Notes on Internet discourse

This week, packages containing explosive devices were found outside the homes of philanthropist George Soros , the Clintons, and the Obamas, and others critical of Donald Trump, as well as outside the New York headquarters of CNN. Many considered these incidents evidence of the threat of right-wing hate speech, sentiments emboldened and often shared by President Trump, being turned into actions. Others said that the left brought this on themselves for hostile rhetoric towards right-wingers and not supporting the President. Some even said that the bombs were a “false flag”, placed by the victims themselves to attract sympathy right before the midterms. This was all in the comments section of one YouTube video posted by CNN of the news of the bombing attempt on their office. Political discourse has become so deeply fragmented that it’s easy to become jaded, uncaring, and silent towards major issues. What’s the point of making your voice heard if it won’t matter in such a chaotic environment? Some will say that the point is that you can, and given life in many other countries today and throughout history, that is a tremendous privilege. It's important to know what he alternatives are to complete expression online, even given the current climate. One of the most powerful and influential countries in the world today is a jarring reminder of the importance of free speech. China is ranked by Freedom House as having the least amount of Freedom in the world, in what is already ranked as one of the least free countries in the world. Their "Great Firewall" systematically censors content deemed harmful to the country's ideology and government.
“We should respect the right of individual countries to independently choose their own path of cyber-development,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping at the start of China's second World Internet Conference.
Iran's internet also undergoes heavy censorship, with their government working to create a "halal internet" that conforms to Islamic values. Such actions discourage and even criminalize personal expression and individual opinions. On the other hand, absolute free speech creates a chaotic environment for opinions, leading to hostility. Can there be a balance between the two extremes, where there can be reasonable discussion online? Personally, I believe there can be. I believe that, sooner or later, people will learn to respect the internet as a place for free expression, and treat vitriolic viewpoints with arguments, not hostility or censorship. To simply shut down opposing viewpoints encourages censorship and hostility to differing viewpoints, not unlike the attitudes taken by China and Iran. It's clear, however, that simply saying silent on the issue and letting hate speech flow freely can have consequences. It's easy to dismiss a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton's campaign manager running a child sex ring out of a pizza place, until someone comes into said pizza place with a gun looking to self-investigate. Ultimately, something needs to be done about the current state of online political discourse, and with terror attack occurring right before the midterms, change should be sooner rather than later.