Probably ironically you're arguing for a very authoritarian, nationalist view of the world where we can't allow any foreign information to hurt the fragile minds of our brittle citizens. In my opinion the tool called Facebook has shown us the real state of our society, the poor state of critical thinking in people and possibly the lack of morality in general. To call for simpler times back when only our own country was able to manipulate us, is a splash of romanticism.

I don’t read it that way — GP seems to say “rogue actor” rather than “foreign actor”, so I think you’re actually in agreement.

"Rogue actor" is currently a highly political term, so I left that aspect out on purpose. For China you would be a rogue actor if you reported truthfully on free speech issues. For the USA you are a rogue actor if you report on their unconstitutional spying apparatus. It's neither morally nor politically unambigious what a rogue actor is. Such is life in a world where we all have a different morality, talking becomes hard!

Lol no. The intercept isn't a rogue actor. The US government might not love them, but they are not assaulting democracy.

In this context, the "rogue actor" is the Macedonian kid writing about the activities of Kenyan Muslim Obama for abcnews.info

> we can't allow any foreign information to hurt the fragile minds of our brittle citizens.

Information like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-d...

What is this, the official opinion of the ministry of propaganda? Having an authority fact check everything is surrendering your judgement to someone else, in the worst case an authoritarian regime. I’d like to think people are either smarter than we acknowledge or you and I are dumber than we think.

We are all, unfortunately, dumber than we think.

National politics is not something you walk into with mere “common sense”, neither is law nor military power nor economics nor international relations nor civil engineering, yet we all have Opinions about these things which we are encouraged to share via democracy.

It’s really easy to convince a crowd with appeals to fallacies of common sense or logic — in the case of Brexit, for example, I’ve seen people argue that the EU is simultaneously evil for not providing Greece with enough of a bail out, and also evil for asking rich countries like the UK to pay more money than it receives from the EU (which it does to help poor countries like Greece).

Such fallacies even affect people with degrees from Cambridge University, it’s not merely something we can blame on poor education and pretend we’re immune to.

> I’ve seen people argue that the EU is simultaneously evil for not providing Greece with enough of a bail out, and also evil for asking rich countries like the UK to pay more money than it receives from the EU (which it does to help poor countries like Greece).

it's perfectly consistent if you realise the EU and the Eurozone are not the same thing and have different competing interests

“Competing”? Synergistic, surely.

After visiting friends and family this Thanksgiving,I’m not so sure people are smarter or more moral than we acknowledge. I was shocked several times by what I considered horribly immoral positions held up as just and correct policy implementations.

And you’re the only one of your friends and family who is smart, moral, and has reasoned yourself into your political and policy viewpoints?

That it’s ok to shoot a security guard -without warning- because he is sitting on the back of a mass shooter with his gun pointed at him and since all he needed to do was slightly aim the gun upwards to shoot at the cops and cops aren’t paid to take risks to save innocent lives.

Try that one on and tell me how reasoned or moral it sounds.

> "social media hurts democracy"

What if it is "social media uncovers a critical flaw in democracy"?

Or “social media uncovers a critical flaw in humans”?

Yeah, basically. But you can't change that - making that a flaw of democracy because it apparently isn't built with people in mind while it's supposed to.

> And these "news" are not fact-checked by any authority anymore.

Yes. Because when the ministry of truth is in charge, things are so much better. /s

The problem is that "fact checkers" are some of the most biased people around.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/new-yorker-fact-checker-ice-t...

I'm always amazed that people will rant about "big brother" one moment and then appeal to an authority figure the next. You think Trump should decide what "truth" is? Is that your argument?

> These news channels had some commonly shared values, operated within those values.

What values? Is the iraq war that value? The NYTimes was created by a banker. The WashingtonPost was created by a racist pro-south democrat. What is this "common value" you are speaking of?

> So yes, I strongly believe that social media is hurting our democracies massively.

In what way? 10 years ago, it was the right wing bigots whining about social media because it got obama elected. Now it's the left wing bigots whining.

You seem to be completely unaware of the state of fake news on Facebook. I have family who believe that Canada has invaded Michigan and Chinese warships are shelling San Diego with help fro the Clintons because "news" on Facebook told them so.

This isn't about bias in reporting, whether it's an issue or not. It's about complete bullshit made up wholecloth and targeted at paranoid old people who aren't used to reading news with a critical eye.

Your last paragraph is very poignant. If Trump had never been elected President, techlash would have never happened.