2). Attack liberals as 'Russian agents' and remove their online platforms.
3). Only let corporate friendly publications have online platforms since you can't trust anyone else.
You'd think people would have realized this would happen since it's what always happens when you start silencing opinions you don't agree with.
We just don't know.
That's the crux of the problem for me. Nowadays, I'm so jaded that I trust no one.
It's sad. I've lost trust, and I don't think I can get it back.
If so that trust never should have existed in the first place, and it should be gone forever.
Yes, swear words lost all their meaning for many on 4chan. That does not make people using them any more rational.
The zen that parent poster describes comes when you recognize that your favorite political commentator, or the thing your best friend just said over coffee are not inherently smarter or dumber than 4chan.
edit: w/r/t "leaking outside.": The problem isn't that Trump was meme-ed into the whitehouse. The problem is that paternalistic control of messaging will never equip the populace to evaluate something as nonsense when the parents aren't around to stop the message from propagating.
I don't really think Trump got to white house bc 4chan, I believe his voters voted him because he represents them as he is.
I regularly check and flag false or dubious claims friend's posts on Facebook (where I'd say Facebook gets a bum-rap in some ways because friends can point out fake stuff).
As far as not knowing where a given post comes from, that's OK if you are careful in your double checking.
But the opposite pole is people who don't care whether what they post is true. Usually I and those people go separate ways. So the ultimate thing is naturally the bifurcation of online communities, with some portion becoming highly partisan and willing to repeat fake info simply to serve a given pole of opinion (not necessarily "extreme").
The only way to beat this is to have an end goal that is objectively good regardless of who says it.
Bringing the first amendment into the 21st century and forcing corporations with open access discussion systems to be treated like government entities is a win for everyone.
After all the first amendment in it's original form only stopped the federal government from imprisoning you before you said something, not after, and had nothing at all to say about what states governments could or couldn't do.
I've realized recently that the goood thing about the First Amendment is that it leads to an electorate that is as jaded as myself. One that views every Facebook, or HN, or internet post as potentially part of a state sponsored manipulation campaign.
Just curious on what "liberals" have had their online platforms removed.
From my general experience with the internet since my youth, it seems that online discussion in unmoderated communities seems to be fairly "conservative" in that they are brutally honest and unwilling to accommodate others special interests.
I realize that is not the same thing as de-platforming somebody, but it's a deliberate sowing of FUD to bolster a reactionary agenda.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/russians-used-bernie-bros-a...
> Supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) reported earlier this month that during the 2016 election, their social media feeds and pro-Sanders Facebook groups were inundated with what they now believe were Russian bots spewing anti-Hillary memes including fake news stories about Clinton using a body double and murdering her ideological opponents. Over time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname “Bernie Bros.”
That was a Russian propaganda tactic which the Democrats/Media then amplified that on the assumption those were really Bernie supporters.
So...once again...its something credible being blown out of proportion, at worst.
Leftist journalists are routinely denied access to mainstream media platforms and are then accused of being "useful idiots" or "Russian trolls" when the only media platforms they're allowed on are places like RT or Telesur.