Do you have anything better to say than just say it's not true? Zuckerberg injected millions into the elections. YouTube has censored public hearings. Twitter has censored a bombshell story and has banned a sitting president. Reddit's CEO admitted they have the power to "sway and election". And let's not forget the "fortifying" of the election (https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/).
> The elected officials, as always. The elected officials, as always. I’m so tired of this thought-terminating question. The democratic system is the piece that always closes that feedback loop. If you ever again need to ask “but who watches the watchers?!??!!” the answer is the voters.
This is a very naive view of democracy. Politicians can restrict speech, suppress inconvenient information, create and promote false-crisis and inject or cut money to media companies so that it helps their re-election; thus creating a positive feedback loop where we see the same sitting president or the same dynasty in power for generations like in a lot of African "democracies".
Pick one.
Also this also makes sense if you consider revolving door politics and the merger of corporation and state that happened the last 50 years.
Voting.
It’s the fundamental feedback system in the US.
This isn’t even close to true.
> Who will get to decide what's illegal?
The elected officials, as always. I’m so tired of this thought-terminating question. The democratic system is the piece that always closes that feedback loop. If you ever again need to ask “but who watches the watchers?!??!!” the answer is the voters.