Funny quote and all (no sarcasm intended) but I don't think it's fair to imply that, if future wars are bloodier than the past, it would be because we lowered barriers to communication.
I think when we consider what Facebook has taught us about anonymity vs real name policies we have to also remember that Facebook's feed disproportionately rewards sensationalist content.
"You thought that an information transfer protocol would solve social problems?"
I recognize that this is just a comic strip, but this is a pretty reductionist point. The idea that giving people access to more knowledge about the world and about other perspectives would be a big help in addressing social problems isn't crazy.
A major problem, IMO, is that the feeds we use to navigate this sea of information became optimized for engagement (ie: emotional reactions), and so are disproportionally rewarding sensationalist content over content that actually promotes understanding of other perspectives.
> Nor is the “team of rivals” concept an innovation of the early 1860s, though Goodwin assures us it is.
What an odd critique: Lincoln did this great thing, but he didn't invent it, so who cares?
Beyond that being an odd critique, I've read that book twice and although Goodwin highly praises Lincoln's leadership style, I don't recall her assuring us that that was an "innovation" at all. Of course, like most book critics, this writer spent more time on snark than citations.