You're scrolling through Facebook, or Twitter, or even Instagram. You click on a link or look at an image, and it takes you to a webpage and a news article. You read it, assuming it's true - you know the social media source, and you trust it.

Here's the issue: social media is not intended for news. Social media is defined

as "websites and applications that enable users to create and share content". That's it. Not, "websites designed to share factual information."

We've seen it for years. Walk into any grocery store and you'll see magazines claiming that your favorite celebrity is dead, pregnant, or getting a divorce. We know that those stories are sensationalist.

Even the brand of sensationalism found in our favorite magazines is not actually new. Yellow journalism during the Progressive Era, over 100 years ago, completely changed the way that we see media. Newspapers embellished stories to make points. Even though stories may have had some factual backing or premise, they were not really intended to tell the truth. They were designed to further a point, often political.

Our favorite news sources are doing the same thing. FOX takes the side of the Republican Party on most issues, while sources like CNN tend to take the side of the Democrats. These sources tend to tell true stories from an angle that supports their position and promotes the party of their bias. That's not really new.

What is new is the advent of social media to share sensationalist stories. With the click of a button, we can share anything we want to - true or not. Completely outlandish stories are shared, read, and viewed as a good basis for formation of opinions within a matter of minutes. We struggle to discern real as opposed to fake news.

It only gets worse when even our president tweets stories without providing evidence or checking sources. We are all guilty of doing this, but it is critical that our head of state not provide us with potentially false information. And the president cannot automatically deem anything that disagrees with his political platform "fake news". Moreover, it goes against the first amendment right of freedom of the press (and freedom of speech) to do so. Technically, these rights also protect our president's saying whatever he wants in media.

So where do we draw the line?

In Schenck v. United States (1919), it was determined that shouting fire in a crowded theater was illegal under the first amendment. It presented a "clear and present danger", and therefore was not protected by freedom of speech. Then, Brandenburg v. United States (1969), determined that speech had to encourage specific criminal action in order to be considered as presenting a "clear and present danger".

Trump has not, to my knowledge, encouraged specific criminal action against anyone via social media or otherwise. However, he has made claims that certainly present a danger to the reputations of others, and the global representation of our nation. Is this a "clear and present danger"? Technically not, under the aforementioned court cases. However, it is something that needs to be carefully considered.

Should we consider it dangerous that news is shared with no backing, from our president and otherwise? Absolutely.

Should we consider it dangerous that people seem not to see the value in checking their sources? Yes.

The question is, how do we stop this incessant sharing of sources without proven validity? How do we stop the constant accusations of fake news? How do we build toleration and pursuit of truth?

It starts with us. All of us. Let's just stop sharing articles, if we aren't sure they're verified. Let's not discuss things as facts, until we know that they're true. I am definitely guilty of accepting statements as truths prematurely. But if we work together, and make this a bipartisan effort, we can promote truth. I'm not saying that we need to stop reading our favorite sources. There is implicit bias in almost any news story, and to stop reading the biased ones would likely mean to stop reading altogether. All that I am suggesting is that we look to see whether the story is featured in sources from both sides of the aisle, and in forms other than a tweet, a text, a status update, or an Instagram post.

Finding truth is difficult, but promoting truth really isn't. It starts with us.

***I did my best to follow my own suggestions and use unbiased sources, as have been cited throughout this article. I also understand if you do not fully believe this article to be valid, and therefore do not feel at liberty to share it.***