While the rumors of a complete lockdown multiply (which is useless, because observing the statistics we can know where people are infected. You have the statistics, right?), Obviously all those groups emerge that, driven by the conspiracy theory of the moment (5G , Bill Gates, etc) take to the streets against anything they think they are fighting.

These events rest on two pillars.

• in the absence of in-depth scientific information, which the traditional mass media DO NOT do (in the sense that we know – at least R. Koch talks about it – what places are those where infections occur, but it is not said) obviously the conspiracy theory wins. But conspiracy theory lives in the vacuum of STEM expertise and in-depth printing. Conspiracy is proven proof of the uselessness of the press and TV as sources of information.
• if the press is dysfunctional, and social relations collapse, the result is that people remain isolated having only social networks available. Which are the place where conspiracy theories and fake news proliferate and spread, which then lead people to take to the streets during an epidemic.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is necessary to evaluate a measure.

THE LOCKDOWN OF SOCIAL NETWORKS.

If we can close restaurants, cinemas, shops, there is nothing that prevents us from closing social networks. With the only difference that social networks:

• they employ fewer people than all companies with the same turnover.
• they are literally sitting on a pile of money, so they can easily survive a lockdown.
• they are all cabbages: being private individuals, the state has no responsibility towards them, and neither does society.

Why should we?

We should because we have a population that already has MILLIONS (two to three in Germany, similar figures in Italy) of people who are chronically depressed. To these are added those who come, who have come and who will come with the lockdown, and the stress of an epidemic.

And on all this we want to let social networks work that are run by unconscious pigs who only take care to get fat , any number of people die ?

Centralized social networks were an interesting experiment. And it is already clear that they have tremendous disadvantages, which lawmakers are struggling to regulate. But if these disadvantages (polarization, fake news, the inability to stop state actors, etc) trigger a pandemic, I think we're exaggerating a little.

By the time people take to the streets against health measures, and they do so without masks or tricks, it is already clear that the virus is spreading. If this is organized through or because of social networks, we can safely include generalist social networks as a cause of the spread of the coronavirus , or at least as an agent.

Answer: they must be put in lockdown.

Nobody will die (they are useless), nobody will starve (if a GAFAM programmer paid hundreds of thousands of dollars every year hasn't saved up money for a year, let him learn to be in the world !!), companies will survive (they are sitting on a pile of money and have few employees), and at least the Pappalardi Generals will have a harder time spreading the virus in the streets.

So, I repeat, it is advisable

THE LOCKDOWN OF SOCIAL NETWORKS.