I can no longer remember the author who said it (and whether it was their personal opinion or one of their characters), but I do remember the idea, and the supporting argument, which was essentially that..
Eventually, the Internet will be the death of individual thought.
(and this was at least a decade ago, maybe more...)
The supporting argument was, uniquely enough, biology! Specifically, evolution. The comparison was made that individual thought and beliefs are like genetic mutations, The point went something like this...
Random mutations happen all the time. But in a large population, all "connected" and interbreeding, unless the mutation offers a radical improvement in individual survival, it is extremely rare that the mutation will survive, and become a dominant trait. It will be diluted, and overwhelmed by the DNA of the "normal" mass of the population within a few generations, and will, either disappear entirely or at best, become a regressive gene that only appears rarely in individuals, and is even more rarely dominant in them.
But, if the breeding population is isolated from the bulk of the species, by a remote location (like an island) DIVERGENCE will occur, and can, over time, survive and even become dominant, resulting in entirely different plants and animals than the rest of the world. Australia is one given example.
The parallel with individual thoughts/beliefs is pretty clear, to me, at least. And I believe one can clearly see the effect of group think/herd mentality on social media today. Since we are all connected, ideas that diverge from the accepted norms are swamped (or sometimes stomped) out of existence by the sheer mass of the entire rest of the world.
A single, or a small number of individuals have a thought, post it, and within minutes millions of other people are agreeing with them, and adopting the cause as their own. Dissenters are most frequently overwhelmed into irrelevance. Sometimes they are attacked and destroyed.
From nature to social and political thought, this has always been going on, but the internet and our modern communications networks, enhance, and accelerate the process. And, they also have a huge effect on solidifying the accepted "norms" power and influence. It is very much a case of "mob rule".
And the mob leaders don't want anyone but their hired employees (police, private security, & the military) to have guns. Guns in the hands of people they don't "own" are a potential, and sometimes an actual threat to their aims and desires to rule the rest of us.
Think about the creation of the United States. And think about why it happened here, and almost nowhere else in the world. One of the big factors that both allowed it to begin, and aided in its eventual success was our isolation from our hereditary rulers in England.
When the King's orders, and the soldiers to enforce them are only a day or three days away from dissenters, rebellion is most difficult, and easiest to overwhelm. When it takes weeks, or a couple months by ship to reach those in rebellion, the new ideas have time to spread and take hold, making them much more difficult for the old order to stamp out.
We have now a couple generations who have been trained their entire lives to hate and fear guns. Their political masters tell them to do so, their social peers demand they do so, the incredible BS about guns on their video screens teaches them, 24/7 these days.
Telling these people about reality is not a terribly effective teacher. But reality rudely biting them in the ass usually is. The old joke about "the most staunch law and order supporter is a liberal who has been mugged" is not entirely untrue...
When the hate and fear guns people feel physically threatened, where to they turn? to someone with a gun! IF their servants (police etc.) with guns don't make them feel secure, they want a gun of their own!!! Double standard? oh yeah...
