[Calvin02]

While I like Jared and the ideas that he puts forward, I can’t help but feel that in reality they would fail abysmally.

Half of this country (US) denies that Sandy Hook happened, they deny that the election was fair, they think that every mass shooting is staged in an attempt by the government to seize their guns. Why would these people want to join a social group and only post through that group? Also, why would it limit misinformation? Aren’t there already communities of these like minded people who are even more extreme?

[erellsworth]

Agreed. Also, even if we assume that the groups idea (which I don't think is very well defined) would solve everything, how would you get all social media platforms to follow that template? I can't see any legislation requiring such an approach surviving legal challenges, or being implemented globally.

[null0pointer]

> Half of this country (US) denies that Sandy Hook happened, they deny that the election was fair, they think that every mass shooting is staged in an attempt by the government to seize their guns.

Half? This is such a gross overestimation. The people that hold those views are a tiny fringe minority. It's rhetoric like this, where you accuse the half of the country that didn't vote for your team of holding extreme views, that drives division in the United States.

[ece]

Have you tuned into a congressional hearing on a divisive issue recently? Like the one that happened yesterday. OP is basically right. Right wing radio in the 90s was a parallel universe, and congress was somewhat civil, now half of congress lives in that parallel universe, and right wing radio/social media basically advocates for fascism in the open.

Until the electoral college is fixed or more people vote, it might as well be half the country. It makes little difference that it's at least 50% in the red states.

[Group_B]

I wouldn't go as far as to say half the country is as crazy as Alex Jones. That's a bit of a stretch.