Democracy's Dilemma: Democracies rely on free exchange of ideas and information, but that can also be weaponized. How can democratic societies protect—and protect themselves from—this?
see also any number of the responses to this piece which, honestly, most of whom could be their own submissions and maybe should be at some point in the future: Don't Put Anonymous Speech on the...
see also any number of the responses to this piece which, honestly, most of whom could be their own submissions and maybe should be at some point in the future:
I think this piece starts with a flawed premise, that the west once had a democracy built on a foundation of free information. I don't think that is true. Prior to the internet, information was...
I think this piece starts with a flawed premise, that the west once had a democracy built on a foundation of free information. I don't think that is true. Prior to the internet, information was largely filtered through the government and corporate media. This filtered information was then given to the voters who were told to make the decisions. This let the voters think they were largely in control and also allowed those with power and money maintain and/or enhance their positions. Thus, there wasn't a democracy built on free information, only on information those at the top wanted you to see.
The internet broke this arrangement. With the internet, we may be closer to what we thought we had, democracy built on free info. However, and the authors speak at length about this, a new problem arose in the form of misinformation. I do not think there is a palatable solution to this problem. Maybe if the internet was de-anonymized it would cut down on the spread of misinformation, but then that stifles dissent. There probably isn't a way to deal with this while maintaining the essential myths that allow belief in a free democracy.
see also any number of the responses to this piece which, honestly, most of whom could be their own submissions and maybe should be at some point in the future:
I think this piece starts with a flawed premise, that the west once had a democracy built on a foundation of free information. I don't think that is true. Prior to the internet, information was largely filtered through the government and corporate media. This filtered information was then given to the voters who were told to make the decisions. This let the voters think they were largely in control and also allowed those with power and money maintain and/or enhance their positions. Thus, there wasn't a democracy built on free information, only on information those at the top wanted you to see.
The internet broke this arrangement. With the internet, we may be closer to what we thought we had, democracy built on free info. However, and the authors speak at length about this, a new problem arose in the form of misinformation. I do not think there is a palatable solution to this problem. Maybe if the internet was de-anonymized it would cut down on the spread of misinformation, but then that stifles dissent. There probably isn't a way to deal with this while maintaining the essential myths that allow belief in a free democracy.