At what point does the carrier of the message become the legitimate editior or even worse censor of that information. Who decides what is a fact? The winner? The CEO?
As far as I'm aware there is only one disicipline that is considered to have proof of facts, the rest is either best guess that meets the evidence or simply opnion. Allowing the messenger to chose what is and is not a fact removes the massive benefit provided by the internet, the ability for everybody to have a voice.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
We have just celebrated the anaversery of the end of the First World War, lets not have this date be celebrated in the future as being the start of the loss of freedoms that millions died for.
Look up "wedge issue". It's the best strategy in a two-party system. Pick one issue, make it super important so people vote for you even if they disagree with a lot of your other positions.
Martin Luther King Jr sowed discord and divided society in beneficial and positive ways. Take a look at the Poor People's Campaign. How could civil rights have taken place if they didn't change people's minds?
And that's where all the subjective judgements come in. A lot of us would say that the guys setting off the bombs were sowing the discord. But, whether we like having them here or not, there is a group of people in the US who would say that King provoked peaceful citizens into blowing up little sunday school girls. And these two thought groups in the US will likely never be reconciled.
Maximised and polarised to the maximum by the media. That is the real common component here. Most people would be apathetic to those issues, if it wasn't for the media bombarding them and pissing them off.
Just wanted to point out though that these issues were chosen precisely BECAUSE most people are NOT apathetic to them.
That's what makes them good wedge issues. For instance, whether the media would cover them or not, people would still want marijuana. (And another set of people would still want marijuana banned.) People care about the issue regardless of whether or not the media covers it.
That's why these are good issues to use if your intent is to destabilize a society. They are latent, un-"dealt with" issues. I'd imagine those are the sort of issues you'd look for when trying to increase discord in target nations.
Is this hypothetical supposed to be something positive? Because I actually agree apathy to these issues, and most others, would be the logical result of not having the media report on them. But climate change happens in the real world, and the phenomenon doesn't care about the press it gets. It would still happen without you being informed. But, quite obviously, not knowing about problems does not seem to be a promising strategy for democratic societies.
(replace climate change with any problem you hold dear and consider true, in case you're one of those people)
They are being taken down because they are (allegedly) faking who is behind those accounts (i.e. they are fraudsters with political instead of financial motives).
The only reason they are taken down is that they are funded by an adversary power, but the American media is controlled by adversaries of the American public too.