We were told that when it was said that God endorsed the children of the current monarch to be the next one.
We figured out after centuries that that was bullshit, so we tried out this system.
Actually we figured this out much earlier than you seem to think. The hereditary
Think Greek democracy and the Roman republic.
In fact even the Roman Imperial system was rarely hereditary.
The so called "five good emperors" (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius) were appointed by a mechanism where each Emperor selected an heir who was NOT a relative.
The Buddhists of Tibet have a similar system for choosing the next Lama (although the Chinese have been trying to mess it up lately). Plus of course Jesus made some good remarks about leadership when he said " You know that the rulers of the unbelieverst lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them. That’s not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave."
If most of the time and resources that are currently allocated to "stopping terrorism" were instead redirected to bringing everyone to a living wage and basic education (globally, if possible)
I used to think that, and I'd still like to think that, but Osama Bin Laden was a well educated multi millionaire and most of those who go to fight for ISIS come from the educated middle class. Unfortunately we also have to do a job of ideological opposition - just as we did against Nazism and Communism.
In fact the rise of Islamic terrorism is caused by wealth not poverty. We need to stop flattering the wealthy states which promote an ideology that is hard to distinguish from that of the terrorists.
Before, it was all-or-nothing, either they don't touch the content at all or they carefully go over all of it, the law was changed such that they could safely remove or moderate some content without having to worry about being held responsible for all of it as a result.
Of course there is a phrase in the law "in good faith". So I would assume that a site that pretended to be an open forum - but in fact acted specifically as a terrorist recruiting operation - and which systematically deleted posts critical of terrorist ideology could at some point become liable.
(Having said that I just realised that such a site would most likely be being run by the FBI as a sting operation...)
Moderating, editing and/or deleting comments DOES NOT remove a website's Section 230 Safe Harbor protection whatsoever:
True as a general statement - but when Facebook permits terrorist to use their services freely but then acts in an extremely censorious way towards those who most strongly oppose them (See http://www.faithfreedom.org/facebook-is-enforcing-islamic-blasphemy-laws/ ) then you begin to wonder whose side they are actually on. At some point down that road they DO become liable. I don't think they are near that point yet but it could in principle happen.
It does work quite well, but the essence really is that no one understands what the structure is doing.
Not so fast...
A lot of work is being done to understand how these things work. Not least because they can go suddenly, spextacularly, wrong. Currently work is being done using the mathematics that is used also by general relativity, to understand the multi-dimensional spaces that underly these systems,
The statement "we don't know how the system works" is true of many new AI developments when they first break through. After about a year it stops being true but by that time the MSM have lost interest. Hence the public gets the impression that we don't understand how AI works - however most experts (talking in private) will admit that we DO understand how these things work - but the MSM is much more interested in you if you say that you don't.
But you don't get to say they got it wrong, you are just one voice in millions.
Sorry - you DO get to say "they got it wrong" and you DO get to say (sorrowfully) "I told you so".
The reason is this - at the end of the day there IS a right and a wrong and history will show who got it right.
The previous referendum on this issue produced a much bigger majority in the opposite direction - so if you believe that the majority then got it wrong then you can't insist that the current (much smaller) majority got it right!