It’s a bit annoying to have to point this out, because it - the issue you have raised is of more pressing interest to me. The article presupposes interpersonal

It’s a bit annoying to have to point this out, because it - the issue you have raised is of more pressing interest to me. The article presupposes interpersonal discussions, and assume possibility of good faith. It’s hard to make a case online, which covers all bases. ——- To your point = YES! It is INCREDIBLY frustrating and difficult to talk about this unless you are in some specific circles. The best analogy currently I have is between Individual recycling vs company scale environmental harm. Denialist arguments, misinformation campaigns - these are not conversations. These are campaigns. Someone wants to enact political change, influence the Overton window and drive votes or citizen behavior. It’s absurd - and any intervention to stop this, will be branded as censorship. Then the usual solutions get pulled out; fact-checking, more free speech. All of which buys more space for the malignant campaigns. Currently, misinformation research is specifically being targeted, which has incredible parallels to environmental research in the 80s/90s. You had cranks brought onto Fox and treated as experts. This created bills to thwart pro environment efforts. When scientists went onto Fox to debate, they were fed to the lions for spectacle. The facts of online ecosystems end up being loaded - misinfo campaigns focus mostly on right and conservative groups. This leads to emotional responses and dismissals from people who aren’t steeped in this nonsense. You get arguments of both sides, or solutions that assume equal levels of harm and exposure. Any actual effort to bring light to this is attacked. See what happened with the SIO. Right now the Censorship, and the censorship industrial complex are the terms being used. It’s.. incredibly frustrating.