Bollocks.

This is old, early internet era naïveté.

Sure - anecdotally- you could perhaps convince one person by highlighting information.

But the plural of anecdote is not data.

At scale - sunlight and exposure increases dissemination of bad ideas.

Designing ideas to sound appealing in a viral sense means that even their dismissal and refutation by authority sources only increases their spread in the target population.

“Of course the governments going to deny they made the corona virus! They aren’t stupid.”

“Of course scientists would say that, they need grant money.”

All the ideas that grow from the root of this tree fail at scale.

Malicious actors are beyond the scope of this axiom for example - they don’t care about being defeated in argument- they just want to let vulnerable people know they exist, and then have them fall into their ideological orbit.

Competition over information networks only drives the news cycle effect - a market adapting to target the weakest link the human Fight or flight response, over giving better quality news.

To the point where the ACLU actively defended KKK members' First Amendment rights multiple times.

Second, and more directly related to the events of this weekend, there are important reasons for our long history of defending freedom of speech — including speech we abhor. We fundamentally believe that our democracy will be better and stronger for engaging and hearing divergent views. Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground. Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it. Not all speech is morally equivalent, but the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate. This contestation of values can only happen if the exchange of ideas is out in the open.

There is another practical reason that we have defended the free speech rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Today, as much as ever, the forces of white supremacy and the forces for equality and justice are locked in fierce battles, not only in Washington but in state houses and city councils around the country. Some government decision-makers are deeply opposed to the speech we support. We simply never want government to be in a position to favor or disfavor particular viewpoints. And the fact is, government officials — from the local to the national — are more apt to suppress the speech of individuals or groups who disagree with government positions. Many of the landmark First Amendment cases, such as NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and New York Times v. Sullivan, have been fought by African-American civil rights activists. Preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/equality-justice-and-f...

You're saying that racism and white supremacy is declining?

That's not what I said, but it is according to empirical data. America is a long way from segregation and the LA riots.

In 1990, nearly 50% of white respondents to a survey indicated they'd oppose living in a neighborhood where half the residents were black. In 2014, under 20% would oppose it and over 80% are indifferent or would favor it.

Going back further than 1990 only serves to bolster that fact.

What explains the disconnect between public opinion surveys and real life segregation?

"Throughout the 20th Century, racial discrimination was deliberate and intentional. Today, racial segregation and division result from policies and institutions that are no longer explicitly designed to discriminate. Yet the outcomes of those policies and beliefs have negative, racial impacts, namely with segregation."

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

You think it’s increasing? Over what time frame?

At least in North America, racism and white supremacy is a fraction of what it was 50 years ago.

I think it morphed, changed character, while the level is constant. For instance, racism is now more sorted along with partisanship.

But a lot worse than it was only four years ago.

Maybe? Don't confused the increase in media coverage with it actually getting worse.

If you go by the number of hate crimes reported to the FBI (which has reporting bias), it has gone up, but it's still lower than it was during the late 90's.

The LA riots were in 1992. People were getting arrested for marching for civil rights in the 1960s.

Things have improved quite a bit. There was just a period where things were brushed under the rug and not acknowledged, but giving internet access to everyone has made us aware of what's been ignored for so long. There are clear bumps of race-motivated crimes or discrimination sometimes, but there's a pretty obvious downward trend in acceptance of it.

I'm not so sure. In the public sphere, certainly.

There remain many dark corners, where these pathologies flourish.

Social media just changed the landscape. Engagement maximizing algos birthed outrage cancel culture. It lets people find each other. It accelerates radicalization, both left and especially right leaning.

And the filter bubble keeps these things out of the public sphere.

In my home country Sweden, I used to think that the rise of the "sweden democrats" (a right wing populist party) was a sign of growing support for their views. I have recently reconsidered that view. I think what we see today are things that never went away. I may be alone in this, by I regard the right wing populism as a democratisation of society. Not because I like the views voiced by the people representing that part of the spectrum, but because it introduces a large part of the population to the public debate.

I think that we, in 30 years, will look back at the rise of right wing populism as a symptom of a positive development. The populist parties do get a lot of votes, and if anything I believe that is a sign that the voters have not felt represented by the power. Which, in turn, I also believe is why the populist party supporters are so loud. If I actually believed that the government did not represent the people, I would be loud as well.

When the "anti establishment" has become the establishment I think the democratic process will end up being stronger with a discussion climate that better represents the population.

I hope you prove more right than wrong.