>Winning on social media is a hollow activity, with no chance of success and nothing of value to be won even if you did. When you're there not for the fight or

>Winning on social media is a hollow activity, with no chance of success and nothing of value to be won even if you did. When you're there not for the fight or argument. It is extremely valuable. The problem is... they don't allow you to discuss it. They wish to control the narrative and intentionally disallow discussion. >However, there is a battlefield: the voting booth. I certainly hope you are not considering this in a literal sense. >People who believe misinformation vote, and the social contract requires us to live with the consequences of that vote. Some misinformation results in choices that harm people. The difference between misinformation and fact seems to be 6 months. >The whole idea is that we're supposed to discuss it before we vote, and social media would have seemed an ideal place to hold that discussion. Instead, we spend a lot of it fighting over things that are straightforward enough that it should be easy to achieve widespread consensus. Democracy doesn't require or even desire unanimity, but it expects an agreement about things that are fairly obvious. Social media when it allowed the discussion was an ideal place. The problem is that political activists abused the platforms and took control. The discussion is happening now, it took time for the republicans to figure out their mistake.