Thank you for pushing back, I appreciate that. I see now that I presented an overly simplistic narrative, which I took from a documentary long ago when I was young.

> Who was this random guy? Who told you this story, or where do you have it from? How did this claim go viral, that one random guy on Rwanda ranted on the radio, and it ended in genocide?

I picked this up from a documentary I saw years ago.. It was probably made in the late 90s or early 2000s. I don't remember what it was called, although I think I saw it on PBS.

The following article gives a very good overview of the origins of the myth I perpetuated in my above comment (starting on the bottom of page 3 is a section Common Claims about Media Effects in Rwanda—and a Critique):

https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20100423-atrauss-rtlm-radio-hat...

And a quote from that section:

> Pulitzer-Prize winner Samantha Power claims, “Killers in Rwanda often carried a machete in one hand and a radio transistor in the other.” (The implication being radio delivered instructions, and then men attacked with machetes.) Such conceptualizations suggest a strong causal link between radio broadcasts and genocidal violence.

The radio station was called RTLM, and actually had a handful of broadcasters (2 or 3?), but was quite small. To me, they are still just random guys in the same way that Sean Hannity is just a random guy, or Alex Jones. Although now I read that they had direct connections with the organizers of the genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

I didn't mean to imply that the radio broadcasts solely caused the genocide, but more-so that they played a critical role in exacerbating civilian participation in it, that enabling that participation it in a triggering way. I would also argue that the radio broadcasts played a role in galvanizing and normalizing hatred and motivation in the more organized militia and military participants.

Here is a popular empirical study which attempts to "quantify" the effect of RTLM:

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/cid/...

But I actually like this article the best:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698249.2018.15...

From the conclusion:

> The findings herein do not, of course, mean that the RTLM broadcasts had no effect on the genocide. Indeed, there is good reason to think that they had some effect on specific instances of killing, given that there is evidence that the broadcasts were used explicitly to coordinate the actions of some of the genocidaires (Kirschke 1996, Des Forges 1999). In addition, because, as Straus (2015) notes, elites do not need large-scale popular participation for genocide to take place but rather only need ‘popular compliance – they need citizens not to mobilise to resist violence’ (66), it is certainly plausible that exposure to anti-Tutsi propaganda might have made implementation of the genocide easier, such as by reminding listeners of the founding, exclusionary ideology of the country (Straus 2015), by causing civilians to internalise norms that legitimised the killing (Smeulers and Hoex 2010), or by spurring the adoption of oppositional identities (Fearon and Laitin 2000, Mamdani 2001, Kalyvas and Kocher 2007; Balcells and Steele 2016).

My fear still stands, that mob "hashtag" violence could pop up any time now, that it could spill out in a way that would be hard to contain. Arguably, it already has and does. I don't blame media as a cause, but it certainly is a conduit.

The trauma of this incident still haunts me:

https://kstp.com/news/four-men-charged-minneapolis-fourth-pr...

People very dear to me were at that protest, and I was out of town. I heard about it on Twitter and was very afraid that someone close to me could have been shot.

> If anything, it's people on the ground, in real life, living together, that would innoculate them against people on the radio or on the web telling them how other people are and what they will do if not attacked first. FWIW, the internet seems less diverse in spirit than it was, we used to be small groups of totally random people who had to get along and get to know each other, because we couldn't just block everyone or drive them off.

I absolutely agree with you in all of this, especially the part about people living together in real life. Self-segregation is a dangerous condition, especially when it is driven by inequality, fear, misunderstanding and hate. Too many of us passively accept, even foster, segregated lives without realizing the powder kegs we unwittingly charge.

And what I meant by "relatively diverse" is that the internet's public forums are way more dynamic than a small number of radio stations and newspapers, which were the primary media channels in Rwanda. Of course it cannot and must not be taken for granted that the internet will always be this way.