I don't know if this is some stream-of-consciousness writing exercise but this article seems confused. On the one hand, he complains of lies, trolls, neo-traditionalism and their technological proliferation, but, on the other hand, "I want a First Amendment" becomes his clarion call towards the article's second half. Does this person realize the subjects of his polemic are all covered under the First Amendment? I'm not particularly partial to India's illiberal democratic populism. Far from it. But I don't see how the author expects that having cake and eat it too is a feasible solution.