially through your eyes, nose, mouth or broken skin. Do not touch the person or the fluids. Get help from health workers.

Another says: Remember in 2021 when the FDA asked to make the public wait until 2096 to disclose Pfizer's vaccine data? Well, when the data were finally released, one document was included. Guess what it listed as an adverse reaction to the vaccine — Ebola.

Which message helps you act? Which one makes you afraid, confused or doubtful?

Facing infectious diseases, most people do not immediately know what to do. That is why reliable health guidance often uses simple, direct language. It explains the danger, names the action people should take and accepts responsibility for guiding them clearly.

The first post shows these features. It is clear, concrete and useful. Its words are simple: "blood", "vomit", "eyes" and "do not touch". Even a child can understand it. This language helps readers grasp the risk quickly and act safely.

The second post works differently. It turns a technical situation into a frightening implication, and its language reveals how.

It begins with "remember when", shifting responsibility onto the reader. Instead of proving the claim, the writer invites readers to supply their own suspicion. It also widens the gap between the public and medical experts, making official guidance feel distant and less trustworthy.

The post also relies on official-sounding words such as "disclose", "document" and "adverse reaction". They create an impression of authority, but hide the key issue: whether Ebola was caused by the vaccine. The post never proves that. It only suggests it.

Its structure adds to the problem. Instead of saying directly,"The vaccine causes Ebola," it leads readers through a memory cue, a document reference and a dramatic reveal. That complexity makes the accusation feel more credible than it is.

The vague phrase "one document" is another warning sign. Which document? Where can readers check it? The reference plants suspicion without giving readers enough information to verify the source.

This is how misleading posts often work. They do not need readers to believe every word; they only need readers to hesitate. Fear, confusion, doubt and misplaced responsibility can all delay action.

That is where Professor Ming Ming Chiu's Deceptive Writing Theory becomes useful. It draws on linguistics and social psychology to examine how patterns in language — such as uncertainty, emotional framing, complexity and shifts in responsibility — can signal misleading communication. Chiu and collaborators have applied these ideas to social media posts in English, Chinese, Korean and French.

Language analysis cannot replace scientific facts. But it can help readers notice warning signs before they share a post, believe a rumor, or freeze in a crisis. When facts are still emerging, the way a message is written can offer clues about whether it deserves trust.

Reliable emergency guidance helps people act. Misleading news clouds the danger, undermines trust, raises suspicion and leaves people uncertain.

The choice is yours. Will you follow the online crowd? Or will you slow down, examine the language, check the evidence and act wisely?

Written by Ming Ming Chiu, chair professor of Analytics and Diversity and director of the Analytics/Assessment Research Center, and Sze Ming Lam, assistant center manager of the Analytics/Assessment Research Center, The Education University of Hong Kong.

Fake news can kill.

In a crisis, misleading posts can make people panic, hesitate, or ignore life-saving advice. Young social media users often encounter information first through short posts, rather than directly from experts. When those posts use fear, vague evidence or confusing language, readers may not know what to trust.

Linguistics can help. By reading carefully and spotting warning signs in how a message is written, young citizens can protect themselves and others.

The challenge is urgent: can they recognize fake news before it shapes their actions?