I mean, technically, you can't be more or less unique, only unique or not.

> Surrounded by so many other entities that do look and sound similar to myself, my quest for individuality - should I choose to accept it - is going to necessarily involve asserting ways in which I am not like them. It's more difficult, and requires more digging (or more bullshitting, more likely,) but is it different in kind? It's just easier to point at a rock and say, "Welp, I'm not like that. I've got my own thing going on."

This sounds pretty similar to Hegel's Phenomenology of the Mind - recognition as an individual only becomes necessary once we encounter other individuals; one impetus in this encounter is to reduce the Other to an object so that we remain unique in our individuality, but such individuality lacks the component of recognition, and so the Other becomes inherently linked to our own desire to be recognized as an individual of our own (as such recognition can only come from another individual).

The difference is that at least with mainstream news, some countries require them to disclose when they are publishing a sponsored or embedded journalist piece, and they are often required to pay at least nominal homage to the facticity of an event. No such restrictions exist for online personalities, as far as I know.

I only trust randos on the Internet whose ramblings reflect my own biases to a T. It's the only way to get accurate, authentic coverage of the only topics that are important and meaningful.

> Is this improvement or anarchy?

Neither. The same economic laws that govern mainstream journalism also cover "private" journalism, only with fewer restrictions because with fewer production costs, they don't need to appeal to a widespread mass audience, and can instead focus on political niches that are more loyal and less prone to seek out differing accounts of events

> all news is unreliable and virtually all of it is owned buy billionaires (media owned by 3 people is about as trustworthy as Chinese state media)

yes, including all the news people insist is "authentic" and "truthful", such as all the internet randos with millions of followers and sponsorships that somehow are seen as more "trustworthy" than actual for real journalists despite having literally no discernable business ethics, and their sources and methods being even less transparent

> It's interesting that conservative media being caught(repeatedly) lying for political gain has somehow translated into all news media being perceived as unreliable.

It hasn't. Non-conservative media is perceived as unreliable by conservatives because it doesn't reflect their perception of the world.

Here is a challenge for the people at home:

Step 1. Count how many pieces of clothing you own that weren't produced in a sweatshop. To clarify: This rules out any pieces produced in developing countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia etc.

Step 2. Ask yourself whether you deliberately chose to buy all the sweatshop produced clothing you own.

Step 3. Try and come up with a reason that reconciles your alleged total freedom of choice with the idea that you don't actually want to wear sweatshop produced clothing.

Good point, the problem will be solved once we forcefully veganize America and Europe.

What is that even supposed to mean?