Skepticism has become incredibly more important to the individual reader for there may not be the clarity that we expect within the best of reporting. I wonder how many would agree that technical media has provided the means for the emotions of the public to be played like a piano? While dialogue and argument are obviously vital to the World Web, there appears to be a growing segment of the population who seem to be intent upon creating confusion about incredibly important issues. By entering into a dialogue while taking various persona having contradictory positions, they dominate ‘conversations’ and twist the expectation of reason. This sort of anarchy is perhaps best portrayed within "Ender’s Game"; a book by Orson Scott Card within which a young heroic character is able to stage international debates and intentionally cause wars by seeding animosities through lies, and false claims countered with elements of ‘truth’. “Ender’s Game” has been a part of many High School English courses within the U.S.
If the public is to maintain the fundamental advantages of remaining within the protection of uncensored autonomous internet dialogue, then how might society also protect itself from unscrupulous individuals and organizations that might take advantage of such opportunities?