I don't have a real problem distinguishing real from fake news, research and verification come naturally to me. But although I hear this recommendation frequently, it offers nothing to help with the tidal wave of gullible/dishonest people who spread false information. I would like to ignore them, but a) that requires additional effort, much like filtering spam and b) ignoring them is unwise to some degree, as such people can have a significant impact in the real world by spreading misinformation.

When I first expressed worries about the 'qanon' thing several years ago, friends and family asked me why I wasted time studying such nonsense. Now it's an international phenomenon with electoral leverage; and it's still hard to get people to give their time to study and understand it as a strategic problem rather than simply mocking or belittling the adherents. It's a bit like trying to explain to a clever developer that a brilliant architectural design can be compromised by idiots and that the user interface requires artificial friction or safety rails.

It's not that your preference for an educated polity full of critical thinkers is wrong, it would be delightful. The problem is that stupid and mean people are indifferent or outright hostile to such a long-term goal and are perfectly willing and capable of wrecking things in the short term for their own selfish ends.

For example, you might demand FB and Youtube stop using their divisive engagement strategies, but that would violate their profit motive so they won't. The only solutions are political organizing.

Watching Attenborough's new netflix film [0] last night, I think I said [1] almost exactly the same thing.

[0] https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393

[1] OK, yelled at the tv in a blind rage.

This would stop. This is what we want to stop.

I don't think "real name" policies are enough. FB, Google, and Twitter need to collect credit cards and take deposits that are lost when you use your account to spread lies and hate.

Also you will run into first amendment issues.

>Who defines lies and hate.

I would argue we need a much cheaper, more efficient court system, where a group of peers is gathered to examine evidence. In other words "society" does. They can also consider if the lie was deliberate or a mistake, leading to harsher penalties.

There are cases where it can be bad, but I would have problems giving any examples. Wouldn't change the point anyway.

In short, if you really are in a at risk group you need to stay off the internet, everything you do adds to your risk that you are tracked. It doesn't matter much effort you take to hide your tracks (which everyone should take anyway...), if you have a reason to worry you need to get off the internet.