Lesson Kit: Teaching Digital Citizenship with the Bluesky vs. X Debate

Hook: Teach digital citizenship with a real-world controversy — ready now

Teachers tell us the same thing: they want tight, classroom-ready lesson plans that spark deep discussion and fit into a single class period. You also worry about time — finding up-to-date case studies, moderating charged debates, and protecting students when topics get sensitive. This lesson kit uses the 2025–2026 Bluesky surge and the X deepfake controversy as a concrete, contemporary springboard to teach digital citizenship, ethics, and critical thinking about social media and platform responsibility.

Why this matters in 2026: Context and trends

In late 2025 and early 2026, two developments sharpened public debate about social platforms: the rise of alternative networks like Bluesky — which added features such as cashtags and LIVE badges — and a high-profile controversy on X over AI-generated nonconsensual sexual images. The episode drove new downloads for Bluesky and prompted government attention: a state attorney general opened an investigation into xAI’s integrated chatbot, after reports that users asked the bot to produce sexualized images of real people without consent.

“The proliferation of nonconsensual sexually explicit material has raised urgent questions about platform safeguards and developer responsibility.”

These events reflect broader 2026 trends: regulators increasingly scrutinize AI moderation and safety, niche platforms grow as users seek trust and control, and schools must teach students how to navigate platforms built around algorithmic amplification and AI tools. This kit situates students in that landscape so they can evaluate platform choices, user behavior, and civic responsibilities.

Learning objectives (what students will know and be able to do)

• Define and apply digital citizenship principles when evaluating social media behavior.
• Explain how platform features (e.g., LIVE badges, cashtags, AI bots) shape user behavior and risk.
• Analyze a real-world case — the X deepfake controversy and Bluesky’s growth — using evidence and ethical reasoning.
• Develop a short policy brief or user-code that balances freedom of expression, safety, and platform responsibility.
• Practice media verification strategies and design respectful, trauma-informed classroom conversations about sensitive content.

Target audience & timing

Grade levels: Middle school (adapted) and high school (recommended). College seminars or community workshops also fit well.

Estimated timing: 1–2 class periods (45–90 minutes). A deeper project extends over 1–2 weeks.

Standards alignment (quick map)

• ISTE Standards for Students (Empowered Learner, Digital Citizen)
• CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association) — Ethics and Impacts of Computing
• ELA — Speaking and Listening: presenting arguments and evidence

Materials & tech requirements

• Devices with web access for students or teacher-led projector. If devices are limited, use printouts or shared station rotations.
• Curated news excerpts (teacher-provided) summarizing the Bluesky features rollout and X deepfake controversy. Avoid showing explicit images; summarize instead.
• Verification tool demos (InVID, Google Reverse Image Search, Amnesty's YouTube Data tools) for teachers to demo only.
• Printable student worksheets: timeline, role-play briefs, evaluation rubric.

Teacher prep — safety and legal notes

Discussing sexualized content or nonconsensual imagery requires a trauma-informed approach. Do not display any explicit images in class. Use anonymized descriptions, headlines, and policy excerpts. Notify guardians in advance if your district requires it, and provide opt-out alternatives (e.g., working on a different case study or policy brief).

Also prepare a list of school counseling resources and a script for de-escalating emotional responses. If students ask for outside links, have vetted resources ready (media literacy orgs, state agency statements). Consider guidance from field work on safe documentation and reporting when curating excerpts.

Lesson plan: Step-by-step (one 50–60 minute class)

Warm-up (5–8 minutes): Quick poll + headline analysis

1. Ask: "Which matters more: platform design or user intent?" (quick thumb vote or poll tool)
2. Show two short headlines (teacher-provided): one about Bluesky adding LIVE badges and cashtags, another about X’s AI chatbot controversy. Students write one-sentence reactions.

Mini-lecture (8–10 minutes): Platforms, features, and responsibility

Cover briefly:

• How features influence behavior (e.g., LIVE badges can increase attention to streams; cashtags organize finance conversations).
• AI tools and content generation — promise vs risk (amplification of harmful content, bias, nonconsensual imagery).
• Regulatory context in 2026: increased investigations and calls for platform accountability.

Activity 1: Source sorting and verification (12–15 minutes)

Students work in pairs. Provide each pair with three short news excerpts or tweets (curated): one reliable news summary, one user thread claiming wrongdoing, one ambiguous social post. Task:

1. Identify the type of source and one reason to trust/disbelieve it.
2. List two verification steps they would take (e.g., reverse image search, check official statements, look for broader reporting).

Teacher circulates and models a quick verification (no images displayed) using reverse-search techniques and chain-of-custody best practices, and checking official AG or platform statements.

Activity 2: Role-play debate — Who should be responsible? (15–20 minutes)

Divide class into four roles: Platform exec (Bluesky/X), Government/regulator, Affected user / advocate, Journalist/public watchdog. Give each role a brief packet with facts and goals.

1. Two minutes prep within groups to craft a 60-second position statement.
2. Moderated debate: each role gives statement, then cross-question for 6–8 minutes.
3. Class votes on a two-sentence policy summary to balance safety and speech.

Debrief: Which arguments relied on evidence? Which relied on emotion? How did platform features drive risk or mitigation options? Consider holding a mock regulatory hearing for advanced classes to practice formal testimony and legal-style documentation.

Exit ticket / assessment (5 minutes)

Students answer: "Name one platform feature that can increase harm and one policy or practice that would reduce that harm." Collect responses for quick formative assessment.

Extended project (2–3 class periods or 1 week)

For deeper learning, students design a two-page "User Code" for a social platform or a policy brief for a state regulator. Components:

• Statement of the problem (use the Bluesky/X case as context).
• Three practical policy recommendations (e.g., mandatory consent checks for sexualized AI content, clearer reporting workflows, transparent audit logs for moderation decisions).
• Implementation plan and student-designed public-facing explanation for platform users. Use modular templates from modular publishing workflows to structure public-facing explanations.

Sample discussion questions (scaffolded for depth)

Surface-level (build comprehension)

• What are cashtags and LIVE badges, and how might they change user interactions?
• Summarize the X deepfake controversy in one sentence without using sensational details.

Analytical (apply critical thinking)

• How do platform affordances (features) create incentives for certain behaviors?
• Who benefits from rapid feature rollouts: users, platform owners, or other stakeholders?

Ethical and civic (discussion prompts)

• When a platform knowingly allows user requests that create nonconsensual content, who should be held accountable? Why?
• Can a platform be both a place for free speech and a safe space? What trade-offs does that involve?

Assessment rubrics & measurable outcomes

Use a 4-point rubric for policy briefs and participation:

• 4 — Evidence-based argument: cites multiple reliable sources, proposes feasible policies, shows ethical reasoning.
• 3 — Clear argument with some evidence, reasonable recommendations.
• 2 — Vague claims or missing evidence, half-formed proposals.
• 1 — Off-topic or unsupported claims.

Measure growth with a pre/post quick survey: ask students to rate confidence (1–5) in identifying misinformation, explaining platform policies, and recommending ethical solutions.

Adaptations: Remote, low-tech, and SEL-safe options

• Remote synchronous: Use breakout rooms for role-play; use shared Google Doc for evidence lists.
• Asynchronous: Students watch a teacher-recorded mini-lecture and submit a policy brief on a learning platform.
• Low-tech: Use printed packets and station rotations for verification activity; oral exit tickets.
• SEL-safe: Offer trigger warnings, alternative assignments, and counselor access. Replace sexual content case with a different harmful AI example (e.g., deepfake political video) if needed; also see best practices for safer meetups in the creator playbook for safer hybrid meetups.

Teacher notes: Facilitation tips & common pushback

• When students say "blame the users": push them to consider structural incentives (algorithmic amplification, design nudges).
• When students ask about censorship: clarify that policy design involves trade-offs and that transparency in rules is key.
• If students want technical how-to guides for generating content, refuse — focus on ethics and verification instead. For field-oriented lessons on live coverage and kits, see portable live-stream kit guidance at portable smartcam kits for micro-events and edge-assisted live collaboration playbooks at edge-assisted live collaboration.

Resources & fact-checking aids (2026-relevant)

• State attorney general statements and press releases on platform investigations (e.g., California AG press release on the X AI matter, Dec 2025–Jan 2026).
• Appfigures or market-intelligence snapshots showing Bluesky download increases after major controversies (use as a data point about user migration).
• Media literacy toolkits: Common Sense Media, News Literacy Project, MediaWise (updated 2025–2026 editions).
• Verification tools: reverse image search, InVID, Google Fact Check tools. Emphasize teacher demo only—no reproduction of harmful content. See field-tested audio and low-latency kits for guidance on capturing safe interviews at low-latency field audio kits.

Classroom-ready handouts (what to give students)

• Timeline handout: concise sequence of events (Bluesky features rollout; X deepfake reporting; regulatory response in early 2026).
• Role-play briefs: two-paragraph position, three objectives, suggested evidence.
• Verification checklist: 5 quick steps to vet a social post.
• Policy brief template: one-page structure and rubric.

Advanced strategies for older students and clubs

For debate teams or civics clubs, turn this into a mock regulatory hearing. Assign research teams to prepare testimonies, design evidence folders, and cross-examine. Invite a local journalist or legal scholar (virtually or in-person) for a Q&A — practice civic engagement and public discourse. Journalists trained for digital-era coverage can be found in modern newsroom practice guides such as how newsrooms built for 2026 ship faster.

Why this lesson works: Pedagogy and real-world relevance

This kit uses a current, emotionally resonant case to teach transferable skills: evidence evaluation, ethical reasoning, and civic action. By connecting a platform-level design decision (features like LIVE badges and cashtags) to concrete harms (AI-facilitated nonconsensual content) and real policy response in 2026, students learn to reason across technical, ethical, and social dimensions.

Actionable takeaways for teachers (quick checklist)

• Prep: Curate three short, non-explicit news excerpts and a timeline. Notify guardians if your district requires it.
• Safety: Never show explicit content. Use summaries and focus on policies and impacts.
• Engagement: Use role-play to let students inhabit stakeholder perspectives and practice persuasive speech.
• Assessment: Use a short rubric and a pre/post confidence survey to measure growth.
• Extension: Ask students to draft a user-facing "digital citizenship pledge" for their school or club.

Final reflections — future-facing classroom questions (2026 outlook)

As platforms and AI evolve, questions will intensify: Should AI tools require human-in-the-loop safety checks for sensitive prompts? How will state and federal regulation change moderation expectations? By bringing current controversies into class, we equip students to participate in these debates as informed citizens, not passive consumers.

Call-to-action

Ready-to-teach materials, printable handouts, and a pre-built slide deck for this Bluesky vs. X lesson are available for immediate download. Join our community at thebooks.club to share student projects, report back on classroom outcomes, and get monthly kits that pair current events with classroom-ready pedagogy for digital citizenship and media ethics.

Related Reading

• How to Host High-Energy Live Workout Streams (Using Bluesky’s LIVE Badge)
• Portable Smartcam Kits for Micro-Events (Live-Stream Guidance)
• How Newsrooms Built for 2026 Ship Faster, Safer Stories
• Chain of Custody in Distributed Systems: Investigations Playbook
• Resume Examples for Applicants With Pets: Highlighting Stability and Responsibility
• Grain Exports and Currency Flows: Why Corn and Wheat Sales Can Move Emerging Market Gold Demand
• Case Study: Holywater’s Fundraise and What It Means for Vertical Video Creators
• From Tarot to Traffic: What Marketers Can Learn From Netflix’s Bold Creative Campaigns for Linkable Assets
• Small Desktop, Big Impact: Using the Mac mini M4 as a Living-Room Media Hub