I think you’re making a lot of assumptions here, many of which I have contentions with.

we had very little moderation in the early days of the internet and social media

It differed from site to site, but in my experience of the Internet in the '90s and '00s, a lot of forums were heavily moderated, and even Facebook was kept pretty clean when I got on it in ~2006/2007.

and yet people didn’t believe the nonsense they saw online,

I fully dispute this. People have always believed hearsay. They’re just exposed to more of it through the web instead of it coming verbally from your family, friends, and coworkers.

unlike nowadays were even official news platforms have reported on outright bullshit being made up on social media.

1. We live in a world of 24-hour news cycles and sensationalization, which has escalated over the past few decades. This often encourages ratings over quality.

2. Mainstream media has always had problems with fact-check. I’m not trying to attack the news media or anything, I think most reporters do their best and strive to be factual, but they sometimes make mistakes. I can’t remember the name of it, but I there’s some sort of phenomenon where if you watch a news broadcast, and they talk about a subject you have expertise in, you’re likely to find inaccuracies in it, and be more skeptical of the rest of the broadcast.

To me the problem is the godamn algorithm that pushes people into bubbles that reinforce their correct or incorrect views

Polarization is not limited to social media. The news media has become more and more tribal over time. Company that sell products and services have been more likely to present a political world-view.

Overall, I think you’re ignoring a lot of other things that have changed over the years. It’s not like the only thing that has changed in the world is the algorithmic feed. We are perpetually online now and that’s where most people get their news, so it’s only natural that would also be their source of disinformation. I think algorithmic feeds that push people into their bubbles is a response to this polarization, not the source of it.

Plus, I expect it’s probably easier/cheaper to modify a fruit than it is to make whole new classes of medications with the same effects.

That sounds awful. We already have trackpoint to use a mouse in a compact device.

The printer would add so much bulk that it would no longer be a compact laptop anymore. I know you personally want one (from your recent post), but just carry a separate device or velcro it to the back of the laptop.

If not explicitly, then at least the electorate usually dislikes it. In Canada, we had a party leader who was found to be a dual Canadian/American citizen during the 2019 election, and while I don’t think that’s the whole reason he lost, it definitely contributed.

It’s a feature of TikTok where you can put your video side-by-side with some else’s video. This seems like a decent explanation.