What high school students think about some of the biggest issues facing the state and nation... That's this week on Nevada Week.

♪♪♪♪♪ Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt.

-Welcome to Nevada Week.

I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

In 1956 is when Hank Greenspun, the founder and publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, started the Sun Youth Forum.

The purpose of the event, now in its 66th year, is to bring awareness to what young people think.

(Student) So what will be interesting to see is governments, especially the United States government, giving a slight tax break to companies who are able to input measures against misinformation.

(Student) Topics like public health, vaccines, election integrity.

I put down like safety, so like natural disasters.

All of those things should be regulated, whether it's by the government or if it's by the social media platforms that are currently holding all that information.

(Student) I love your idea of a separate department to oversee fact checking, and I love your idea of the implementation of AI.

But to train AI, you need to have humans.

And humans are inherently biased.

(Amber Renee Dixon) About 600 students from across Clark County participated in this year's Forum at Cimarron-Memorial High School.

They were assigned a topic and a classroom where volunteers like myself moderated the discussions that sought to answer questions like, Should misinformation be regulated?

At the end of the day, students chose one person in their class to represent them at various public appearances, one of which is an interview on a local television station.

And that's what we're going to do now.

Joining me for that are Christian Rebolledo from Sierra Vista High School, Kevin Cisneros from Palo Verde High School, Aleksey Prodan from Rancho High School, and Julian Salvador-Avila from Spring Valley High School.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining me.

As I mentioned, you were all assigned a topic.

Two of you had the broad topic of "America."

Two of you had another kind of broad topic, "Home in Nevada."

So you got a list of questions or prompts under each of those topics, and I want to have each of you tell me, first off, what questions sparked the most discussion in your classroom?

Julian, I'll start with you.

(Julian Salvador-Avila) So, Amber, what we really saw was two major conversations, but the biggest one that we had was definitely on the Mandalay Bay shooting.

We know October 1.

It was devastating, and that was one of the big topics that we talked about.

We had a survivor in the room with us, and it was just amazing to hear from everyone's perspectives.

-I look forward to hearing more about that.

Now, Aleksey, what was the biggest topic in your classroom?

(Aleksey Prodan) The two biggest topics between gun control and abortion was abortion, probably the two biggest issues facing United States today.

-All right.

Kevin?

(Kevin Cisneros) The two biggest questions we faced were, first, same one as you, Julian, was Mandalay Bay and gun reform in Nevada, specifically, and how gun violence is affecting everybody.

Second was human trafficking.

We didn't really get to touch upon that, but it was something that everybody in the room had an opinion on and wanted to talk about.

-Christian, what was sparking the most discussion in your class?

(Christian Rebolledo) So in my room about America, the main question that sparked the most discussion was: What is the biggest issue facing the United States today?

And we touched a lot on political polarization and the misinformation regulation.

-Okay.

Let's go over each of those.

We'll start with the shooting at Mandalay Bay.

The question was: What have we learned to prevent the occurrence of another event like this?

Julian, how did you answer that?

What did other students have to say, and that survivor as well?

-Yeah.

So we really saw it, especially I did, as a more of a national issue, because we're seeing gun violence across the country.

Just a few weeks ago, we had one in Atlanta, then in Nebraska.

It's just been rampant, where we're seeing so many deaths, and it's really unnecessary.

In our-- in our room, I was calling for more reform to our guns, to ban assault weapons, and really just have more background checks on how people are getting these weapons.

We had a lot of people agree with that, really.

There wasn't much of a variance from that, because everyone really saw that this is common sense what we're seeing here, especially the gun survivor, the survivor from the October 1 shooting.

They were telling their story, and it was devastating to hear the experience that they really went over.

And I talked a bit about my own stepfather.

You know, he was driving Uber that day around the Strip, and he randomly saw these people just running in one direction.

So he quickly turned on the radio, heard what was going on.

He took in as many people as he could into his car and took them the other way.

So I shared that story, and then we heard from that survivor, and it was, it was very sad to hear, but it's great to hear that so many youth voices are really taking a stance on this and in the right way to regulate these guns.

-Kevin, did anyone have a different perspective in your classroom, any Second Amendment perspectives?

-There was definitely a crack in the middle.

There was definitely some people who definitely supported gun reform and definitely some people who opposed gun reform.

For example, we all agreed that there's an issue with mass violence, specifically in the United States, and especially in Nevada, where we have, like, done some very like, reactive measures.

For example, NBC News reports on July 10 of 2019, that, like, we started adding med kits and stuff like that towards large-scale areas.

For example, concerts and, you know, putting paramedics there.

But we've only been taking reactive measures, and we all agreed that we need more proactive measures.

However, some people opposed more gun reform and said we need to focus on mental health, versus some people who said both or some people who said it's only the gun reform.

There's definitely a lot of perspectives there.

I said it's both mental health and gun reform that we specifically need to focus on.

We are only a reactive state when it comes to actually dealing with gun violence.

We need to be proactive and implement measures like Julian mentioned.

-Aleksey, let's talk about the topic of abortion and, specifically, the question related to whether people should face punishment if they seek an abortion out of state.

What did you say?

What did you hear from others in your class?

-Thank you, Amber.

So this question was very, very polarizing, because people in our generation had-- a lot of us think the same.

So it wasn't necessarily a discussion on one side or the other.

It was a discussion on like individual characteristics of it and also more minute details.

So in regards to that, it was someone by the name of Devin said, It should not be presented for abortion-- "They should not be prosecuted for abortion out of state."

So you had very-- you had someone who said something very, very specific, as well as someone by the name of Lawrence said, "Abortion is healthcare and childbirth is a lot of weight to carry.

So if something that is regarded as healthcare, should it be taken away?"

A lot of us said it shouldn't be taken away, myself included, because this is something that, including decision of Roe v Wade definitely showed the Constitution is included there where you have a right to privacy, you have the right to your own body.

But in regard to that, even though we all had the same idea, I brought up the question of, well, since we all think the same, what about the more minute details?

So I raised the question of, Does it fall on the parents for having a child and getting an abortion?

Does it fall on the parents for them getting pregnant, or does it fall on someone else?

-You mean, if a youth, for example, gets pregnant?

-Yes.

-Okay.

And what were some of the responses to that?

-That one sparked a lot of conversation, which I was surprised at.

It split the room into about four parts.

So two parts being it does fall on the parent, it does not fall on the parent.

Some argue that it falls on the parents of the parent for not giving proper education to them in saying, hey, this wasn't okay or it was okay.

And then another group, which I think I put myself in more of, it's actually a lot of it falls on society and how society perpetuates an idea of saying it's okay, it's not okay to these certain things, where instead of it being individualized, it's everyone as a group as a whole.

-The idea, though, of it falls on somebody, what does that mean?

What does that look like?

-For falling on someone, is it-- was it them specifically?

Like, did their own actions cause this to happen, and do they face the responsibility of it, or does someone else have to step in if they can't.

-Okay.

So this went beyond whether someone should be prosecuted for seeking an abortion, but should they be held responsible for their actions in the first place, I think is what you might be saying.

-Mm-hmm.

-Okay.

I'm going to skip over you, Kevin, because we already heard from you.

Christian, the biggest topic you said was: What is the biggest issue facing Americans?

I'm curious to hear what people said.

-For sure.

So we went through quite a few different topics, including homelessness.

For a long time, that was a big issue that was discussed, but it was more discussed in the scope of Nevada and Southern Nevada, specifically.

And looking at it through that lens, a couple of us took a step back from that conversation to kind of think a little deeper into what the question was asking.

And one of the things that I brought up was political polarization and gridlock as one of the biggest issues in America.

We started kind of seeing that every issue that we brought up in any regard had a lot to do with just the fact that people cannot make decisions and they cannot come to consensus regarding what issues need to be tackled and what the best avenue to approach them are.

Specifically in regards to the homelessness issue or even abortion, when we talked about it in my room as well, there was the conversation of, is it a result of us not having the resources as a, you know, as a nation, us federally being unfit and unable to solve these issues?

But we kind of came to the conclusion that we do have the solutions, that they are out there.

It's just a matter of coming to compromise and that that seems pretty unfeasible at where we are today.

-When you talk about the country being unfit, what would be an example of that?

-The biggest thing that we talked about in regards to the kind of unfit notion was the abortion stance.

We also discussed the same question of whether or not people should be prosecuted for seeking abortion out of state.

We all came to the consensus of no.

But then we kind of started taking a more macroscale look at it and asking the question of, Well, why is it being prosecuted at all?

And then we kind of took an even bigger step back and kind of saw that when it comes to federal government, when certain, you know, policies infringe upon constitutional rights and on the freedoms of people within America, who we say is a country of freedom and of liberty, it is unfit for the government to take measures that kind of juxtapose what that's meant to look like.

-Kevin, I want to know if there were any questions which you went into thinking you had a set opinion on and then, after you heard from your peers, you thought differently or maybe your opinion was reinforced.

-So the main question that really, like, kind of questioned my opinion, kind of challenged it, was: Should Nevada have an open primary?

And my initial answer going into the room was absolutely, because the data shows there's 1 million voters who cannot vote within primaries, specifically in Nevada.

But when people brought up, for example, semi-closed primaries, where only Independents and, for example, let's say it's a Republican nomination, only Republicans and Independents would be able to vote.

That I thought was a relatively good idea.

I still agree that open primaries are the way we should go about in Nevada, personally.

However, I thought that was a really good argument, and it really showed like the two sides, and it showed that compromise is a solution towards many problems in America.

-I think this was the topic in your classroom as well, Julian.

What else was said?

-Yeah, absolutely.

So in our classroom, we saw a most-- most people had a consensus on, an agreement on this topic.

However, I was the odd one out.

I was a strong stance on, no, I do not believe we should have open primaries.

However, now that you bring that up, Kevin, about the having semi-open, semi-closed primaries with Republicans and Independents, Democrats and Independents, or any other party, it makes a lot of sense, you know, being able to come to that consensus so that we can have those people who may not register with a specific party be able to have a say in in their government, in their representation.

It makes a lot of sense.

Now, I am personally opposed to completely open primaries for a lot of reasons, mainly the fact that we can have a lot of spoiler candidates on primary ballots which may not actually have the beliefs of the party they're running with just to, yeah, spoil the ticket of the party they're running for and give the other side a hitch, a benefit to their election.

-Some manipulation can take place is what you're saying.

What you were talking about would be if you are an Independent.

Because currently if you are nonpartisan in Nevada, you cannot vote in the primary.

However, if there was an open primary, you could vote for any of the candidates.

But you were saying you would have to choose a Republican or Democrat, or what were you saying that was the semi-closed primary?

-Semi-closed is essentially when you're Independent or like nonpartisan, and let's say you want to vote in the Republican nomination, right?

So if you're a Democrat, you can't vote there if you're registered.

However, if you're Independent, you can.

And obviously if Republican, you can.

Same thing with Democrat.

Democrat can.

If you're Independent, you can as well.

Republican, you cannot.

So it kind of just includes those more moderate.

And more moderates is kind of like the wrong term, but more centrists who are like, can actually pick between both sides and tend to flip-flop between both sides.

-Yeah, that's actually really good that you guys bring that up.

One of the really big conversations that we had a lot of fun with at the end of our room was talking about, kind of the, I guess, societal push towards-- or not towards, but rather away from the partisan system that we have going on in America right now.

I thought I saw the conversation kind of brewing throughout the whole time we were in the room.

But at the end, we really decided to just, kind of, you know, air it out and just talk about it.

So we saw that a lot-- one of our roommates decided to kind of share a story about how they didn't see themselves voting for either of our, you know, Presidential candidates.

And in the scope of America, we started talking about how social media, like Tiktok and Instagram, things like that, the publicity that these candidates are getting through the debate, because the debate had just happened when the Forum happened as well.

The publicity they were getting for both things that were taking place at the debate, but also throughout the year and throughout their election, had nothing to do with policy.

And we started talking about how policy is no longer-- it doesn't feel like it's any longer the center of American politics.

It's more of a, you know, cat-and-mouse game.

And we started kind of looking at, Well, what if we do have ranked-choice voting in an American, you know, political system?

Like, would that completely topple over the way of life for Americans in regards to our values, or would it be a step forward?

-Aleksey.

-Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

I also want to add we got into the topics of how the debate went, because a lot of us brought up specific parts where Trump had said that immigrants are eating our pets.

And a lot of us were like, Okay, we don't know how we're going to-- how-- how both candidates were saying that foreign countries are making fun of the United States or throwing shade toward us because we've, like, gone off the rails.

Yet they're also, at the same time, saying stuff that is very much misinformation and are completely blinded by their, by their own beliefs to see the other person's side and how they're being super hypocritical.

But at the same time, not just looking at the candidates, but also looking at the people who are running the debate on how questions were phrased.

I don't remember which question it was, but it was in regards to how policy-- it was regarding policy being like a main factor where both candidates had both went completely around it to say something completely different that wasn't related to the question and how people who would watch the debate, both inside the US and outside the US, both see it as we don't know what these people are doing, right, and how they're not actually following the question.

They're going to push their own belief, instead of coming to, like, a middle ground.

-I'm curious.

Who is going to be able to vote in November?

Anyone here?

-I miss it by a week.

-I miss it by month.

-Does that hurt?

-A little bit.

-It does.

-Okay.

Well, you'll have two years, and then you'll have the midterms you can get your feet wet with.

You brought up "misinformation."

How, if at all, should that be regulated?

I know it was a topic in your classroom.

What was discussed?

-So the process of media regulation in regards to political misinformation, we discussed establishing kind of like a, like a filter in social media platforms to where certain media can't be put out or flagged, if anything, because there is technology out there that already allows that to happen.

On the program X, like you-- it flags if certain things are considered misinformation.

But it doesn't directly say it's misinformation.

It just says you should do more research.

One of the topics we talked about was: What does more research look like?

Who has the time, energy, or knowledge to even seek out new information, you know?

We then kind of discussed how education as a whole, in regards to civics and engagement, policy, students at our age who are about to vote, like you just said, you just asked the question of who of us are able to vote.

Nine times out of ten, a high school senior is about to get to that point, and us as the youth might not have the education or, you know, the means by which to educate ourselves on what voting and what civic engagement looks like.

So utilizing technology in a better way, artificial intelligence, and intersecting that with social media to create a more positive media engagement and outlet for students is something that we talked about, too.

-Does anyone here-- Julian.

-I believe beyond that, because a filter will definitely be a great implementation towards a regulation in our future, but upon that, we can also just start pushing for more media literacy in our classrooms, because technology is rapidly evolving in our future, and we're not really seeing much being taught in our classrooms to teach our children how to combat the misinformation coming out.

The misleading information as well.

And it's really becoming a problem.

So media literacy would be a huge, huge upgrade to the schools.

Now, unfortunately, we're not seeing the funding, especially in districts like CCSD, to be able to make that happen, let alone even have any teachers right now.

So it's definitely becoming an issue.

But media literacy would be great, like you were saying, a filter, because what we're seeing, as well, is a lot of these algorithms we're seeing on Tiktok, on X, on these different platforms, it's pushing people to isolate themselves towards this one side, blocking themselves in, and just sharing that one opinion with other people and not really listening to anyone else.

So if we can have a way to update algorithms, change them so we can hear different people's points of views so that we can, like, take those barricades away and really just listen to each other, keep a healthier standpoint within this country.

-Aleksey and then Kevin.

But also, is there anyone here who thinks that there should not be any regulation?

-I kind of, for me, I don't see it as-- like on my personal note, I don't think censorship should be a thing at all, because, like, in regards to book banning, for an example, if you're going to a library, you have the choice to not check it out, and you can understand how, what you don't want to be there, how, like, that it's there.

But also if you don't agree with it, yes, it's the ability for you to look at it, but you don't have to.

A great example is, well, the Nazis burned books because it was against their ideology.

So if it's, if you're like, if you want to take on that drastic example, to what extent would we be banning books?

So like, are we going to ban books that talk about abortion?

Are we going to ban books that talk about civil rights?

And you can send that off into so many different aspects that we need to know for information so we don't repeat itself again, because that we don't want, we don't want a whole nother Third Reich to happen.

And we also talked about, for representatives on social media, how they should be held accountable, because if you're on the platform with a large following, you have a responsibility to tell your audience what is and isn't necessarily true.

And for that truth part-- because you have three parts of the truth: You have your truth, said other person's truth, and the absolute truth.

And would it be in regards to the social media companies having a filter, which we also talked about, would they enforce it, or would you have some sort of outside government agency?

And if it was a government agency, would the government be stepping in to violate your constitutional rights from the First Amendment?

Because the government can't, like, interfere with that.

So would it fall-- who would it fall under?

-Kevin, you're next, but I also want to know from each of you, when you find what you may think is misinformation, how do you go about verifying whether it's true, and how much have you been taught about that?

Kevin, add on first to what you were initially going to say.

-What I initially was going to say is that we're all right.

Social media information is definitely a problem.

I agree, censorship, absolute censorship is no way in the solution.

However, the current status quo, which is unsustainable, actually there's a law called Section 230, which was essentially made in 1996 which allowed platforms such as like-- well, not at the time Facebook.

Facebook was made like a decade ago-- but like either way, like it allowed platforms to essentially have a sword and shield.

The sword being like the ability to overall avoid liability for what people post on their platforms and the sword being able to like, essentially, like take down posts that were harmful or defamation or anything like that.

However, we've done absolutely nothing to reform it, done absolutely nothing.

And we've hold-- not held any single, pretty much, big tech company accountable.

And this fuels our algorithms.

They are not liable for their algorithms.

For example, Google and Gonzalez, a court case where Gonzalez was a member of a family who fundamentally, like one of their family members or they knew a family member who was attacked in the Paris attack, which those people who committed the attack were radicalized by, like, online websites on Google.

This is a problem that's unsustainable, not only to misinformation, but to radicalization.

And we need to reform it and, overall, allow more companies to be liable for what people post on there and hold those algorithms actually accountable so we don't fall into filter bubbles where we constantly get information that we're constantly getting.

For example, if I like a photo of a dog, I'll get more photos of dogs.

If you like misinformation, you'll get more misinformation.

-What have you each been taught about how to identify if a piece of content is true or not?

Julian.

-Well, I've had to sort of teach myself, teach me and my friends.

We've learned by ourselves because, sort of how we previously touched on, our schools aren't taking on that job to actually help us.

So what we've really taken on is really looking at every side.

And there's platforms that really, they touch upon the right, the left, the center.

And they combine them all, and they really talk about all these, all these different topics.

Also just Google searching, taking that time out of your day to look into what you want to learn on what you saw a few minutes ago on X or on Instagram, any of these different platforms.

But really just, it takes time to research, and you should be taking that time to be able to educate yourself.

And that also just leads into elections.

So many different important decisions that we make are based on educating ourselves, taking on that time to really care.

-It's a responsibility that you have to take on yourself.

What were you gonna say?

-Yeah, so the conversation regarding taking it on yourself to go out and search for that information, we talked about that for a while in my room as well, and we discussed how it's not really feasible to ask the general American public to somehow get there on their own.

So, you know, establishing more programs that focus on education within, you know, the government on a federal level.

We discussed also bolstering the Department of Education, which, you know, is sometimes, you know, something that's on the fence in regards to even if it's going to exist in the next couple years.

So we really looked at on an American scale and also on a Nevadan scale how to improve that.

-Gentlemen, we have run out of time.

But thank you so much for sharing all of this insight, and I look forward to see what you do all in the future.

Thank you.

And thank you for watching.

For any of the resources discussed, go to vegaspbs.org/nevadaweek.

That is also where you will find several voter education videos that we have created with the Secretary of State's office.

I'll see you next week on Nevada Week.