TPF : Internet Democracy

[Gnomon]

The Internet is destroying democracy

Alongside top-down dictatorships like Russia and China, we end up with bottom-up dictatorships, instigated by the jungle of social media, wherein the loudest beasts attract followers and in time rule. Can informed Democracy survive? — Tim3003

Ancient philosophers warned against the pitfalls of Democracy ("popular rule" ; "mob rule"). Over the millennia since, people have experimented with variations on bottom-up rule, and have gradually weeded-out some of its weak points. The US Constitution was a major milestone in limiting the dangers of "tyranny of the majority" along with "tyranny of the few".

Many of the pioneers of the Internet envisioned it as an ideal format for Direct Democracy with no rules, just freedom to express the art of humanity without censorship. Ironically, that unbridled freedom has resulted in exactly the social problems that Plato predicted : "mass ignorance" (Twitter) ; "hysteria" (viral conspiracy theories) ; and "tyranny" (social media bullying). Unfortunately, proponents of Web 3.0 seem to focus more on technical improvements than moral & social considerations. Nevertheless, the wild-west freedom of the early internet has been partly & inconsistently tamed by the introduction of civilized laws (rule by rational rules, not reigning rulers). Maybe we need a formal Constitution for the Internet.

Until natural evolution has time to breed rational & civilized traits into brutish internet barbarians though, we'll just have to muddle along with cultural patches & temporary fixes. You might call the desired development : survival of the nice-est.


"Plato uses The Republic to deliver a damning critique of democracy that renders it conducive to mass ignorance, hysteria, and ultimately tyranny."
https://medium.com/the-philosophers-sto ... 21e7dcd96e

Web 3.0 :
https://blockgeeks.com/guides/web-3-0/

[Gnomon]

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.


A Constitution for the Internet :
http://www.federalist-debate.org/index. ... e-internet

Bill of Rights for the Internet :
https://edtechbooks.org/mediaandcivicle ... nstitution

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

[Gnomon]

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.

[Gnomon]

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:

[Gnomon]

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.

[Gnomon]

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.

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/?s ... ersion=NIV

[Gnomon]

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:

https://sharylattkisson.com/wp-content/ ... .25-PM.png

[Gnomon]

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.

[Gnomon]

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.

"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

[Gnomon]

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

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 ... me-regrets

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