Exactly. The "gang-stalking victim" group is just more obviously detached from reality. But all of us, including me, are in one or more of these now. We just do

Exactly. The "gang-stalking victim" group is just more obviously detached from reality. But all of us, including me, are in one or more of these now. We just don't know which ones. I think this is built into the relatively libertarian structure of the internet. From the 1990s to mid-2000s, if you cared about information, politics, art or culture at all, the project was to get rid of filters and gatekeepers. To increasing the number of voices that can be heard and attract a large audience. But when you encounter a group like the "gang-stalking victims" then you realize this has its problems. I first encountered such a group in the late 1990s - people who claimed to be victims of "psychotronic" devices implanted in their heads. I had a moment of "Oh, shit, this is what the future is going to be, isn't it?". I don't need to show why the pluralistic internet has had good effects. But some problems are starting to overtake the benefits. We're all in one filter bubble or another now. And we're discovering how filterless media is dangerously vulnerable to demagoguery. I'm not sure disintermediation is important now. Maybe we need re-intermediation. Some mechanism that, without silencing alternative voices, also forces a reasoned consensus on events. Much as Wikipedia does, but without the reliance on dying institutions such as ad-supported newspapers, and faster than waiting for an academic to write a book or scientific paper.