> In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust.
Just because we live in a non-robust system at the moment, doesn't mean it's wise to destroy it, or let it be destroyed. I've lived and worked in failed states, and I can assure you that the alternative is assuredly to a non-robust but at least functioning state is much, much worse.
> Also, I would say that this is only possible on the internet.
Yes, and for most of us, our political life is primarily lived on the Internet these days, for better or worse.
> What does that say about the internet?
Perhaps the only thing you've said so far I agree with. Yes, I've gone from an Internet utopian to an Internet dystopian in 10 short years.
I don't think that "non-robust" is the right way to look at it. Nor do I think that Facebook, Google, etc. have a large number of employees devoted to evil or that third party bad actors are fully responsible. I think what has happened is that the infrastructure is now based on algorithms that reward trolling and disinformation beyond the ability of anyone to stop. It's kind of like a gray goo scenario of the mental space of internet users that we're too anesthetized to really fight.
But that's exactly what you're doing.
> In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust.
Just because we live in a non-robust system at the moment, doesn't mean it's wise to destroy it, or let it be destroyed. I've lived and worked in failed states, and I can assure you that the alternative is assuredly to a non-robust but at least functioning state is much, much worse.
> Also, I would say that this is only possible on the internet.
Yes, and for most of us, our political life is primarily lived on the Internet these days, for better or worse.
> What does that say about the internet?
Perhaps the only thing you've said so far I agree with. Yes, I've gone from an Internet utopian to an Internet dystopian in 10 short years.