> There's a comfort in wanting to believe we live in an age that breaks all the rules, so a lot of people soothe themselves by thinking that it's ok if they're

> There's a comfort in wanting to believe we live in an age that breaks all the rules, so a lot of people soothe themselves by thinking that it's ok if they're afraid of or not comfortable in the world because after all it's something no one has ever had to deal with before. That lie gives us a comforting feeling, and people prefer a comforting lie over a cold truth anytime You are right that the printing press was very disruptive for its time. But I would say that every day since the beginning of the industrial revolution is living in a time that "breaks all the rules" as you say I could retort that it is comforting to call me the crazy one but I still believe that this age of instant, accessible global communication is indeed unique and that, psychologically, we as a species are not ready to deal with it. All throughout history the groups that you and I speak of were always relatively localized; it was very difficult to build a movement that affected all of Europe, for example. Not impossible -- ideas were and are as infectious as ever -- but beset with much much more entropy Could Russia have facilitated the kind of propaganda/misinformation campaign that it did for the 2016 elections without any of its ever needing to leave their Moscow office in WWII? All else held constant, could these flat-earther/antivax morons have reached nearly as many people and had their movements spread as far and wide as they have in the age of the printing press? No, because entropy. And even when movements did (Lutheranism, for example), it took years to take hold.