"Good thing for freedom and democracy" is a bit optimistic.
Suppose 40% of voters think social security should be eliminated, 35% of voters think social security should be saved, and 25% voters vote to save social security because they think lepricons are poisoning babies, and only the social security save party is willing to do something about it.
This would show that social security's future is now now determined by who tells the best lies about lepricons.
Whatever this thing is, I don't think "good" is the right work to describe it.
I believe it to be fair to say all societies rely on some form of trust in others and the institutions setup within to function.
Regardless if it is in a Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, etc.
Regardless of it's means of resource distribution such as capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.
America for example, despite at times in the past having slavery being legal, committing genocide, segregation, the stealing of land, etc.
Despite being majority one religion.
Still expanded the vote. Expanded freedoms. Expanded access to education. And has shown an ability to let people that were previously expected to hide to live out in the open and freely.
If we are going to really take one survey result at one moment in time as gospel to say that American voters can't be trusted seems counter to the examples of the past where despite majority of Americans voters feeling one way, opinions were changed and progress was made. Slowly. Painfully. Yet still some positive direction.
Thanks for reading my rant and I'll leave with one last thing:
The public trust is sadly a fragile thing. When that trust is abused and poisoned by the very elected officials that have sworn to protect it the voters faith in the system becomes erroded. It unfortunately then takes longer and more work to rebuild that trust again. To move back to a society where arguments were made in good faith; not to just to troll or wage culture wars.
Trust is an important word there. In general I think people tend to overestimate the ability of any given entity, let alone individual, to unilaterally influence society. When "revolutionary" action is taken it often tends to be a result of little more than already preexisting sentiment finally reaching a climax. This [1] is a poll of public trust in government, which is a proxy for much of this. The "Trump years" literally don't even cause a notable shift in the trend.
The point I make here is that the issues are more fundamental than e.g. China or Trump or whatever else. We're like flagellants of the ancient times looking to the Heavens for the cause of the plague, while the answer lay somewhat more mundanely on the rats scurrying about their feet. So what IS causing the massive declines in trust? It's no more complex than those fleas, it's the government behaving in an untrustworthy way. The decline started shortly after everything around the assassination of JFK ended up being shrouded in secrecy and lies, which was just the start of a never-ending series of deceitful-looking, if not plainly deceitful, actions.
And now? The en vogue "solution is supposed to be censorship, even more authoritarian levels of social control, and a borderline obsession with making sure people can only access the "right" message, which is little more than a euphemism for propaganda kept at arm's length. Do you genuinely think these sort of things will help improve trust? Look to the countless countries which were able to execute such mechanisms in times of far less externa influence, like the USSR. The government had complete control not only over absolutely all messaging, but even if who could enter or leave the country. And resulted not only in extreme distrust, but a system that predictably collapsed [long] before even reaching its centennial.
Quite simply, if the government wants to regain trust, the best way to do that is to start acting in a transparent and trustworthy fashion. Yet we're going in the exact opposite direction, hard.
This is a very good post, but I think it misses part of the point. You talk exclusively about the erosion of trust between the people and the government. And I agree with your point. But I think the real distinction (and current issue regarding social media) isn’t erosion between the populace and the government, but between the populace and itself. The “othering” and divisive nature of social media, which erodes the “united” in United States.
This bill is only about the external, and a general framework for the establishment of a national firewall. If the government wants to ban all social media, more power to them. It would never pass the 1st amendment, but if it could I'd even support it! But that's tangential, as this bill isn't that.
As for what's causing divides, the one thing I'd observe is that if it were the internet then we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case. Some Western democracies, such as Norway, are even becoming less divided. They have no censorship whatsoever besides a handful of file-sharing sites being blocked, and universal access to the internet. Beyond this there are so many possible, and completely viable, explanations for the divisions in America that I think it turns into a Rorschach test. It's like trying to explain the fall of Rome.
You're right; the bill is aimed at adversarial threats to national security. Social media isn't the end, just the means in this case.
>we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case.
I'm not sure if this premise holds. For one, I think it's missing the nuance about the size and heterogeneity of the U.S. Take, for example, the thesis that the country is more accurately comprised of multiple different dominant sub-cultures.[1] I think when you expand the other Western democracies similarly, we see analagous divisions (see: Brexit).
Suppose 40% of voters think social security should be eliminated, 35% of voters think social security should be saved, and 25% voters vote to save social security because they think lepricons are poisoning babies, and only the social security save party is willing to do something about it.
This would show that social security's future is now now determined by who tells the best lies about lepricons.
Whatever this thing is, I don't think "good" is the right work to describe it.