If the powerful choose what is and is not amplified, they will try to avoid amplifying things which hurt their causes, and to amplify things which support them.

I don't want to be a pawn of the wealthy, or of governments, or powerful people in general. I don't trust my own government to do what's in my best interests, let alone foreign governments. I certainly don't trust the wealthy, either. That's why I think it should be otherwise.

> I don't want to be a pawn of the wealthy, or of governments, or powerful people in general.

Then don't. It's your choice to get all your news from facebook or twitter. You're here on HN, so I believe you already understand that the contents of facebook and twitter shouldn't determine the contents of your thoughts.

I don't want countless people to be pawns of the wealthy. I don't think very many people themselves want to be pawns of the wealthy.

Yet very many of these people will continue to use Facebook and Twitter for news, rather than changing to an alternative. So your solution to the problem fails.

> I don't want countless people to be pawns of the wealthy. I don't think very many people themselves want to be pawns of the wealthy.

It's not up to you. People can visit whatever websites they want, your subjective judgements about the nature of the content on the website isn't relevant. If they have a problem with the website they are free to visit another one.

> Very many people will continue to use Facebook and Twitter for news.

That's their choice. Very many people will continue to use pornhub and there is nothing the church can do about it... yet.

For me, it's simple. Facebook is doing bad things. I don't like bad things. I think we should stop Facebook from doing bad things.

Is up to me to stop it? No. Of course not. Obviously not. In fact, even if I had the power to single-handedly, unilaterally, stop Facebook from doing these things, I wouldn't. Because I don't believe that might makes right (that's my wider point, after all).

What I want is a popular, democratic movement to regulate the websites that people use, in the way that the informed population think they should be regulated.

Allowing countless to be made pawns of in the name of liberty seems foolish.

> I don't want countless people to be pawns of the wealthy

Too late. People are too easy to manipulate when you can amplify whatever you want.

> I don't want to be a pawn of the wealthy, or of governments, or powerful people in general.

yeah - this is the same sentiment out founding fathers had (in US obv.)

> I don't trust my own government to do what's in my best interests...

That's why we vote. The system created relieves us of worrying about being manipulated by powerful people, by letting the people run the government.

The truth is, your opinion only counts as much as your vote. That's how it should be. Your fringe opinions shouldn't count more than the rest of the people's opinions. So go vote. And let that be that.

Voting is a small part of a functioning democracy. Voting, then letting that be that, is very undemocratic.

This comment is arguing against something I didn't say.

I disagree. You say voting equals government by the people. I say voting does not equal government by the people.

then don't use twitter and convince others you know to do the same

Of course convincing individuals not to use these services is important. But it's not a solution to the problem.