throwing away your other points : there are a lot of factions to consider when thinking about why an internet post is or isn't a good indicator of a general con

throwing away your other points : there are a lot of factions to consider when thinking about why an internet post is or isn't a good indicator of a general consensus. There are companies that exist only to advocate certain talking points across the span of the internet; that's their entire reason for existence. Police unions buy their services, protesting groups buy their services, political parties buy their services, gun rights and gun control advocates both buy their services alike. Their entire job is to posit certain points as loudly as they can on publicly visible medias, and cheerlead for 'their team' on certain talking points and defenses. A popular public forum/chat/socialmediasite discussing loaded political topics will never be an indicator of the public at large because too much incentive exists for propagandists from every angle to game the system at such opportunities. Those voices with more money/backing/support will always drown out the true signal. Thusly these samples that you're basing your entire take on a country filled with people are inherently flawed. Believe it or not.