Further evidence that a national firewall is a prudent idea. What kind of careless government would permit anyone in the world to have unfettered, anonymous access to their citizens' thoughts and minds?
Do you have any desire, or idea, on how to curb cyber-agitprop from enemy nations? Is living in a world with rampant, effective, agitprop on the internet with zero reaction the least of all evils?
The problem is that most americans do not know first hand how the real censorship looks like. In the context of the previous discussion in that thread, chinese and russian firewalls block any discussion of gay rights issues. Do you think the US will be any different? We are all humans with the same deficiencies. Any "firewall", however it is implemented, will be a double edged sword that will eventually start cutting one way, and you won't like the result.
To sum it up, yes, it's the least of all evils.
If you would like to deride the answer, I assure you I am quite immune to the effort.
I think that agitprop campaigns are identifiable by the organizations on which they operate, and that site operators should consider that akin to spam and delete it.
Of course I do not advocate an actual firewall. We saw Instagram and the US try to censor the carnage in Gaza, and "allies" like Israel have acknowledged their desire to control the information space to suit their narrative.
Thank you for a real response.
Ban anonymous comments.
>Is living in a world with rampant, effective, agitprop on the internet with zero reaction the least of all evils?
Given the impact on political discourse and outcomes, I would say most definitely not.