Information and democracy

AD1184

Celestial
A much-decried spectre that has arisen within our culture in recent years is that of fake news: things posing as news articles online which may be adverts, or political propaganda designed to libel some faction, which contain falsehoods, and which threaten to undermine our democracies.

Certainly, these writings do not help matters but does that mean that the implied corollary, that the spread of accurate information among the various electorates serves to make democracy more stable, is true? Or can this accurate information itself lead people to apathy or to voting for radical parties they would previously have considered unpalatable, back when they knew less? Could it be that the threat to democracy is not necessarily bad information, but too much information, whether good or bad?

There is a famous quote about politics, often attributed to Bismarck, but apparently not uttered by him, that "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made". Of course, law-making is the realm of politics. This quote from the mid-nineteenth century gives us wisdom that many today will find agreeable: people cannot respect politics in light of a full account of what the major parties and figures have done.

Previously you had to work hard to find out details about what was going on beyond what was printed in newspapers. Nowadays, it is all at our fingertips. It leads some, like me, to apathy and others to vote for previously marginal candidates, who are more radical and promise, whether faithfully or not, to do things better than those who have gone before.

I would say widespread ignorance is good for democratic stability, and widespread knowledge not so good.
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
I would argue the opposite, widespread knowledge has resulted in a more focused democracy with more granularity.
However, the sophisticated use of big data to direct and alter opinion is disturbing and has resulted even in opinion polls becoming partially obsolete.
It goes far beyond simple social media pushing.One player, interviewed by Ben Makuch in the series Cyberwar (Series 2 Episode 1), remarked their techniques utilizing memes and other approaches, had reshaped the political and ideological landscape and moved an entire generation of Americans to the right.
 

wwkirk

Divine
I would argue the opposite, widespread knowledge has resulted in a more focused democracy with more granularity.
However, the sophisticated use of big data to direct and alter opinion is disturbing and has resulted even in opinion polls becoming partially obsolete.
It goes far beyond simple social media pushing.One player, interviewed by Ben Makuch in the series Cyberwar (Series 2 Episode 1), remarked their techniques utilizing memes and other approaches, had reshaped the political and ideological landscape and moved an entire generation of Americans to the right.
Then why is the Left so prominent in the US these days?
 

wwkirk

Divine
Not as prominent as they appear.
They are just bolder, more radical, forceful and louder.
Stand more for anti-American Anti-Freedom ideologies.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. The Democrats have a majority in Congress.
I just don't the right-wing generation you spoke of.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Widespread information and as I've said, the immediacy of communication are what sociologists a hundred years from now will look back at and go 'oh yeah, that mess.' Consider the overall impact of print during the Spanish American War, FDR's use of radio as a way to come directly into your home in an era when high tech meant going to a theater to watch a newsreel, or even Richard Nixon being sick and shabby looking on TV while debating JFK. Using media to manipulate public opinion is an ancient concept but being able to apply it virtually globally instantly is something that it'll take us time to get used to.
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
ChrisIB said:
I would argue the opposite, widespread knowledge has resulted in a more focused democracy with more granularity.
What does that mean?
Yep, bit of a Frasier moment there. I suppose I was trying to say that as the information flow is two ways, ammunition is there for the increased emergence of new parties and with them, less stability.

That said, I do feel it is easy to be nebulous when talking about the evolution of democracy which predicates on an individual's view.
Is it fit for purpose or a plaything of the the corporate rich?
It will also be parochial as democracy comes in so many shapes and forms.

Whilst interesting to see which dominoes fall as the internet fans out, long term, perhaps disclosure will bring a revolution as we adopt an alien form of political system, say one with micro independent regions.

Our culture, what's left of it by Theodore Dalrymple is interesting. I disagree with much of what he says.
 

AD1184

Celestial
Irrelevant, since we do not elect by popular vote...
It is irrelevant to the outcome of the election, but not irrelevant to the argument he is making. It shows that there was a larger number of voters backing the left wing candidate.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
It is irrelevant to the outcome of the election, but not irrelevant to the argument he is making. It shows that there was a larger number of voters backing the left wing candidate.

Still irrelevant, a large number of voters were lead to believe the lies and bs of the left wing party but the voting system of checks and balances was not swayed...

...
 

AD1184

Celestial
The real winner of the 2016 US presidential election was the 'None of the Above' party, polling 44.3%, a plurality of all votes. However, because it did not field a candidate, the presidency went to one of the runner-ups.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
The real winner of the 2016 US presidential election was the 'None of the Above' party, polling 44.3%, a plurality of all votes. However, because it did not field a candidate, the presidency went to one of the runner-ups.

Indeed the majority of voters are registered independent, as I am, with the right leaning party holding the second most registered numbers and the left wing party holding the least amount of registered voters than the others...I typically vote libertarian as I did in the last election since I did not favour the right or left party candidates...Unfortunately it appeared many of the independent voters were hoodwinked into voting for the left which would have been a disaster should they had won...This is a center right political country, the left being the minority always...

...
 

AD1184

Celestial
I think lies, half-truths, crucial omissions and many other forms of misrepresentation come at you from all sides in any election. This is especially the case since the era of television. which became the most important medium for politicians to get their message across to voters. It encouraged extreme brevity and coarseness, while presenting a carefully crafted image. Ad men moved into politics and transformed how it was conducted. It became chiefly a battle of style over substance. At every election, promises had to be made which could not be fulfilled and people were bribed with their own money, in exchange for votes.

This had the effect of debasing politics (well, further, for it has never been a very dignified thing), but not of destabilizing it, at least not at that point. Television was after all controlled by a very small number of people who decided what was shown on it and when. It did not offer the masses the opportunity to seek out information on their own. Your sources in those days were largely restricted to television, radio and printed newspapers. All of which were ephemeral. Information on recent history was available in books, but very few people read those sorts of books.

If you wanted to read an article from a previous edition of a newspaper, you either had to fish it out of the rubbish bin, or else go to a library with an archive. If you were looking for related articles and you did not know specifically which edition they were in, you had to perform a laborious search. Hardly anyone bothered to record TV or radio news, even after the advent of home recording technology. This could also not easily be searched for relevant information, which is hard enough in digital video form when it does not have text-based meta-data.

The information age did not start until the advent of the world wide web, which only became widely adopted in the mid-to-late-1990s. But even back then, the web as a source of news information was fairly immature. I think the explosion of 'blogs' in the early 2000s was a turning point. They were an alternative and uncontrolled source of news and commentary and also a form of social media, with the comment sections of prominent bloggers attracting communities of like-minded people.

Earlier forms of social media existed, like Usenet groups, bulletin boards and web forums like this one, but few had an expressly political focus, unlike blogs, which were largely political in nature, and their communities tended to coalesce around the politics of a central figure: the blogger.

I recall around this time the meme of 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' made fun of by Americans on the right, as a way of describing those who were upset at the Bush presidency, and their arguments becoming unhinged. It occurred to me then that it was a consequence of people coalescing into these exclusive virtual groups based on politics. And that if the tables turned, there would likely be a similar 'derangement syndrome' about the other party's president (I would say there was, once Obama was elected, and the Republican party imploded).

Prior to this age, if people wanted to talk politics, they had to do so with those in their immediate vicinity, whose views might be varied, or else they had to join some special membership organization, which few could be bothered with. The internet enabled you to find people who shared your views with almost no effort. You could all gloat together in victory, and fulminate in defeat, and exchange memes mocking the other side. Political polarization became a major topic of discussion, and I think that was largely thanks to the internet.

Nowadays we have more advanced forms of social media, like Twitter, which serve both as a meeting place and a battleground, and do not in anyway engender goodwill and cooperation between different sides in politics.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
do not in anyway engender goodwill and cooperation between different sides in politics.

^ This is the master key in my opinion, none of the sources of information today engender political nor economic goodwill and cooperation, it serves to divide and conquer the public and the public's opinion, reverting to dark age barbaric mentality and tactics to get the desired results...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
There is one fact in regards to politics that is presented and is crystal clear in this never-ending wave of information, there’s nothing more hypocritical than a socialist who’s selfish and most on the left are extremely selfish...This is proven by their lack of funds given to charity, the left leaning politicians give far far less to charities than those center or right leaning with some given less than one percent of their wealth to help others, all the while preaching that everyone else should give up their wealth...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I would say widespread ignorance is good for democratic stability, and widespread knowledge not so good.

If there is a desire for Democracy to maintain control over its population then I would tend to agree, the problem is not with widespread knowledge and information, the problem is with widespread misinformation masqueraded as knowledge...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Whilst interesting to see which dominoes fall as the internet fans out, long term, perhaps disclosure will bring a revolution as we adopt an alien form of political system, say one with micro independent regions.

Disclosure of what? Aliens? I personally highly doubt any government in the world will offer that in our lifetimes unless we are invaded or aliens blatantly land and reveal themselves to a large enough number of the population to where no cover-up can take place...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Our culture, what's left of it by Theodore Dalrymple is interesting. I disagree with much of what he says.

I did not know the extent of his influence on our culture or are you meaning a more localized influence?...I know of him and lightly of his work but frankly I paid little mind to his work...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Widespread information and as I've said, the immediacy of communication are what sociologists a hundred years from now will look back at and go 'oh yeah, that mess.'

I envision a great many future historians of all sorts looking back on us with similar proclamations, "oh yeah, that mess"...

Consider the overall impact of print during the Spanish American War, FDR's use of radio as a way to come directly into your home in an era when high tech meant going to a theater to watch a newsreel, or even Richard Nixon being sick and shabby looking on TV while debating JFK. Using media to manipulate public opinion is an ancient concept but being able to apply it virtually globally instantly is something that it'll take us time to get used to.

The growth of information technology and 'its' evolution, which is becoming more and more efficient, the more ammunition we give to those who seek to undo it all...

...
 
Top