We Once Loved the Birth of the Internet.

We LOVED the text-based Internet.

"Information is free!" "Community, not capitalism!"

We weren't socialists, or communists, or anything but Humanitarian and purveyors of elevating humanity, education and enhancing everyone's understanding of the world around us. Many were of positions that allowed them access from higher levels, universities, research groups and so on as the Internet was disseminated on a larger and larger scope in pushing it out to every more people. Until people with not the best of intent gained access and we started to notice a downside.

People in newsgroups back in the late 80s and early 90s got run off, if not off of being online, our of newsgroups for trying to monetize OUR Internet. Our, being what we were cultivating in its best orientation for all, not just those with money, or those with military intent.

That was the deal. That was the culture. It was a positive thing, for the masses.

Around the same time, on C-SPAN, Newt Gingrich was giving fiery speeches to an empty chamber, knowing the camera only showed him, not the empty seats. Theater, not debate. A lie, not truth. Weaponizing what was for everyone, for only the few, his few.

Anything goes, once you decide you're done losing. That's where our toxic politics really got its legs.

Then the internet grew up, and it turned out to be the perfect stage for exactly that kind of theater, at scale. Gingrich-style scorched earth built the audience. Russian disinformation operations later found that same audience ready-made and went to work on it. 

I spent decades studying KGB influence tactics, going back to my Air Force years in the late 1970s. By the 90s I started seeing the same playbook show up in GOP messaging, and it floored me that almost nobody else in public was saying so out loud. 

Not until about the 2010s when people started realizing it and saying aloud what they had not that long ago claimed I was crazy for saying. It was relieving, rewarding, and irritating for the two decades of abuse, or worse, being discounted. Ignored. Looked at like I was a fool, while I watched most of us acting like exactly that. 

Especially in one political party in particular. One that finally saw it's desired fruition in electing someone like Donald Trump. Twice. Now regretting that. 

Except for those making the most money under his mob boss tutelage. 

I started noticing in the early 90s how Soviet/KGB subversive efforts against America, against the West were being picked up and used by the American Right, the Republican Party, people like Newt Gingrich. Lies sold as truth. Spin was the rule of the day, they broke that barrier and pushed that spin by the Left were lies, and lies by the Right, were Truth. Now we have what?

Truth Social, perhaps the biggest lie of them all but our biggest liar ever.

The internet still gave us real things. More community. More connection, for more people who never had it before.

But capitalism got in anyway. And got in the way, as we knew it would. We watched out dream die on the vine.

And it won. Toxic politics and toxic capitalism ended up feeding each other, each one making the other more profitable.

Now we've got broken social media, engagement over humanity, platform owners emboldened by both.

An AI now able to weaponize it ALL. Against US, We The People. For THEM. Those who own most of the money while we all are struggling.

We tried. We failed. But all is not lost--yet. Only if we let it be.

Better leaders. Better products. Dynamics that pull us together, not apart. They are out there, asking for our votes, rather than for those whose only and best interests are not for us, but for them.

They merely say it is for us, but their actions prove otherwise, constantly, incessantly. Sadly. Sadly, for us as they grow ever stronger in wealth and power. But we are waking. Slowly, sick of the abuse.

Truth over spin. Over lies. Reality over performance.

We are the People. Never forget that.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

From Difference to Division to Exploitation

First off, wishing all a very Merry Christmas!

All my life, I was told what was right and wrong. What was acceptable. What was “standard.”
Then one day I realized I did not agree with all of that. Some of those things I, ME, actually objected to. Why was MY orientation, my values, my comprehension of life valueless?

Some of the things I liked were not mainstream. They were not approved or fashionable or widely accepted. 

But they were not bad. They were simply different. I learned to celebrate that individuality. Growing up in the 1960s and 70s didn't hurt that orientation, or stop it from coming into being.

That realization expanded. It expanded when I got into the USAF and met people from all around the country and our protectorates. And even other countries. These immigrants were not to be feared but respected for their serving and when I heard they did not have citizenship, were not guaranteed it after having served, I was offended. Put YOUR life on the line for OUR country and you do not necessarily gain citizenship? Who does that?

I came to understand people who were different from me in deeper ways. 

I grew up knowing about Gay people. They were very nice from what I could see. I was never bet up by a Gay person. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that the only people who ever bullied me or harmed me physically were very, very heterosexual. Or so they believed, perhaps they were denying something within themselves. Something that would have to cause one confusion, and pain.

Then trans people came out and were getting rights. All my life I was fascinated by people from other cultures and lived experiences. I was not part of those groups, but I understood the principle. 

Difference was not a threat. It was a feature of a healthy society. And I celebrated that too.

For a long time, this all seemed compatible with a shared center. We were individuals, but we still belonged to something larger. I always believed that common ground was America. Not as an ideology, but as a civic and cultural agreement that allowed difference to exist without tearing us apart.

Then came cable TV/ Then 24 hour news cycles Then news as entertainment and no longer as a "loss leader". Then I gained access in the 1980s to the internet and there was more amazing stuff out there. As I had in the 1960s in connecting with people around the world on a Ham Radio, I could talk to a NASA scientist online in a newsgroup, or an artist in Paris, or a soldier in Germany.

Then social media arrived. 

Then came the monetization of outrage. People discovered they could make money, power, and attention by exploiting division, by turning identity into a weapon rather than a bridge.

That is when things broke for us.

Celebrating individuality is good. Honoring culture is good. But without a shared core of association, without some common civic reality, we do not get freedom. We get fragmentation. And fragmentation is easily manipulated.

While we once had only three TV stations, we all watched the same shows. We had a shared culture. It was largely white, massively white, Christian in nature, but it wasn't oppressive, it wasn't nasty, it wasn't mean. But it was too monocultural. 

In expanding that we took on other cultures. But at some point some were disgruntled, and felt their allowing room for others to exist in was somehow oppressive to their culture, the one that had been dominant from the beginning. 

Rather than being accepting, some because bitter. Sub-cultures recognized and opening and applied pressure to those weak points in our society. Some in power found a potential for power and wealth and they took up those positions and leveraged them. Foreign enemies saw those too and did the same, mimicking they were us and they were not. 

Computer technology enhanced all of that. "To err is human, to really foul things up takes a computer."

That path led us to something darker. 

To figures like Trump, and to movements as toxic as his MaGA, where identity is no longer something to celebrate, but something to mobilize against others. It became a political personality cult.

That is not individuality.
That is exploitation.
And it is costing us the very society that once made individuality possible.

It is not America. Not the America we were evolving into, maturing into, becoming with open arms that were then slapped back until today we are divesting, we are isolating, pulling into ourselves worldwide and not embracing others but seeking the auspices of greed, selfishness and avarice.

That just is not America. It's not My America. And I really don't think it's yours, either.

Because that puts us on a dark path. A very dark path, as we're now on. And if we're not careful, very bad things will come of it. It's happened before. Elsewhere. Decades ago, not that far away. A distance that has shrunken over the years.

So far, we are walking a fine line between darkness and light and it appears we will in the end err on the side of that lightness. Of our "better angels". 

But we need to continue to apply pressure to those weak points of the bad in our culture, to allow the good to seep out and outweigh what is bad.

It is my hope we will succeed. For that IS America. And exactly who we should be.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Take It Down Act and the Real Fight Ahead

Social media has become the magnifying glass on every social upheaval. The choice is whether it fuels democracy or destruction. And whether we let it, or not.

We hear a lot about internet “algorithms” pushing people into echo chambers rather th7an toward truth, logic, or reality. And I keep asking myself: why is this so hard to fix? Couldn’t Congress simply pass a law requiring platforms to guide people toward reality instead of reinforcing their biases?

Then I look at what they have done, and what they haven’t.

---

The Take It Down Act: Proof Congress Can Move

In May 2025, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Take It Down Act. The law was bipartisan and straightforward: it criminalizes the distribution of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes, and forces platforms to remove them within 48 hours of notice.

That’s meaningful. It’s real protection for victims of online exploitation. And it shows Congress can move quickly when there’s broad agreement about harm.

---

What It Doesn’t Do

Here’s the catch: the law’s scope is very narrow. It addresses one type of online abuse… “revenge porn” and deepfake sexual images. It does not touch the algorithms that drive conspiracy theories, political radicalization, or misinformation.

Why? Because the second you move from “intimate images” to “misinformation,” everything explodes into partisan fights and First Amendment debates. Who decides what’s real? What about political speech? What about corporate profit motives?

---

Algorithms Are the Real Problem

Social media platforms aren’t neutral bulletin boards. Their recommendation engines amplify outrage and division because outrage makes money. If you click on one partisan video, the algorithm serves you more, tightening the loop. Engagement equals profit.

The result is echo chambers that corrode democracy, where people live inside a 30 percent slice of facts surrounded by 70 percent spin.

---

Why Congress Won’t Fix It

Profit: Big Tech thrives on division. Regulation would hurt their bottom line.

Power: Movements like MaGA rely on these echo chambers. Leaders who benefit from them have no incentive to change the rules.

Politics: Regulating “truth” online runs straight into free speech fights, even when the speech is demonstrably false or manipulated. Donald Trump’s so-called ‘Truth Social’ and the ‘Truths’ he posts there are nothing more than an offensive front for ever more cruelty and lies, an affront to this nation and humanity at large in continuing his manufactured delusions as “reality” and “truth”.

So instead of confronting the deeper issue, Congress picks easier, narrower targets like intimate image abuse, where consensus is easier to find.

---

The Bigger Picture

The Take It Down Act proves one thing: Congress can legislate online behavior when it wants to. But it also proves how limited their appetite is for tackling the real forces warping our democracy.

Until we demand more, algorithms will keep steering millions away from truth and into self-designed echo boxes, while the people profiting off that distortion smile all the way to the bank.

---

Shame, Power, and Toxic Capitalism

Donald Trump’s MaGA-style autocratic personality cult has been engineered to mirror his own numbness to shame and his own psychological defects. Corporations are not built that way.

They fear lost profits, lost credibility, and lost talent. The task is to turn toxic capitalism against itself, forcing it to lean into its defects until it becomes more pro-social, more pro-people. Demand transparency, pressure advertisers, insist on accountability, and change will follow.

---

Change and Violence

We also have to recognize that big social changes often fuel violence. When those changes are illiberal or outright autocratic, the harm is not accidental…it is built into the change itself. Social media doesn’t just witness these upheavals, it amplifies them, concentrating their energy like a lens. That is why these companies cannot pretend neutrality. They are active participants in shaping whether change drives us toward democracy and connection, or toward chaos and destruction.

Social media companies, which now own the channels of that change, must understand they are the magnifying glass on an already blinding light, focusing its energy directly onto all of us. Simply deplatforming people doesn’t solve the deeper problem.

It treats the internet itself as the enemy, as if nothing more can be done. In reality, these platforms already have the tools to turn the volume up or down. The choice is whether they use that power only to enrich their own pockets, or to enrich all of us in our relationships with one another, with those companies, and with our democracy.

---

The Real Fight

The Take It Down Act was deliberately small, a tiny step, but an important crack in the wall of toxicity. The fight ahead is bigger: forcing social media to serve democracy, not just its own addiction.

Either we make these companies, and our government, feel the pain of their choices, until they realize that leaning toward us, not away, is good for them and for us, or we let them all keep profiting from our destruction.

In the end, that choice is ours.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The TikTok Ban: Exploring Early Benefits & Shifts in our Social Media Landscape

As of January 19, 2025, the United States has implemented a ban on TikTok, citing national security concerns related to data privacy and potential foreign influence. 

This action has led to several notable developments:

Migration to Alternative Platforms

In response to the ban, many former TikTok users have transitioned to other social media platforms. Notably, the Chinese app Xiaohongshu, known internationally as REDnote, has experienced a significant influx of U.S. users. This migration has fostered increased interaction between American and Chinese users, with the hashtag "#tiktokrefugee" trending on REDnote.

Wikipedia

Impact on Content Creators and Small Businesses

TikTok has been a vital platform for content creators and small businesses, offering substantial income opportunities. The ban has disrupted these revenue streams, prompting creators to seek alternative platforms to maintain their audiences and income.

CBS News

Potential Benefits to Competitors

The ban has opened avenues for other social media platforms to attract former TikTok users. Companies like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), YouTube, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Roblox are positioned to benefit from the shift in user engagement and advertising revenue. Analysts estimate that nearly $10 billion in ad revenue and 32 billion hours of user engagement could be redistributed among these platforms.

Investopedia

National Security and Data Privacy

The ban addresses concerns over data privacy and national security, aiming to protect American user data from potential foreign access. The Supreme Court upheld the law banning TikTok, citing threats to U.S. national security.

AP News

While the ban has led to significant shifts in the social media landscape, its long-term effects on user behavior, content creation, and the broader digital economy remain to be fully seen.

Developments Following TikTok Ban in the U.S.

New York Post

Trump pitches 50% US takeover of TikTok, says he will issue executive order to save it - as GOP hawks say it can't be revived unless it's sold

Today

Barron's

TikTok Appears to Come Back Online After Trump Says He'll Delay the Ban

Today

The Sun

TikTok is SAFE in Britain as 'posting videos of cats' does not threaten national security, Cabinet Minister says

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT 

Disinformation, or what we now call, Social Media

First, I'd like to share this. Marc Maron's WTF podcast opening commentary on the Right's "Wokeism" oft disingenuous rants, in dissecting & explaining the reality of it all, is one of the best I've heard: Episode 1590 - Jessica Lange

Moving quickly on...(but seriously, if you've ever had trouble countering the Right about "Wokeism", because some "Woke" types are a bit extreme, this is a good listen)...

Yuri Andropov, former Soviet KGB chief and later General Secretary of the Communist Party, is often associated with the concept of disinformation ("дезинформация", pronounced dezinformatsiya).

Yuri Andropov

He reflected on his view on disinformation (and propaganda) when he reportedly said:

"You can take some of it once in a while, but if you get too much of it too often, it becomes addictive."

He was talking about how social media works, without even knowing it, back in the late 1970s/early 80s. But not just about those who are fed disinfo, but also those who utilized it for political, or other purposes.

The concern Andropov had regarding those using disinformation can be broken down into a few key points:

1. Loss of Credibility

Andropov, despite his reliance on disinformation, likely understood that excessive use could erode the credibility of the government or institution employing it. If people became aware of the manipulation or falsehoods being spread, it could backfire, leading to mistrust and skepticism, both within the targeted population and internationally. This could damage the credibility of Soviet leaders and the KGB, making it harder to maintain control over the narrative.

2. Backlash and Unintended Consequences

Another concern Andropov might have had was the potential for disinformation to spiral out of control. Once false information spreads, it can be difficult to manage or retract. As disinformation takes root, it can grow and take on a life of its own, leading to unintended consequences. People might start believing and spreading the misinformation further, and the truth might be obscured to the point where it’s challenging to regain control over the situation. This "addiction" to disinformation could create a cycle that was difficult to break.

3. Overuse Leading to Predictability

The repeated use of disinformation as a tactic could make it predictable and less effective over time. If a government or organization becomes known for spreading false information, its efforts could lose their impact. People might become more adept at recognizing and questioning the information they receive, reducing the effectiveness of the campaigns. The very tool that had been so effective in the past could lose its potency if it were relied on too heavily or overused.

4. Psychological and Societal Impact

On a broader level, Andropov might have been concerned with the long-term psychological effects of disinformation. He likely recognized that constant exposure to falsehoods could distort reality and manipulate societies in ways that might lead to confusion, polarization, and instability. If a population becomes addicted to a false narrative, it might lose its ability to discern fact from fiction, weakening its resilience and ability to make informed decisions.

5. Internal Control Issues

For Andropov and the Soviet leadership, internal control was paramount. Disinformation campaigns often had to be tightly managed to ensure they didn’t spiral beyond the control of the government. If they became too pervasive or uncontrollable, it could destabilize the very political system they sought to protect. The addictive nature of disinformation could cause divisions and fragmentation within the leadership and government apparatus itself, leading to power struggles or challenges to authority.

Conclusion

In essence, while Andropov and the Soviet Union’s leadership saw disinformation as a powerful tool for manipulating perceptions and achieving strategic goals, they also recognized the dangers of overuse. Excessive reliance on disinformation could undermine trust, create instability, and eventually erode the very control they sought to maintain.

Interesting times...

Finally, let me drop this on you.

Kleptocracy update... Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Scoop:

Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Actually? This is not good.

Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

And gonna do more like that with others.

We have two emotionally immature financial & political leaders who think they know how to run things.

This isn't going to end well.

We've been edging toward kleptocracy.

That wasn't my intention, though.

I hadn't expected we'd just go all-in on it.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Socially Posting Reality

First up, Vote!

This is the process I try to follow for posting\sharing information on social media. It is important that we post the best and most accurate information possible. We need to pollinate social media with reality and accuracy. We have got to get a handle on it, somehow. It's not just all up to the government or the platforms and companies who own, support and run social media.

"Post Reality."

Whose Reality? As objective a reality as is possible to divine from current and available information. I don't see a lot of that today.

Not to mention by one expert's account to the Congressional Intelligence Committee: "1 in 25" partisan memes\postings are actual American human beings, the rest are bots. Mostly if not all, Russian bots. Which means, we not as partisan as it appears. Well, that's SOME good news anyway.

That being said, EVERYONE screws up sometimes.

Whenever I do I try to be gracious about it if someone points it out, typically posting in public, sometimes to embarrass.

IF it is something extremely obvious, and I am correct, and the person is being outright stupid, I deal with them appropriately. That can be anything from pointing out their mistake with supporting evidence to cutting them down to an appropriate size in their mind (that takes a degree of skill or talent and I see many screw that up and embarrass both parties). Mostly it's best to be compassionate and polite.

But some just need a kick because others need to see that on their side and feel some catharsis on my side. I say that because there are too many bullies out and about, trolling for fun not to educate, not to be accurate. Like children.

Just be aware that nowadays they may simply be a waste of your time in trying to educate them. If they are obviously not interested in actual education, in better and more accurate information, they are just being stupid, and by definition (my definition).

As hard as I try, and I'm a university trained researcher but, I make mistakes too, I may act too fast. I'm human. I may be tired, nor feeling well, distracted, maybe I really shouldn't be posting, etc.

These here are my gold standard points however for how I do try to act in trying to be helpful to others and to be as accurate (and mature) as I can be. Consider that when you read some things online that people post.

IF trained researchers can make these same mistakes, what kind of information do you think is being passed about by those who have no idea what they are sharing or how to go about it? What percentage of information do you think is accurate? Because today one really needs to ask instead, what percentage of information do you think is inaccurate?

When you have other nations like Russia trying to subvert our path, to add chaos to our nation, with national leaders like the POTUS Trump constantly being incorrect and constantly outright lying, constantly escalating the numbers of already inaccurate or irrelevant information. along with people with vested interests in dis- and misinformation, just how much bad information do you think is out there?

Information you may pick up and inadvertently become a part of sharing incorrect information.

Traditionally all through history, we have had incorrect information simply because of an overabundance of poor information, and a lack of available accurate information. Either by accident and simple human fallibility.

Today we have it because people want it there for questionable purposes, vested interests, greed, espionage and political purposes. There is also the allegation that many people actually do like and prefer wrong information ("Study Finds People Like the Wrong Stuff on Social Media Better").

Weird, right?

We simply have to be more careful and do our best to flood social media with the most correct information available that we can access. So....

• Think before posting.
• If possible, click on the post, following it. Does it exist? Check the date it was originally published.
• Do a quick search on the title or topic to see how recent (or valid) it is and what and if the source is reasonable. Especially if there is no publish date or if it is not obvious from content exactly when it was posted.
• The more important or controversial the information the more vetting (validating) is necessary.
• Post less assuredly from others you do not know or do not know well.
• Triangulate (see footnote1 below) research on a post prior to posting (find one or more other relevant, trusted and disparate sources to vet information). Typically cyber-vetting is used today as it can be highly effective and quick...and accurate when done properly. Highly inaccurate when done improperly, which we see a vast amount of from right-wing extremists. 
• As a general rule, if something agrees with your POV too much, it's probably a lie or Russian type disinformation attack on social media. So give it trust only once you've vetted the information.
• When friend or foe challenges your post, do not do an ignorant, or conservative "knee-jerk" type reaction. It's immature and counterproductive. Instead, although you can initially reply with something clever or snarky if entertaining to others in some way and especially to your challenger. But do then go and vet that information to be sure you are correct about it. Especially if challenged by someone you trust or is known to post valid information. There is nothing more foolish than to be caught in a mishap and then double down on what is then your stupidity. Do not be a Donald Trump. Best rule is after guessing it is correct and posting, always go vet that info at some point in the next hour to 24 hours and come back to correct it if you find issues with it, or to clarify it if you realize it may come across with options for being incorrect in part or whole.
• IF you post something incorrect, especially if it's gone viral before (or after your posting), leave it up online. Then, add to the initial post to indicate what is incorrect so as to allow others to read the updated post and attached thread below so they can understand WHY it's incorrect, along with links to associated vetted information. In that way, you help to decrease the incorrect information online. To simply remove it, typically so you are not embarrassed, leaves others who might have seen it, open to making the exact same mistake. 
• Never call something "fake news". It is immature and has too much Donald Trump, Republican, and conservative negative baggage. 
• Show don't tell. Telling is fine if accompanied with value-added information. But it's also all about the orientation and who your post is actually addressing. frequently we get emotional and address our side, not the other side and may even say things to force the other side to "dig in" and worse, "double down."
• When you vet information, research down through several levels or layers and over several sources of information. Use sources who should know, not just any source with that topic. Sites like InfoWars, typically do not know a damn thing. IF you find something on a site like that, you then have to vet THAT information several more times and it can go exponential, so best to leave them to the nut cases and ill-informed (you cannot help them, they are not interested in reality and really not interested in being correct, especially not by a member of their as they see it, ignoble opposition...ironically enough, they are typically the ignoble ones). Most incorrect postings on social media are not verified at all or sometimes worse, vetted only one level down, or out. I say worse because then they tend to incorrectly think that they DID do due diligence. Typically it takes two, three or more to finally know if something is true or not and that all the related and relative supportive information has been acquired.
• More questionable sources require ever more vetting.
• At times you may find something requires excessive vetting of never seeming to be enough sources, or you cannot seem to vet it. That's not hard to deal with. You simply admit it's merely your (maybe informed, maybe not so informed) opinion. Or that you tried and cannot fully vet it and/or that you got the information from some public figure who should know or whatever. The point is to state it in such a way so if you are later proved to be incorrect, it reflects not on you or your vetting process but on others. 
• That last part of the last point does NOT refer to "plausible deniability", a method used by national leaders and greatly abused by the Republican party. Don't stoop to their level. Though I do admit to using that at times for reasons that are hopefully overt, obvious and the biggest reason, humorous. 
• Truth. That is what is important. IF you should find you are wrong, and in vetting your information you learn something new and contrary to your beliefs, you have two choices. Absorb those beleifs, incorporate them into your overall beliefs. Update, reprocess and look at your understanding of things with this new updated information. Do no ignore it. Worst case,place it to the side and DO NOT FORGET about it. The other thing you can do if it really disturbs you is to start again and revet with this new information. You can try to prove your original beliefs right, or the new ones right. Just be careful of ending up with your beliefs being verified, when they shouldn't be. Because in the end if is not about you, not about your beliefs, but about what is really going on. Share the new information and help humanity. 
• Humor is almost always useful and one of the best ways to persuade or handle difficult information. Just be aware and careful, it can backfire. Joking about a mass shooting, typically will. 

In the end, we all want (or should want) ACCURATE information. Not Donald Trump type incorrect news and information, inaccurate and constantly changing information and faux facts and disinformation and misinformation all which benefits incorrectly one viewpoint over another.

There is a distraction involved in all this. One that has led to many new conspiracy theorists. Many new conservative Republicans who spook at a shadow in ever corner.

"How do you know what is true and accurate?" The ask.

That is for another article, this is for the foundational concept of sharing Truth. Next is the consideration for what is true or can be true or who to trust to disseminate what is true. But basically, a country has got to trust it's intelligence and law enforcement agencies over it's elected officials. See, for the most part, most of those people are like you or I. That is like most of us. We have a given job, we do our best to follow the mission set before us. To be honest, truthful. To do the best we cvan for our country.

Republicans and Donald Trump would have us distrust those people, until we distrust ourselves, until we have to trust only HIM. He wants us to believe we cannot trust our government, our judciary, our law enforcement, our intel agencies.

WHEN that is PROVEN untrue, then you act, you ignore, you refuse to believe. But at that point, you have far worse problems. Personally, AND socially.

But we are not there. Not by a long shot. Those whom extremists call the "deep state" or in some cases the "swamp", are just patriotic citizens, who remain in government from elected administration to elected administration. What conservatives have done in calling these people out is to sow fear into the basic fabric of America. Refuse them their fear mongering.

IF all information online were accurate and properly vetted, America would suddenly take a leap forward in education, politics and social interactions. Much of our bickering today is due to people either arguing the same point of view from different perspectives because one or both sides is lacking relevant information. Or one side is vastly incorrect and the other side has little or no grounds from which to debate the issues. It's like debating with a crazy person. Not to say the other is insane, but the dynamics are very similar.

In the end, we can help to alleviate this current situation by posting only the best information we can access. Also by focusing on the facts and not emotional reactions. Falling back to that old adage of "Hate the sin. Love the sinner." We have got to find a way to communicate, to see our opposition as noble opposition, and to help them find a way to become once again, noble. Just don't put yourself in that position where they have the same problem. Because then, we are all truly lost. Even though we have been seeing that effort pushed at this time by Donald Trump as POTUS. 

We find ourselves now at the point since Donald Trump became president, to truly need to make America great again.

We have got to get back to the basics, to pollinate reality into social media, politics, and culture. To get back to the facts, and back to...reality. 

Footnote 1:
Triangulation is three points, one being your POV. So one or two (usually at least two) other sources. A university professor of mine once explained this to our class saying to always get three other and disparate sources. Even better if you can find at least one on the opposition side who agrees with your POV. The other form is to go out to disprove your POV and if it proves true, you win. Either should be neutral in orientation so you don't involve personal information bias.

Either way: "'...triangulation ’ originates in the field of navigation where a location is determined by using the angles from two known points. Triangulation in research is the use of more than one approach to researching a question. The objective is to increase confidence in the findings through the confirmation of a proposition using two or more independent measures.2 The combination of findings from two or more rigorous approaches provides a more comprehensive picture of the results than either approach could do alone.3"