A_A OP , 5 months ago

Thanks to
:::spoiler all of you here :
@AmidFuror @kbin.social
@Bipta @kbin.social
@fidodo @lemmy.world
@GreyShuck @feddit.uk
@HubertManne @kbin.social
@IdiosyncraticIdiot @sh.itjust.works
@lvxferre @mander.xyz
@Nemo @midwest.social
@originalucifer @moist.catsweat.com
@PeepinGoodArgs @reddthat.com
@Rhynoplaz @lemmy.world
@southsamurai @sh.itjust.works
@TheInsane42 @lemmy.world
@whenigrowup356 @lemmy.world
:::
<a href=""></a>
For your interest in this discussion. I cannot decide for all of you of the final conclusion … but after careful pondering here is what I say :

The strongest point would be this :
from(@PeepinGoodArgs )

(…) And when you get less that most of what you want, the population is left with even greater feelings of disappointment in their political leaders. Free speech will be used to exploit these vulnerabilities. Free speech can also alleviate the pressure of these vulnerabilities on democracy. (…)

But this would work only if debates go well enough. The following is relevant here :

from(@whenigrowup356 )

I’d argue that debates aren’t useful without a neutral, mutually trusted media source that listeners from both sides would refer to for fact-checking. The US has debates but the soundbites that partisan media air are the main way people consume them. Few people watch the whole debate, and few want to because they’re mostly just hot air. (…)

I feel this whole social process is really critical (at this point in time) so, thanks again to everyone here.