[garg]

Making people doubt untrustworthy things by educating them through a proper process is good. Exposing an unsuspecting/uneducated population to manipulated content designed to deceive/fool them for nefarious purposes is not an ideal process if the goal is to make the general public have better judgement.

This is a global issue. For examples, please look into the societal concerns surrounding 'deep fakes', and 'fake news' for answers to your first two questions.

[exporectomy]

Pitting people in a social game of who can be fooled the easiest sounds like a more effective approach than reading a dry textbook at them. There's shame in being seen as gullible. This happens already in casual conversation and people already have opportunities to believe false information from all over the internet or in books or tabloid newspapers or told to them by their peers or parents.

I don't believe the concerns about deep fakes and fake news. I think they're no worse than what we've always had. Those fears are exaggerated by arrogant hand-wringers who somehow assume their own beliefs are exempt from manipulation and it's only intellectually inferior "other" people who are susceptible. They're so fixated on the popular political ideas that they forget they should be on a crusade against religion which is the elephant in the room when it comes to people being misled.