And as things go along they will continue to ex-communicate people that disagree and eventually those numbers could get into the millions.

I don't think it'll take large numbers of excommunicated

It'll be much more fickle

Why did the media choose now to lie about them?

Ok. What exactly would you need for a fresh alternative. There comes a point in every new technology where things just get stale and there's not much new and exciting you can do. No one expects radical new fun out of their FM radio.

Is it because they need to compete with the internet?

@Sharpwing it's a race. You have to factor in the rate at which they get new recruits and manage to fundamentally rework the society. That rate seems much higher than the burnout rate. And many of the burnouts aren't exactly taking up arms for the other side.

Furthermore, it's not like there's new resources being taken away from them.

The IDPol Left is basically custom built from the ground up to seize resources and institutions and use them for their own ends.

As well as recruit and fight.

So then is the only response violence?

@RekItRalph Sensational stories sell. Bigger numbers are more interesting. And the press is generally extremely left-wing had has a terrible understanding of firearms issues in general, simply due to their lack of personal familiarity.

Also there's an incestuous relationship between left-wing advocacy groups and the media.

@Sharpwing No. And that's the worst option. But it does take organization and a willingness to seize the resources and destroy the institutions they've captured.

But why 2011 in particular. Why not back in the 90’s or early 2000’s

Some anti-gun NGO, with an obvious reason to inflate numbers, passes data to a news organization is is taken at face value because of their ideological alignment.

Where did you get the 2011 number in the first place?

Nobody expected or could've planned the situation we find ourselves in today

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012>

Stanford Geopartial Center

never let a crisis go to waste, and if you don't have a crisis that's just a problem of messaging.

FB and Twitter were regarded as curiosities when they appeared

One thing's for sure, no one's solving this problem by traditional means.

The only pattern in this space is that the future will be unexpected

Normally I’d get pissed but somehow im not surprised

The gun issue has been a consistent failure for democrats, so I think they'll ignore it for the near future. They need to rebuild their permanent majority project before they can turn back to banning guns.

Retrospectively, it'll be something that solves real problems with incumbent services not for people already using them, but for the people who aren't

If Hillary had won they would've pressed ahead regardless, but thank god she didn't.

There was a time when AOL was the shit and many were seriously concerned about its power

10 years later, everybody's forgotten about it

@RekItRalph the year the world went upside down is 2003

If anything is going to take over Facebook it is going to be a service that offers decentralized content hosting

The problems we had with AOL are still replicated in Facebook

I disagree. You have to have something that the normal people would like.

The problem with AOL was that it was overpriced.

Also, what's the Stanford Geospatial Center have to do with any of this?

They documented the rise in mass shootings

There's also a serious possibility it implodes on itself due to the constant weakening of internet advertisement

How many people would actually _pay_ to use FB or Twitter?

Basically none. Which is a key element I hadn't thought of yet when people talk of making replacements.

People would pay a bit if given no option (think phone service). But Facebook as a whole would be replaced by something cheaper.