Put together a number of propositions that are very likely, and you get an extremely unlikely conclusion. (Michael Dummett has an excellent passage on the phenomenon that actually convincingly explains common sense as the quality of letting nature supply new information that beats out attempts to reason thouroughly in "The Logical Basis of Metaphysics"). If the more you look at the news over the last seven years from beginning to end, the crazier all the parties involved appear, the possibility of doing this under an unprecedented media and information regime should be noted as the proeminent explanation. The more information there is, the more of it can be put together in thought and discourse, and the more vigilent adherence to Dummett's principle is necessary to avoid immensely logical, but absolutely false, conclusions.
The consequences of this logical depreciation through probabilistic multiplication are unfortunate for the contemporary world. But, deluding oneself into believing the multiplicity of voices on the internet is a passing confusion that will organize itself out of existence ere long, it is not directly evident how to follow Dummett's advice and draw at the well of nature frequently in these times. Nature used to just crowd upon us in our less reflective hours. It is what became us when stopped thinking, neither matter nor our deliberate selves. As such, in one sense it was metaphysical, and there was nearly mathematical identity between metaphysics and nature. That was before Gutenberg II, the generic coming. The internet is one machine. Everything on it, from a maximal multiplicity of sources that essentially cover what folk there happen to be that one can understand and thus truly shares a world with, appears through one generic filter. The medium cannot help but affect the message, here or elsewhere. How the message is received and integrated into the communication between self and reality simply always matters, whether in McCluer's hell, his heaven, his middle earth, or, say, Galicia in 1843. What makes the particular information regime we live in so disturbing is that the singularity of nature, the well we draw upon that at once voids the previous and anchors the real, is being challenged by another thing singular in nature. There isn't room for two such singularities in our brains, and hence on this planet. With apologies to Eliayahu (Elijah) and translators, I would sum it up by saying that if the deep affords an effectively infinite string of words of unknown provenance, it then affords no water.
If our conception of reality, including political-historical reality, were made of words, the internet would be a utopic revolution. As I firmly hold that it does not, not as a probable truth but as an operational axiom, my system of thought inclines to think that the supposed neccesity of its absolute benevolence in helping us accomplish whatever goals we priorly had or have developed, personally or collectively, must be understood in light of, or perhaps under the shade of, the fundamental rewriting of the human and natural condition under the new univocity.
Since I declare all this axiomatically, rather than as a probable truth under fundamental shades of meaning of the words I employ, I can only hope the reader shares enough natural and internautical experience with me to momentarily share this interpretation with me. What effect it will have on anybody's future mind, only nature and its possible succesors can determine. Things change radically; but belief in a metaphysical reality (not a religiously defined one) inclines to believe that the categories of one and many, self and other, thought and forgetting, also bestow on us an indestructable continuity and an inalienable condition---of a very abstract and difficult to grasp kind. It does not ensure a continuity of our political condition across technologies, whatever laws, cultures, or resolves we may try to bring with us to great novelty.
