Ending the internet would probably do it. Noise goes way down when you only have x amount of news sources and outlets.
We could still have things like maps, messages, etc. that are all very beneficial.
We could still have things like maps, messages, etc. that are all very beneficial.
Nothing in my comment says things were all well and good before the internet.
The ratio of signal to noise was much higher. It helped us form a common culture. Today, the signal is buried in so much noise that we're reverting back to tribes.
No, I don't think it's realistic to put the genie back in the bottle. The real problem is we don't teach children how to think. We teach them what to think, which leads to far worse outcomes. Having an indoctrination instead of an education and then facing a sea of pretty-sounding pablum to sift through for truth will be terrible.
It's a hell of a social experiment we're all in the middle of (though to be fair, that's always true; television was its own flavor of mass social experiment with its own pros and cons, as was telephone, as was radio, as was telegraph).
Who cares if there is no internet if your cellphone can track you? If your car runs on connected apps? If your credit card & POS systems are networked? Security cameras and facial recognition are still things.
Just cuz you're not getting spammed via website ads doesn't mean it's not tracking you constantly and jamming subtle things to change your world view. Means their attack surface is smaller; sniping instead of loudspeakers. And if their only option is sniping then they'll get really good at it.
If there're messages, there'll be Internet built on top of it. Unless there will be aggressive censors hunting for every sign of "unapproved" communication.
I think we are doomed. It is possible that only horrifically authoritarian societies that already control the narrative will survive this.