I find the polarization that has happed with Religion to be very frustrating.

I do not like to hear the words of my faith weaponized or used to legitimize the far right, but I also don't like how the reputation becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

A far right reputation can diminish the moderate voice. When religion in general, is seen as far right; moderates, and or people on the left, either leave their religious communities or stop seeking out moderate communities. This leads to moderate religious communities shrinking. In some cases the only people who remain in them, are those who are on the far right. When communities reach this point, they become very entrenched due to a scarcity mindset. At that point, even if a new, socially progressive minister is placed in the community, change and rebuilding are very difficult, if not impossible.

The reputation becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

When I read medication delivered through mail I thought about the risks that come with not having the support of medical supervision and facilities, while aborting a pregnancy. Than I saw the phrase volunteer drivers and hosts across state lines, and imagined all the logistics in trying to access to this network. I wonder what is being done to make this support safe.

I am deeply upset that parts of the world have backtracked to where such complex underground networks are necessary. I feel confusion and wonder but struggle to find the words to ask my questions.

If part of society needs such underground networks to access medical care, what other parts of life are going to require underground support?

In my former work experience, in a small town I was asked to assist with pregnancy and family care center. Along with having a far right agenda the place was offering counseling without legitimate certification. At the time I did a bit of research and found this article on "Crisis Pregnancy Centers". After I refused to assist with the "clinic" or support it in any way, images of aborted fetus were left in my home mailbox as well as others on the same street. Afterwards a college told me that same clinic had black listed another person in the same line of work as me, for being openly gay.

Just going to leave this link here.

(https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/crisis-pregnancy-centres/CPC-regulation-in-Canada-and-5-western-countries.pdf)

I am also wondering what this will look like and how it will compare to policy that has protected freedom of the press or academic freedom. My guess is that policy and laws that were created to protect freedom of the press envisioned a press that was owned and managed by publishing companies, and governments were seen as the threat to the press. Now the threat is understood to be the companies that want to own (or destroy) the open web.

When I read this, it reminded me of something else I'd been wondering about Netflix recently. I've noticed that Netflix has produced a number of documentaries about corporate mismanagement or negligence, such as: their series on Boeing Scandal, or their Train Wreck series. Although I haven't disputed the content of these series (I don't have enough information to do so) I have wondered if this has been part of an attempt by Netflix to make their own image look more sympathetic to whistle blowers by showing how "bad" other companies are.

I have noticed this. When I run a Google search, it provides an AI answer and summary first, and if I want an answer from Wikipedia, I have to scroll down to it or search it directly. I still prefer Wikipedia, because I like the way it's formatted, (and probably out of habit to some extent). I was not aware of attacks on its editors.