The situation is more complex than that, I think. It's possible for some domains to diversity while others homogenize (and I think you are overestimating the di

The situation is more complex than that, I think. It's possible for some domains to diversity while others homogenize (and I think you are overestimating the diversity of views actually in play). American politics is highly polarized rather than diverse. The mass media are owned by a few large corporations while the internet offers the possibility for greater diversity of views. But possibility does not necessarily translate into actuality. Dethroning a king doesn't automatically mean more liberty. Indeed, the removal of an authority creates a vacuum in which powerful players can now even more successfully dominate than before. Information travels very quickly today, but it must happen over a medium and "signal strength" still matters. Indeed, this speed of transmission can be a force multiplier, inviting less reflection and criticism and more thoughtless reaction. We must view things systemically. The world today isn't the world of 2001 plus some new stuff, like Lego bricks tacked onto an existing edifice that otherwise remains the same. New things shape the world they enter into. Once the internet, social media, etc. entered the picture, they also affected everybody and thus the system as a whole, adapting and changing in response. It is true that the establishment can no longer exercise control over popular thought and sentiment using the exactly same traditional 20th century methods of broadcasting propaganda thought restricted channels, but new methods exist. And it's important to understand that today as well as decades ago, the less powerful often ape the more powerful. Chomsky talks about this in "Manufacturing Consent". There's your trickle down theory of propaganda. So I'm of the opinion that things are changing, the pot is being stirred and bubbling, but there's a great deal that remains the same under new guises.