I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. > It all started in 2016 after it was deemed that tech, especially social media, had helped sway the ele

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. > It all started in 2016 after it was deemed that tech, especially social media, had helped sway the election. Since then a lot of things became political that weren't in the past and tech got swept up w/ that The 2016 election was a symptom of broader societal changes, and yeah, I'd also say it exhibited a new level of psychological manipulation in election campaigns. But the election being "deemed" influenced by technology and media (sure it was, why not?) as a cause for political division seems very far-fetched. Regarding the US healthcare politics farce, I don't understand your point or how it relates to the beginning of your comment. Political division and propaganda inciting outrage are flourishing, yes. Not because of what you describe about the 2016 election though, IMO. What's the connection? So you mean if nobody had assessed social media campaigns after that election, politics wozld be more honest and fact-based? Why? And what did you want to say with the NY Times article about the US secretary of health and American junk food / cereals?