How about the root of the actual problem: that the voting populous is trained to absorb information without questioning its authenticity or accuracy. It's more convenient to hear something you agree with and believe it is true, so this is the general way that folks "become informed." Now this strategy of "becoming informed" is biting us in the ass, and the plan is to play this cat/mouse game with questionable sources of information rather than try to tackle the actual problem?
I don't think anyone is arguing that a Russian with a personal interest in American politics is barred from discussing a US election.
That is called the First Amendment. The fact that others in the world discuss US politics is not a problem.
The deplorable state of US politics is the problem.
No citizen of the US needs to be protected.
We will find when politicians better represent Americans, not big money, no protection is needed.
Same goes for media. When do you see a solid discussion of net neutrality presented in the mainstream media, or an economic story told from the labor point of view? Two super easy examples.
People go seeking elsewhere, and with all of that comes these worries over people actually discussing policy!
Shocker. It's as if having a real conversation is a threat somehow.
Perhaps it is. Perhaps it should be.
...what?
US Citizens are allowed to hear opinions of others when engaging in political discussion. That's why it's called a discussion. If you "protect" them, because the opinion they are hearing might be from a boilerroom overseas or more likely, a DNC or RNC funded organization here in the US, you are almost certainly going to swing the pendulum too far and end up doing far more destruction to the democratic process than those you started off "protecting" us from.
Look at Facebook's use of snopes.com as their "fact checkers". We now know that snopes.com is extremely politically biased.
People who say they are protecting you from something are usually victimizing you instead. Please don't protect me.
Do we know that? Really? Or do "we" mean "it seems to me that Snopes.com is debunking reports from my side of the political aisle more than they are from the other side, therefore Snopes.com is extremely politically biased?" Because even if that initial premise is true, "Snopes is unfair to my side" is not the only possible explanation.
You really should not be delegating these things to Snopes without having a robust check in place.
Do we? Or have you just disagreed with them?
In my primary education, early 80's era, we learned all about propaganda. I remember those few days very well as they were eye opening!
We studied the 7 basic forms in the context of advertising. Everyone found samples of each, and created an ad centered on a favorite of the forms. Once that made sense, there was some additional discussion on propaganda aimed at citizens, with samples and discussion.
My own kids, did not get this, and a lot of other basic and important civics related education. Of course, I did it, and did it the same basic way I experienced the topic, and the results were similar.
The First Amendment does not contain a shield. This means a few things many Americans are struggling with right now, and I believe that struggling centers on the lack of civics education and a cultivation of victim culture related to news / media / opinion consumption / discussion.
The answer to free speech we don't like is more free speech!
Let them put propaganda here. When we educate our people, and our press is functional (right now it's not very functional, being largely access journalism), propaganda won't be all that effective. Never is.
Ask yourself, why did we quit basic education on these things?