I think it's fair to say Western societies have at least one millennium of being easily roused by pretty crude propaganda and much more polarised when the economy's not going so good. It's not like good old fashioned paid-for newsprint had a reputation for not provoking hysteria on a mass scale, or like the most obnoxious political commentators on the internet don't have Patreon accounts. Nothing to do with the payment model and everything to do with people being willing to influence and others being easily influenced.

If membership on Facebook was paid rather than ad based, is it not reasonable to think there would be less people available to be influences on that individual platform?

Add some more restrictive legislation on what major online platforms are allowed to display to users, and I think it would be a very different ball game.

So, at least two people disagree with the assertions that:

- Facebook being a paid platform for subscribers would reduce subscribers

- Adding restrictions to what Facebook was allowed to show users would have some affect

Very interesting.

re: "I don't think the author is talking about simple advertising, I think he is talking about the power to influence the public on a mass scale."

Isn't that what mass advertisers do? Do you think Coca Cola doesn't want to influence the public?

Maybe it's not about the power to do this, but rather what it's used for? Use advertising to sell a good product, and all is forgiven. It might even be considered positive in the case of a public health campaign.

Sell a defective, dangerous product, or outright scam, and they will complain about the advertising.

(These days, many people are looking at soda rather skeptically.)

Right, it's persuasion in both cases, but what people are being persuaded to do, and the degree of effectiveness, appears to be different enough now that it might be worthy of a public discussion and perhaps some policy changes. That's my interpretation anyways.