The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation
&quot;...but you can find super-informed people on both sides of the question. That’s why it’s a live debate.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s just rhetoric. Anything can become a debate, such as who won the 2020 presidential election, if one side is willing to make up facts and repeat them over and over. Proponents of the Big Lie are super-informed, insofar as they have a lot of lies they can say with a straight face that act as stand-ins for actual information. And if they keep asserting those lies, the other side is forced to respond, hence a debate. There is still no merit to the Big Lie, but now it must be discussed as if there was. THAT is why there is a live debate.<p>And then there is this nonsense: &quot;overall political climate was much more right-wing in the 1990s.&quot;<p>That is so outrageously false I&#x27;m not sure why anyone is supposed to think this person is worth reading. Just think of how many mainstream politicians will swear up and down that the election was stolen in 2020. I guess if you pretend &quot;right wing&quot; is about policy you could craft a convoluted argument that today&#x27;s Republicans are less conservative (as the author does), but that&#x27;s not what the right wing is about. The right wing is about the Big Lie, it&#x27;s about illiberalism, it&#x27;s about demonizing the media and institutions and political opponents  - all the policy stuff is just window dressing.