They absolutely do, whether we use them or not. Our leaders use them extensively, and it drives the news cycle. It plays a huge role in what journalists report on and the type of propaganda or information politicians choose to put out. Trump got elected in large part to social media.

But as you just said, ignorance is bliss.

Do you mean the 90% of media-bashing trump the whole 2016 election and praising Hillary like a saint? What alternate reality do you live in where the media helped trump? Yes, ignorance is bliss.

No. He means social networks like Twitter and Facebook. Though in 2020 elections US Dems had all that covered too.

The media didn't help him, they were overwhelmingly working against him. I said SOCIAL media. He had a major presence on social media.

People presenting their dumb opinions as fact isn't unique to the right wing, to twitter and it didn't magically appear after social media became a thing.

People choosing to believe what they choose to believe is something quite independent of what other people say online. I'm not sure what you're arguing for because you're basically saying
''Freedom is great and all but it causes the crazy people to become riled up so we shouldn't have it''.
By that logic we should have no rights at all because non-experts will use those rights to inspire crazy people to do a coup.

And worst of all its not even balanced, old twitter had plenty of crazies that they sheltered for PR and profit reasons.

Twitter had, before the takeover, people from political extremes who believe in fabricated history and fabricated facts and still push them onto the world. The only reason you think old twitter was sane was either because the loonies were out of your sphere of vision or you agreed with them.

As to your analogy, a elections-based democracy and the society that it serves isn't like a developer position where you have managers waiting to assess your work or value to the company (to decide if they want to fire you). The last two US presidents should clue you in on the fact that societies do what they want to do, not necessarily what they think is sensible.

Since your PMs are blocked, I'll indulge the offtopic post with a reply.

Just because I'm curious, I'll question these universally good things in the context of reality;

What's the benefit of immigration during an unqualified labor surplus?

Are there unions that don't align in some partisan fashion to political parties? And don't you need to consider the fact that a lot of companies will pick up move elsewhere if business becomes too difficult in one place?

In re social welfare and security, doesn't the government's ability to offer them depend on how much people pay taxes, who pays taxes and how much people are in the workforce?

Is anyone really against kids going to college as you seem to think or are they questioning the system where students get into debt getting practically useless degrees while technically-qualified labor is brought in via immigration?

Minimum wages should exist though.

Some irrefutable historical facts:

The party of slavery in the cotton plantation South - demonrats(sic)
The party of the KKK and lynchings in the South- see above
The party of "Jim Crow" in the South - see above
The party of segregation in the South - see above
The party of the poll tax in the South - see above

See the pattern here? The real racist bigots have worked overtime for over 50 years to project their sins onto their opponents. It's called controlling the narrative, or "spinning." Cynical as hell. All a part of their Saul Alinsky Playbook. Even worse, if anyone disagrees with them on ANYTHING, rather than debate the issue, they scream RACIST! They play their predictable race card like clockwork to deflect from the truth. They care not about issues or people, but only themselves. For them, it's all about POWER, for them. One last fact, Gov George Wallace of AL, one of the most virulent segregationists was, you guessed it, a demonrat(sic) ca 1962. QED.

Footnoted sources available upon request.

The parties change greatly over time. If I recall correctly from my reading, the Democratic Party didn't really become the party that defends minorities until 1965 when they passed the voting rights act.

Also, the Republican party in the US is very different from what it was even 30 years ago.

It's better not to expect consistency from social entities over time (political parties, companies, countries, whatever). People die, things change.

yeah, I already said the Democrats WERE the racists prior to the 1960/1970s. So, nice that you agree with me.


Here's another lil challenge for ya: Name any economic metric used to measure a national economy, where the performance of said metric is superior under a GOP Admin, vs under a Dem Admin. (Gonna give ya another hint, to save you from brain damage: There isn't one)

Unemployment? Lower under Dem than GOP
Job Growth? Higher under Dems vs GOP
GDP growth? Higher under Dems vs GOP
Stock Market growth? Higher under Dems
Personal Incomes? Higher under Dems
Corporate Incomes? Higher under Dems
Growth of the National Debt? SLOWER under Dems.

True, post industrial revolution..circa 1920 and forward. Yeah, we have 100 years of hard data, to prove the GOP is NOT fiscally responsible...AT.ALL.