The room went silent when Barack Obama said it.
Government “restraints” on online speech. In an era already
cracking under distrust and rage, his warning about disinformation sounded less like theory and more like a coming storm.
Is this protection of democracy—or the first step toward sanctioned censorship?
The battle over truth, power, and who controls our screens has only just begu… Continues…
On that Connecticut stage, Obama sketched a world where the very idea of a shared reality is dissolving. If one person calls a table a lawnmower and insists it’s true, he argued, persuasion no longer matters—only saturation does. He linked Russian-style “flood the zone” tactics to Steve Bannon’s media strategy and to Trump-era repetition of falsehoods, warning that constant lies don’t need believers; they only need exhausted, numb citizens.
Yet his proposed answer unsettled even some admirers. Obama floated “restraints” and regulation of platforms that algorithmically reward outrage and extremism, insisting it could be done within First Amendment limits. Supporters heard a plea to defend democracy from weaponized disinformation. Critics heard the language of a former president normalizing state involvement in deciding what counts as truth. Between those fears lies the unresolved question: can a democracy survive when facts themselves become a partisan choice?
On that Connecticut stage, Obama sketched a world where the very idea of a shared reality is dissolving.
If one person calls a table a lawnmower and insists it’s true, he argued, persuasion no longer matters—only saturation does.
He linked Russian-style “flood the zone” tactics to Steve Bannon’s media strategy and to Trump-era repetition of falsehoods,
warning that constant lies don’t need believers; they only need exhausted, numb citizens.
Yet his proposed answer unsettled even some admirers. Obama floated “restraints”
and regulation of platforms that algorithmically reward outrage and extremism,
insisting it could be done within First Amendment limits.
Supporters heard a plea to defend democracy from weaponized disinformation.
Critics heard the language of a former president normalizing
state involvement in deciding what counts as truth.
Between those fears lies the unresolved question:
can a democracy survive when facts
themselves become a partisan choice?
