From Critical Thinking to Media Literacy 

Pascaline Gaborit and Joen Martinsen

Critical thinking plays a crucial role in countering “fake news” and disinformation, especially when other institutions fail to address these issues. Trust in the media is important and is built on the expectation of reliable and trustworthy information. However, trust can be dysfunctional in building resilience against disinformation. While citizens often expect journalists to tackle disinformation, we cannot solely rely on the media to act as watchdogs against these threats. In the post-truth era, blind trust is inappropriate, and a degree of skepticism is necessary. Although trust in the media is valuable, blind faith can decrease resilience to misinformation. Lower media legitimacy and trust are associated with greater resistance to misinformation. Citizens who approach the media with pragmatic skepticism are more resilient to misinformation. To prevent outright distrust of traditional media, the media should be more transparent about their sources, potential biases, and methods. This transparency would allow citizens to critically assess the information provided, fostering a pragmatic skepticism. By increasing transparency, the media can encourage critical thinking while maintaining fundamental trust in legacy media.

Critical thinking involves self-regulation, monitoring and controlling our emotional biases. This ability helps individuals enhance their cognitive skills and reduce emotional biases. Recent research has found that anger and anxiety are emotions that could lower our belief accuracy, give more partisan tendencies, which makes individuals more vulnerable to believing in disinformation. Self-regulation could particularly in politically divisive topics reduce our vulnerability to misinformation.

In today’s social media environment, polarization fosters the creation of “filter bubbles.” Personalized content reinforces users’ existing beliefs and worldviews, reducing their openness to alternative perspectives or counterarguments. This dynamic also influences voting behavior. An increasing number of young people rely exclusively on social media for news, making them particularly susceptible to the effects of these “filter bubbles.

Moreover, artificial intelligence is also affected, since algorithmic biases may restrict critical analysis and reinforce users’ pre-existing biases. Both these issues underscore the importance of self-regulating our emotions as a part of our critical thinking skills and minimize the power of anger and fear when consuming news online. Future research on critical thinking should place greater emphasis on the role of self-regulation and the ability to assess information independently of one’s emotions, an aspect that grows increasingly important with the rising use of social media and its potential influence on electoral behavior.

Found out more here in our summary deliverable: Fake News Critical Thinking and Media literacy

By Joen Martinsen and Pascaline Gaborit

Europe’s security landscape has undergone profound changes in the early months of 2025. Provocative remarks from the new U.S. administration—such as Trump’s assertion that Ukraine should never have started the war—and high-profile events like President Zelensky’s visit to the Oval Office and JD Vance’s stirring speech at the Munich Conference have intensified these shifts. At the same time, U.S. officials have amplified Russian disinformation and repeatedly threatened to withdraw critical military and nuclear resources from Europe. Rather than simply expressing indifference to European concerns, the current U.S. leadership appears intent on reshaping the continent—sowing internal divisions, influencing elections, and igniting culture wars—in pursuit of individual bilateral deals rather than a united European alliance. This approach, eerily reminiscent of Russian tactics, is sending shock waves through the post–World War II European security order and has sparked calls for a new era of European defense.

With the U.S. President repeatedly questioning America’s commitment to NATO’s security guarantees, European leaders are now forced to ask: Can Europe continue to rely on American protection in an era of shifting alliances? The challenge is not limited to traditional military threats; modern warfare presents a complex array of dangers—from cyberattacks and the sabotage of critical infrastructures like internet submarine cables to the disruption of navigation and communication systems such as GPS. Public support for increased military spending and deeper European defense cooperation is high today, but as the sense of immediate crisis fades, so too might that support.

Therefore, European leaders must act decisively—not only by bolstering military capacity but by integrating systems, strategies, and policies to address the multifaceted threats they face. Hybrid threats, which blur the lines between military and non-military aggression, pose an escalating risk. Europe must develop coordinated, proactive responses that cover everything from safeguarding its digital and energy infrastructures to countering disinformation campaigns. Despite the continent’s robust interconnectivity, the absence of a unified strategy to protect these assets leaves Europe vulnerable. The time has come for a comprehensive European approach to defense—one that ensures rapid, coordinated action against the emerging grey zone threats of the 21st century.

By Joen Martinsen and Pascaline Gaborit

In a sweeping effort to slash the U.S. budget deficit, the Trump administration, along with the unofficial Department of Government Expenditure (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, has moved to dismantle USAID—placing nearly all employees on leave and freezing foreign aid programs. In an unprecedented act of executive overreach, security personnel blocked agency staff from accessing their offices, plunging billions in foreign aid into uncertainty and bringing critical humanitarian efforts to an abrupt halt.

A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order, ruling that the dissolution of USAID contradicts the Constitution and falls within the Congress' authority. However, the dismantling remains in effect pending a final court decision. Having already relied on disinformation to justify the move, the administration’s actions pose a pressing question: what are the limits of Disinformation-Driven Governance?

By Joen Martinsen and Pascaline Gaborit

DeepSeek, a Chinese AI chatbot, has rapidly gained traction, becoming the most downloaded free app in the U.S. shortly after its launch. Its R1 model, now open-source, claims to rival OpenAI’s O1 model in performance.
What sets DeepSeek apart is its lean budget—the development team asserts they achieved this milestone with less than $6 million, a fraction of the billions invested in AI by U.S. tech giants like OpenAI. A key factor in this breakthrough is its reliance on Nvidia H800 chips, which operate with reduced capacity, avoiding dependency on high-end Nvidia A100 chips, restricted due to U.S. export bans.
For perspective, OpenAI was founded a decade ago, employs 4,500 people, and has secured $6.6 billion in funding. In contrast, DeepSeek, established less than two years ago, operates with just 200 employees and was developed with a budget of under $10 million .

Does DeepSeek signal a new era of AI innovation or raise concerns over competition, security, and regulation?.

This accomplishment reflects broader implications in the global AI race, especially as the U.S. has implemented strict export controls targeting China’s access to advanced semiconductor. Restrictions include export bans on chips and chipmaking equipment since October 2023, and a first-of-its-kind prohibition on U.S. persons aiding Chinese chip development without a license. These measures aim to limit China's advancements in both AI and military modernization, and for the U.S to maintain technological supremacy. However, DeepSeek’s breakthroughs demonstrate that resourceful methods can counter such constraints, potentially diminishing the effectiveness of U.S. policies. While this raises questions about America's long-term strategic position, it also emphasizes the potential for less resource-intensive, climate-friendly AI innovations. This could be an opportunity for other companies to imitate this success, and this could be especially true as the developed system is shaped with open access .
DeepSeek-R1 is indeed an open-source AI model. The company has released it under the MIT license, ensuring clear open access for the community to utilize and build upon its model weights and outputs. This open-source approach allows developers worldwide to modify and integrate the model into various applications, promoting innovation and collaboration in the AI community. Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, has commented on DeepSeek's significance. In a recent op-ed, he stated that DeepSeek's emergence marks "a turning point" in the global AI race.

By: Joen Martinsen

Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and profit. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and divisions. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning.

These sobering words, delivered by Joe Biden during his final message as the president of the United States, stand as a critique of the disinformation eroding trust in democracy and decision-making. As Donald Trump returns to power, this relentless onslaught of “alternative facts” creates a deeply unsettling backdrop for pressing global challenges—especially the climate crisis.

The Normalization of Climate Denialism

Climate denialism, the systematic rejection or distortion of established scientific evidence on climate change, has become a pervasive force undermining global efforts to address one of the most pressing challenges of our time. It is no longer confined to fringe ideologies; it has entered the political mainstream, influencing policies, public opinion, and international cooperation. This shift, fueled by disinformation and anti-scientific rhetoric, erodes trust in institutions, weakens collective resolve, and delays urgently needed action.

Under Trump's leadership, climate denialism has been normalized, becoming an entrenched feature of political discourse. Policies such as the rollback of the Paris Agreement and the promotion of fossil fuel expansion under the slogan "Drill, baby, drill!" reflect a stark regression in global climate cooperation.

The parallels with historical episodes of disinformation, such as the rejection of Philipp Semmelweis’ life-saving discovery of antiseptic handwashing, are striking. Like the resistance faced by Semmelweis, climate denialism thrives on a combination of misinformation, institutional inertia, and vested interests. In both cases, the consequences of rejecting evidence-based knowledge are profound, with lives lost and opportunities to prevent disaster squandered. The spread of disinformation, amplified by digital platforms, undermines public trust in science, confuses the public, and creates an environment where inaction becomes the default response.

The gender Equality plan of Pilot4dev, is an important document for the organization, and is regularly updated and signed by the top management. 

Pilot4dev is indeed dedicated to the advancement of women's rights, and is promoting gender equality through research and projects. 

Find out more GENDER_EQUALITY_PLAN.pdf.