What type of people do you think make dictators?! — Tim3003

You perhaps think of the person, but I think of the people that support dictators. They are the more interesting case here, because it opens up a bit this discussion on a new level.

You see, those that crave for power and have egotist traits of a dictator, can actually be so smart that they do hold onto power, but do go along even with respecting the democratic rules. Then we won't call them dictators. Or we can have various states of emergencies, when for example marshal law is implemented. And then nations can get back to normality.

Of course he's weak. Dictators are driven far more by egotism than ability. — Tim3003

Let's just remember that Trump's self-coup failed. Trump is a bully, not an ideologue and certainly not a dictator, even if he loves them. Trump bet everything on Pence and getting Republicans to back him. He didn't order a state of emergency because of the "steal". I think that someone like general Michael Flynn would have gone through with a real self-coup like that. He sure has totally taken the alternate-reality propaganda to heart. Yet it's likely that even with that and the Trump putsch would have failed as badly as the August Coup of 1991 in the Soviet Union. Even if the Jan 6th crowd would have been a great image for doing a self-coup.

But what about the people who genuinely support a dictatorship? You seldom have everybody fearing for their life, then it would be quite a shaky support. So who are these people?

The type of people that in Greece could choose tyrants to lead them or in Rome those who supported Ceasar and then Augustus. Basically quite ordinary people who did have a say in politics (now the voters in general). Do note that people end up supporting dictators because for them the country seems to be going to hell in a hand basket. And because history has just one way it's gone, we can only guess what might have happened without those various states of emergency, when freedoms have been curbed and the authoritarian policies have been implemented.

↪Tim3003
The Internet is a many splendored thing. If Facebook and 4Chan or 8Chan are not good for it, other parts are. It isn't the Internet, per se, that is a threat to democracy. Powerful groups who dislike democracy are a muckiest bigger threat. — Bitter Crank

I think this is true. I've been reconsidering my initial question. Maybe it should be: is the Internet allowing democracy to destroy itself?

The Internet empowers democracy by allowing everyone to have their say, to everyone else. The problem is, most people have a 'confirmation-bias' - they are not capable of dealing rationally with the amount of information now available - without running away from its overload and taking refuge in what they already believe, and hence in new 'information' that bolsters their beliefs. Unfortunately the unscrupulous know that that fear can easily be manipulated and infiltrated with more extreme and fantastical views.

What's the answer? I think self-censorship by social media companies is never going to work - the fear-mongers will always find ways around it. China would say it's a brutal regulation of the information available.
From a UK perspective I don't know why our govt hasnt initiated a TV ad campaign to encourage people to get Covid vaccinated. Have other countries? This would be a good way of countering all the disinformation. But I suppose I'm assuming people still watch broadcast TV..

is the Internet allowing democracy to destroy itself? — Tim3003

It might be helpful to make a distinction between "democracy" (broadly understood) as a system of government, and "democracy" as ordinary, daily interaction of citizens.

In our republic, representatives are elected by the citizenry. Political parties have been part of the American system since the beginning (and that was an issue, early on). Our system of election, representation, and government was never pure, never perfect. On-line social media is a new thing, but corrupting the system is not.

The ordinary daily interaction of citizens has mostly been helped by the internet. Consider the difficulty of organizing events 50 years ago: One had to put up posters, buy advertisements in daily newspapers or neighborhood papers--if there was one. One had to use social networks like bars, clubs, bowling teams, etc. Not bad, but inefficient. Now there is MeetUp, Facebook, NextDoor, and much more. It's all faster, cheaper, better.

BUT: There is a downside. (There's always a downside opposite every upside.). Ideas can spread faster than the speed of reflective thought. An example might be "defund the police" idea. This was picked up by a lot of people on line --"woke whites" it seems like, before the idea was given reflective attention.

In Minneapolis, "defund the police' caught fire after the 2020 summer rioting season. A year later, the voters of Minneapolis defeated a charter measure which would have led to a sharply reduced police force. There was pushback on police defunding on line, as well as in more typical media, but a year's time gave people a chance to think over the idea of what a defunded police force would mean. A solid majority didn't like the smell of it.

I think this is true. I've been reconsidering my initial question. Maybe it should be: is the Internet allowing democracy to destroy itself? — Tim3003

The internet itself is hypothetically neutral, in the sense of The Wisdom of Crowds. The Net merely provides more-or-less equal access to information. But users choose which sources to rely on. That's our constitutional right. But the difference between Anarchy and Viable Democracy is chaos versus the organization of representative self-regulation.

In theory, we are supposed to elect regulators, who are more like Plato's Philosopher Kings than lawless rule by the rabble. In practice though, we tend to choose people who reflect our own biases (ahem -- tr*mp), not those noted for Rational Thinking. So, it seems that we need an Internet Constitution to regulate how we choose our regulators. Then, we need to institute some central body, not to dictate, but merely to curb our excesses. :cool:


A Constitution for the Internet :
http://www.federalist-debate.org/index.php/current/item/371-a-constitution-for-the-internet

Bill of Rights for the Internet :
https://edtechbooks.org/mediaandciviclearning/internet_constitution

Why You Can’t Always Trust the Wisdom of the Crowd :
https://time.com/4588021/power-of-networks/

A Constitution for the Internet :
http://www.federalist-debate.org/index.php/current/item/371-a-constitution-for-the-internet

Bill of Rights for the Internet :
https://edtechbooks.org/mediaandciviclearning/internet_constitution — Gnomon

[/quote]

The problem with constitutions and Bills of Rights is: who's going to uphold them? How are they to be policed? And if social media companies transgress where are they to be convicted? We've seen from the Haugen testimony how Facebook are quite capable of ignoring accusations - and unless they make their source code available to authorities, how can we prove they're deliberately allowing inflamatory information, hate-speak or whatever? I don't think the internet can ever be effectively policed. The only possibility is at UN level, but the chances of every country signing up to that look vanishingly small.
And even if specific hate-speak terms are successfully banned surely it will just mutate - ever tried filtering out all the viagra adverts? It's impossible...

The problem with constitutions and Bills of Rights is: who's going to uphold them? How are they to be policed? And if social media companies transgress where are they to be convicted? — Tim3003

Yes. Right now, the primary ethical regulator of major social media is the court of public opinion, led by investigative journalists. But that still leaves it up to the companies to self-regulate, or to deflect criticism with a brand-name change (e.g. Meta, nee Facebook).

An early attempt to supervise the net was the US Telecommunications Act of 1996. And there are some spotty attempts to codify Cyber Law. But we still don't have a world-wide central authority, other than the various voluntary Internet Standards & Protocol organizations. The UN could possibly establish a global clearing house for standards and regulations, but it is often internally divided over political concerns,

So, those who favor Net Neutrality might object to any government influence. Yet, some kind of non-governmental organization (NGO) might be sponsored, but not controlled, by the UN, Anyway, I'm glad it's not up to me to grab the cyber-tiger by the tail. Fortunately, there are many minds, better informed than mine, that are focused on the core problem of Democracy : how to regulate, not dictate. :smile:

Some thoughts that do not directly answer the question of the main post but settle some useful hints on how to address it:

- As long as democracy, capitalism, socialism, fascism are taken to denote abstract ideals nothing will destroy them. And this is worth to keep in mind if we reason in historic terms, because not only there are historic events that can more or less favor or oppose the popularity and implementation of such economic-political regimes, but we may also notice some cyclical patterns in their emergence and decline.

- Democracy was a disparaging term probably invented by some “Old Oligarch” in ancient Athens to define a form of government where the low-class populace (poor, uneducated, emotional, superstitious) could directly govern (meaning electing and proposing not only officials but also laws by referendums). Its bad reputation persisted so long that even the American “democratic” constitution didn’t dare even to name it, differently from its presidents. The name became much tolerable when its meaning progressively and slowly shifted from its original usage to the current usage (at least in the western tradition) that comprises a family of institutions like representative government based on universal suffrage & majority rules, rule of law (constitution, divisions of power, system of rights like human rights), and welfare system (at least, in some minimal form). Of course these institutions can be more or less well designed and implemented, my contention is however twofold: 1. what we understand now as democracy should be the right kick-start for any comparison between democratic and non-democratic countries or when we assess democratic claims (as Russia, China and Iran do). 2. Yet the history of the democratic ideology (not only of the implemented democratic regimes) is dark from its onset. And we wouldn’t be far from the truth if we claimed that philosophy as popularized by Plato begins as an intellectual war against the democratic ideology of his time. So I’m not surprised by the resurgence of “populist” (“democratic” in its original meaning) feelings which can go so far as to vote to death the wrong people and cheerfully elect dictators.

- Interestingly enough, in any information technology revolution there are always 2 sides of the story: the side of those who can consume the information made available by the technological revolution and the side of those who master or can exploit the prodigies of the new technology to win over their competitors. This is also true in Ancient Greece where the transition from oral to literate culture contributed to the rise of populist elites aligned to the democratic ideology of that time, as much as internet social networks are now favoring the rise of populist representatives.

- The much celebrated victory of the US at the end of Cold War supported the idea of the capitalist democracy primacy over other ideologies (whence the confidence on the thesis of the end of history by Fukuyama): unfortunately once the major threat of the common enemy (a totalitarian communist regime) disappeared, the support for the much celebrated alliance between the democratic and capitalist ideologies started to crumble down, and internet became the battle field where this much celebrated alliance is progressively but bitterly torn apart.

The internet is simply a medium and blaming it for the fall of democracy is like pointing the accusing finger at the paper on which news is printed. The real question then is, is information bad for democracy? You might want to unpack that.

is information bad for democracy? — Agent Smith

Whose information?, and how successfully is it being distributed and absorbed? And at what rate compared to the news cycle and what we can reliably digest?

Whose information?, and how successfully is it being distributed and absorbed? And at what rate compared to the news cycle and what we can reliably digest? — Monitor

I don't think I can come up with the right answer to that question. It's like asking how is water bad for plants? :chin:

It's like asking how is water bad for plants? :chin: — Agent Smith

Yes indeed.

Yes indeed — Monitor

What I said is probably not the whole truth.

The internet is simply a medium and blaming it for the fall of democracy is like pointing the accusing finger at the paper on which news is printed. The real question then is, is information bad for democracy? You might want to unpack that. — Agent Smith

Information on its own is neither good nor bad. It becomes potentially destructive when it's based on distortions, simplifications and downright lies. And that depends on the motives of the person posting the info. Does he/she genuinelty want to inform people, leaving them to decide what they think? Or to scare/browbeat them into accepting his/her opinion as correct; and using the techniques above to help achieve it.

Which brings us back to my original point: When all available news was broadcast by journalists from companies with high standards of impartiaility, the public could trust it and form reasonable views. Now, when news is accepted by people form any old source they open themselves to being misled and manipulated.

To answer your question: information based on truth is good for democracy; that based on rumour, lies, half-truths and fear is not. Of course in a democracy the latter cant be prevented, the question is how we educate people to see it for what it is and seek their news from reputable sources instead. Are people really shunning those news organisations deliberately in favour of conspiracy peddlars? If so, what has caused such a catastrophic loss of trust? Or are people just more easily engaged by simplistic stories playing on their fears, slants that reputable organisations just won't print? If that's so for the majority, then democracy really is in trouble. We'll be back to burning witches before long..

I've noticed something quite wondrous about social constructs like governments (democracies, autocracies, whathaveyou). They operate at different time time scales than humans are used to. Much like geological time scales, the effects of policies sometimes take well over a decade to manifest. Modern democratic governments have an average lifespan of 5 years max - too little time to evaluate the pros and cons of their rule.

The same logic applies to the issue of internet-information-democracy trio. The full effect of internet/information on democracy hasn't yet manifested itself. We should wait and watch. It's too early to comment is what I'm trying to say. Cause-effect at these levels of social organization may take 30-50, even centuries to play out.

On the flip side, there's also the speed of transmission vis-à-vis the internet to factor in. For those concerned, it must feel like riding a sports car: the speed comes at a cost - the window period for escape in case of a mishap is virtually nonexistent and an accident means certain death.

As long as democracy, capitalism, socialism, fascism are taken to denote abstract ideals nothing will destroy them — neomac

Yes. "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come" ---Victor Hugo. And all of those political ideals have had their "time", but have come and gone, and come again. During the 1950s Red Scare, campaign against communism, presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, responded to the proposal to outlaw Communism with, "you can't shoot an idea with a gun". Consequently, he was labeled as "soft on Communism". Likewise, the original notion of a free exchange of ideas on the Internet was intended to "destroy" censorship, and government regulation. But the necessity for limits on freedom is another idea, whose time is always with us. :meh:

But the necessity for limits on freedom — Gnomon

:chin: While philosophers argue about free will, the legal system and the legislature are busy laying down laws, really restrictions on our free will, regulating our options. WTF?

:chin: While philosophers argue about free will, the legal system and the legislature are busy laying down laws, really restritions on our free will, regulating our options. WTF? — Agent Smith

Individually, the freedom to do as you please is a good idea. But collectively, that would result in chaos and conflict. So, in politics, and in internet interrelationships, some restrictions on freedom are necessary to avoid a bloody free-for-all.

The lone wolf is free to do as he pleases, but in a pack, he is just one willful agent among many. A pack of wolves is successful to the extent that it has a harmonious collective will, typically embodied in the wisdom of an experienced leader. Currently, the internet seems to be leaderless. So, it's every wolf for himself. Which is why each website must make and enforce its own rules for permitted participation in a collective endeavor.

Over time, those local rules seem to be merging toward a general consensus of what behaviors are permitted, and which forbidden, and which violations can be overlooked. That's how a Democracy can function only with a division of powers : law-makers, law enforcers, and a general consensus Constitution -- interpreted by wise elders. So, maybe the World-Wide-Web Democracy needs a high court to resolve internal disputes --- but elected or appointed? Hmmmm?. :chin:


"See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little."
___Pope John XXIII

Limited Democracy :
definition: a form of government in which the power of the people is limited to the parameters of a constitution.

:up:

A simple but telling truth: There are more laws today then there were in the past. As I suspected, it's our freedom that needs to be checked rather than our lack of it. Was George Orwell right? Is the future of humanity an authoritarian world order?

A simple but telling truth: There are more laws today then there were in the past. As I suspected, it's our freedom that needs to be checked rather than our lack of it. Was George Orwell right? Is the future of humanity an authoritarian world order? — Agent Smith

I haven't studied historical trends in depth. But I suspect that, as Hegel's Dialectic indicates, governments tend to oscillate between Permissive and Restrictive. Hence, generally tracking close to a moderate middle position. Therefore, I suppose that any centralized World Government would also vacillate somewhere in the middle between the poles of Liberal and Conservative, Democracy and Autocracy. Of course, I could be wrong.

The predecessor of the current "world order", the United Nations, was the League of Nations. It was short-lived because its charter gave it no power to enforce its rules. Due to the experience of two world wars with no world police, the UN was given a bit more authority over sovereign nations, but remains almost toothless, primarily due to the fear of developing into a repressive Autocracy.

For some people the notion of a "New World Order" sounds like a godsend compared to the current international disorder. But to others, a NWO would inevitably exceed the bounds of its constitution, in a bid to become a World Empire. And its ruling class would be the semi-criminal Oligarchs of developed nations. Fortunately for us peons, even the powers-that-be tend to offset the extremes, by disputing among themselves about the Need-for-Change versus Maintaining-the-Status-Quo.

Personally, while I admit the danger of a slippery slope, I doubt that an Orwellian world is likely, unless the world gets bombed back into the stone age --- as in some post-apocalyptic movies. And I tend to be optimistic enough to assume that Reason will ultimately prevail. Others may not agree, and prepare to despair. Nothing daunted, I hope for an upward slope. :smile:

Note -- Orwell prophesied the spread of Communism. But that seemingly inevitable domino-fall eventually ended in compromises with Capitalism and Democracy. Even Jeremiah's doom & gloom was offset by the more positive predictions by Hananiah.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2028&version=NIV

Personally, while I admit the danger of a slippery slope, I doubt that an Orwellian world is likely, unless the world gets bombed back into the stone age --- as in some post-apocalyptic movies. And I tend to be optimistic enough to assume that Reason will ultimately prevail. Others may not agree, and prepare to despair. Nothing daunted, I hope for an upward slope. :smile:

Note -- Orwell prophesied the spread of Communism. But that seemingly inevitable domino-fall eventually ended in compromises with Capitalism and Democracy. — Gnomon

I's some time since I read 1984, but wasn't Orwell pointing out the dangers of totalitarianism rather than specifically communism? If I look at Russia, China and a potentially crippled US under Trump again I worry about a world dominated by totalitarian/authoritarian powers. One of the effects of globalism could well be the rise of Oeania, Eurasia etc as Orwell forecast. The EU could be the last bastion of smaller countries clubbing together, and its future doesnt seem to me assured at all. As you say the UN, which should be the way forward, doesnt have any power. Until its security council members are selfless enough to vote to give it real power it will remain a sideshow.

Will reason and democracy prevail? All I can learn from the 20th Century is that man is just about smart enough not to destroy himself, but that's all. Our best hope may be that the battle against global warming acts a uniting factor, as the one against Covid has over the past 2 years.

I's some time since I read 1984, but wasn't Orwell pointing out the dangers of totalitarianism rather than specifically communism? — Tim3003

I assume that Orwell's book was directed at totalitarianism in general. But, at the time he wrote 1984, in 1949, the Nazis were history, and Communism was ascendant. So, his specific criticism was directed at the Russian implementation of Communism. Orwell was sympathetic to Democratic Socialism, and saw that Russia had overcome all odds to end the Tsarist autocracy, and Fascist regimentation, only to create a centralized political & economic system that was just as stifling to individual freedom as its predecessors.

Orwell may have been in favor of the Communist dream, but became disillusioned at the oppressive reality under Stalin. Although he fought in the Spanish Civil War against the Fascists, he had clashes with the Russians, who as outsiders were trying to dominate that internal conflict. Ironically, he even sported a Hitlerian toothbrush mustache at one time. So, I think you are correct that his book was illustrating the errors of top-down government in general. Again, ironically, some Americans today seem to view such total control of the populace as a good thing, even as they are willing to overthrow our current "out-of-control" government.. History has a tendency to repeat itself. :sad:

:up:

There are more rules/laws/regulations now than in the past is the premise I'm working with. Given so, doesn't it look like democracy is a sham? After all, our freedoms have been drastically curtailed over the timespan between the very first proto-governments and the current "democratic" zeitgeist. Typically, the average person living in a democratic country today has less freedom than the average person living under an authoritarian regime a thousand years ago.

There are more rules/laws/regulations now than in the past is the premise I'm working with. Given so, doesn't it look like democracy is a sham? After all, our freedoms have been drastically curtailed over the timespan between the very first proto-governments and the current "democratic" zeitgeist. Typically, the average person living in a democratic country today has less freedom than the average person living under an authoritarian regime a thousand years ago. — Agent Smith

Why does the limitation of freedom mean democracy is a sham? It's clear to the vast majority of voters that freedom cannot be unlimited - the majority have to protect themselves against the lunatic fringe. As long as these limits and the laws enshrining them are democratrically agreed what is the problem?
It has always seemed to me that politics boils down to a simple choice between the prioritisation of 2 mutually exclusive ends: namely freedom and the alleviation of poverty. Those (eg. US Republicans) who raise the concept of freedom almost to an untouchable-God-level paradigm are deluded and naive to my way of thinking.

Why does the limitation of freedom mean democracy is a sham? It's clear to the vast majority of voters that freedom cannot be unlimited - the majority have to protect themselves against the lunatic fringe. As long as these limits and the laws enshrining them are democratrically agreed what is the problem?
It has always seemed to me that politics boils down to a simple choice between the prioritisation of 2 mutually exclusive ends: namely freedom and the alleviation of poverty. Those (eg. US Republicans) who raise the concept of freedom almost to an untouchable-God-level paradigm are deluded and naive to my way of thinking. — Tim3003

The issue, it seems, is that democracies advertize themselves as champions of freedom but, as you yourself have pointed out, democracy isn't that; freedom is not the be-all-and-end-all of democracy and truth be told, it, on many occasions, has traded personal freedom for something else e.g. stability. Ergo, democracy associating itself with liberty is a scam, a fraud, a con job of the most deplorable kind.

Individually, the freedom to do as you please is a good idea. But collectively, that would result in chaos and conflict. — Gnomon

Do you really think that collectively people have the guts to do as they please? It's my impression that collectively people are behaving in conforming mode. Abberations of accepted behavior are frowned upon, dismissed as crazy or mental, "tolerated" (a fancy word for silent dislike), locked away, or simply wiped out of existence.

The internet offers a means for the gutless to speak and spell in an environment where physical repercussions are not to be expected. It offers a means to express ideas as well. There is no board of censorship checking upon fake news or true news. That's true. But a thread to democracy? I think it are the people using the internet are the real thread. Not the internet per se.

The internet is like a global telephone line. It's easy to fool people on the telephone line, and much easier to insult, fight, or have a love relation with than in real life. Insofar human interaction is concerned, the net sucks.There is no truly direct contact. You can be superman on the net, without repercussions to be expected. You can call names however you like, from the safe environment behind your screen, protected by a fake identity or algorithms to hide your whereabouts. You can spread ideas which could have your face smacked if you had spread them in the real world. Which makes it a wonderful medium for politicians or perpetrators of constraining ideas,. If we don't watch out life itself is redirected to the net. I think the disadvantages should be taken for granted. It's a great medium, like television. Television can be used to control or to set free. The will to control or set free can't be taken away by abolishing the internet, TV, or any form of media. It merely adds a means to realize the control.

Democracy will be endangered if the net is used to enforce or regulate a free exchange of ideas or actions by a state-empowered institute.

There are more rules/laws/regulations now than in the past is the premise I'm working with. Given so, doesn't it look like democracy is a sham? After all, our freedoms have been drastically curtailed over the timespan between the very first proto-governments and the current "democratic" zeitgeist. Typically, the average person living in a democratic country today has less freedom than the average person living under an authoritarian regime a thousand years ago. — Agent Smith

Yes. The US is quite law-bound, but it seems necessary to regulators, in part, to reign-in the torrid pace of technological & social change. Consequently, I have long advocated that lawmakers be required to repeal one law on the books for every new law they pass. That might weed-out some of our bizarre or antiquated laws (no bear wrestling ; illegal to impersonate a priest ; boogers must not be flicked into the wind ; etc)

I haven't made a study of comparative freedom in so-called democratic versus autocratic regimes. But Steven Pinker has done similar research, and has concluded that, despite our tangled web of laws, modern technocracies are healthier, wealthier, safer, and freer than in most earlier societies. Besides, the United States has never been a true Democracy. The founding fathers argued both pro & con, and finally reached an imperfect, but workable hybrid system of checks & balances. Over time though, we seem to have moved farther away from the agrarian ideal of independent local farmer citizens, into a consumer society dominated by inter-connected global cash-flow corporations. Yet, again our hybrid system -- part democracy, part socialism, part oligarchy -- is flexible enough to adapt to accelerated evolution of human culture and technology.

As the OP asserted, the internet is driving us in a new direction, for which we have no historical precedent. So, let's hope our modern hybrid systems of government are agile and flexible enough to adapt and evolve to "fit" the new social & technical environmental niches. :cool:

Do you really think that collectively people have the guts to do as they please? — Raymond

Collectively, people are sheep who follow their gutsy leaders. That's why we elect a few bellwethers to lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Yet even those influencers are often indecisive when circumstances place them "in a new direction, for which we have no historical precedent." Somehow, we usually muddle through. Our collective survival instinct forces us to adapt to changing and challenging conditions. And it has ever been thus. :cool:

"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory."
___W. Edwards Deming

I believe that the military-industrial state will eventually collapse, possibly even in our lifetime, and that a majority of us (if prepared) will muddle through to a freer, more open, less crowded, green and spacious agrarian society. (Maybe; of course it may be only a repeat of the middle ages.)”
— Edward Abbey

Controlled newspapers and TV with a narrative to push

Modern(and semi-modern) democracy likes to pride itself as a successor to Greek democracy but this couldn't be more false. Greek democracy was an aristocracy of a few educated, intelligent men who would personally meet their candidates and get a first account of what they were voting for. While in modern democracy everyone, without any barriers, is allowed to vote. With this extended voting pool, most don't understand the issues at hand, let alone each candidate's views and proposed policies on them. Most votes would be casted based off emotion or appealing to friends/family/co-workers. If they did, they still wouldn't have anything close to interaction with their candidates, the closest would be a scripted debate or the sort. They're voting for a perceived, media-based image of a candidate.

So modern democracy is very spoon fed and halters the facilitation of ideas. The internet undermines this by allowing unlimited sources for information, going much further than the mainstream media. In this system of immediate, relatively unmonitored communication many false ideas/information will be spread too, but it's illogical to say this started with the internet. One thing that has clearly scared the mainstream media since its very advent has been the internet. They're not scared of people having "wrong" views however, they're scared of new, different views. And, even worse, these people with alternate views can organize through the internet, and could spread their ideology further.

Even in the past, partakers in this democratic system have been hardly "informed". Their views are merely regurgitated and socially influenced. With the internet, people with so many sources of knowledge at their disposal from every source of information can strive for a genuine understanding of the world rather than accepting whatever is said around them as fact.

Wonderful post. :up:

The OP seems mostly concerned by the internet itself and its impact on democracy.

My own views on the matter is the internet makes it possible to create virtual communities that transcend geographical borders e.g. this forum. When such virtual communities will be given full country status is an open question but I have feeling that it's just a matter of time. What sorta governments virtual countries will choose will have ramifications for real world countries and governments, democracy included.

Have you played Sid Meyer's civilization video games?

My own views on the matter is the internet makes it possible to create virtual communities that transcend geographical borders e.g. this forum. When such virtual communities will be given full country status is an open question but I have feeling that it's just a matter of time. What sorta governments virtual countries will choose will have ramifications for real world countries and governments, democracy included. — Agent Smith

Yes. It was the ability of modern communication systems to transcend traditional borders and social islands that made pioneers of the internet optimistic for an egalitarian New World Order. But many of those progressive idealists were appalled at the speed with which corporate & partisan interests came to dominate the system by manipulating personal interests & prejudices into exclusive cliques. However, such innovations as the global Starlink satellite system, may quickly allow people in underdeveloped areas of the world to play catch-up. And one possible outcome might be for them to escape from the tyranny of banana republic dictators.

On the other hand, techno-communities could also result into a retreat into internet tribalism, instead of nationalism or globalism. Let's hope it will bring us together, as in some non-shooter cooperative video games such as SimCity. At this point in time, most online games seems to be cooperative only in terms of making war on enemy communities. The Civilization games are mostly empire builders, trying to recapture the Glory That Was Rome. Even virtual empires may tend to grow and prosper at the expense of their colonies and local communities. Unless we learn from history, instead of merely repeating the same interpersonal mistakes. Unfortunately, one of those lessons is that freedom must be limited & regulated in order to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons :cool:

Internet debased :
Berners-Lee has seen his creation debased by everything from fake news to mass surveillance. But he’s got a plan to fix it.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/the-man-who-created-the-world-wide-web-has-some-regrets

Tragedy of the Commons :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons