The point is that I am questioning your underlying assumption that the proliferation of the Internet has led to fewer "gatekeepers" of news. That may be true for a lot of people or in topical areas unrelated to politics, but I certainly don't think Trump supporters get information about current events from a wide variety of Internet sources, and, although admittedly I have no data off the top of my head to back this up, I do not think most Americans do either. As I see it, we are talking about three separate groups here:

(1) Citizens who primarily get their news from non-Internet sources, dominated by a handful of gatekeepers ("old media")

(2) Citizens who primarily get their news from the Internet, but for whatever reason are exposed only to a handful of gatekeepers ("closed Internet")

(3) Citizens who primarily get their news from the Internet, and are exposed to a wide variety of gatekeepers ("open Internet")

I don't think anyone denies that we would rather have (3) to (1), or that we should be fighting to convert (2) to (3). The question is whether the mass transition from (1) to (2) has adversely affected the forum. I think there is a good argument that it has, primarily because in (2) information moves faster and people are arguably less likely to read articles thoroughly -- both of which are products of the Internet itself.

The long-term solution is obviously to liberate the Internet. If media exposure is democratically determined, users will, over time, develop more rational and tolerant belief systems. But in the meantime, most Americans are still living in the Matrix, Donald Trump is up in the polls, and, if we are the truly the shepherds of the Internet, there has to some element of taking the fight to them.

-Shay