Definitely! A lot of things need to be re-evaluated.

Yeah, I totally get that. But I have also learned that it's easy to get burned out on all the nasty stuff going on in our world, leading people to disengage. I can sympathize with them. In fact, I would sleep a lot better if I could take a break and focus on those other things, haha!

To me this is the scary part: we’ve built a system where people can act like this and not immediately lose power.

This is why I’m stuck on the “for the people” part of “of, by, and for.” This sure doesn’t feel like a government that’s reliably working for its citizens.

This debate itself reveals the structural problem: our political system can't handle complexity.
Identity politics? Reductive. Kitchen table issues? Reductive. Reality is nuanced, but the incentives punish nuance and reward oversimplification. That's the actual problem to solve.

This is exactly how I have felt for years! I started applying systems design and engineering principles to the machinery of government, proposing solutions to these problems. Join me at statecraftblueprint.org Keep up the great work!

These are exactly the conversations we should be having. Media regulation—whether traditional or social—involves serious complexities and trade-offs.
The problem? Our broken government machinery makes it nearly impossible to have productive debates, much less implement thoughtful solutions. Thanks!

I share your frustration—this system IS broken. Quality journalism _should_ be economically viable.
But debating what journalists "should do" won't fix incentives that punish them for doing it right. We need structural reform that makes verification profitable, not just morally correct.

Right—that's what journalism should be. But outlets that practice proper verification go bankrupt while outlets that skip it thrive.
Even good journalists struggle to make a living adhering to those ideals. The system rewards first movers with clicks. Verification doesn't pay the bills.

That's what we want, but here's why it fails:
Outlet waits to verify → competitors publish unverified → goes viral from them → verified version arrives to "old news"
The system punishes responsible journalism. Speed wins, accuracy loses.
I wrote about this: statecraftblueprint.org/p/the-five-s...

You're right, but we can't rely on journalists to fact-check fast enough: Claim drops → goes viral
Fact-check arrives weeks later
Correction reaches 1% of original audience
By then everyone has picked their side and closed their ears
We have virality but no immune system. Truth arrives too late.

It's wild that "wait, consider the source and verify before reacting" feels like exceptional discipline now. But that's what happens when the system rewards hot takes over accuracy.
Appreciate you modeling what careful thinking looks like.