>what do you do about election manipulation? 'Nothing' isn't an acceptable answer.
I agree, and this reinforces my point about the ambiguity of the social contract. When the US constitution was written in 1787, the telegraph wasn't even invented. Now we all live in a single "global village". People from all over the world are commenting on politics in other nations in real time. Where do you draw the line for "election manipulation"? No one seems to know, exactly.
The problem is that we've made this intellectual laziness acceptable. Nobody knows exactly? We have pretty good ideas; we know the difference between legitimate media and propaganda; we just need to encode that in English in specific rules.
And before that, we need to get the people who benefit from propaganda, and therefore defend it, out of power. Look at the widespread, and effective campaign to shut down anyone studying disinformation. The problems with letting things like that fester and not doing anything - which is what we've done, mostly - is that people in power become invested in it.
>we just need to encode that in English in specific rules.
Well, I encourage you to lead the way, fight this intellectual laziness, and propose specific rules. I suspect that you will find the task more difficult than you thought. Whatever rules you propose will be adversarially interpreted by your political opponents, and by actual propagandists. Ideally, the rules should also be simple enough for any voter to understand.
