• Agustino
    11.3k


    What do you think? Is this true? And if it is true, what should be done by democratic nations to protect themselves if censorship (blocking free speech) isn't an option?
    1. Is information war through social media disintegrating unity in Western nations? (1 vote)
        Yes
        100%
        No
          0%
    2. If yes, what can be done to prevent these effects? (1 vote)
        Censorship by social media companies
          0%
        Censorship by state intelligence agencies
          0%
        Counter-propaganda
          0%
        Other
        100%
  • Joel Bingham
    8
    People have the right to post and believe what they want to in the USA. Because people get upset the British isles do not condone hate speech and that's how it should be but no hate speech was spread all that was on there was propoganda. How is that different than posting on Facebook 'come to my bakery' they're both trying to be persuasive.
  • deletedmemberwy
    1.1k
    Educate the masses.
  • Bitter Crank
    8.9k
    It should be noted that media content -- social or a-social --was able to compel one of the senators who spoke in the hearing, Al Franken, to resign. So... clearly, media has some power, and if it can be manipulated by foreign powers, then foreign powers could influence political behavior in the United States, or any other country.

    The greatest threat to democracy s not some troll farm in the basement of the Kremlin buying ads and posting fake content on Facebook and Twitter. The greatest threat is, naturally, within our borders, or within the borders of whichever democracy is failing politically.

    IF one viewed the Trump election as a failure of democracy, then it is clear that Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton, the institutions of political parties, state election supervisors, the US. Congress, and the American people are responsible. I do not like Donald Trump. I think he is performing as badly as we nay-sayers thought he would. He isn't evil, he is simply not a competent, experienced politician occupying that most political job.

    Since the problem is the American people and their institutions, none of the preventive measures you suggest would be appropriate.

    Now, I don't have time to review all of the things that are wrong with politics as currently practiced, and you wouldn't want to sit there and read it all. I'll toss out a couple of flaws. Others can add to the list.

    A, Very rich individuals are able to bend the political process to their liking by distributing large sums of money to the right places and individuals. Both political parties engage with the lobbyists, campaign bank rollers, and large donors, so there is no alternative, most of the time.

    B. The two political parties do not offer a significant choice in personalities or policies, most of the time. One can vote for Twiddledee candidate or the Twidlidum person. Take your pick; Twidledee or Twidledum.

    C. Neither party is especially responsive to the will of most Americans. The parties serve the interests of the funders.

    Those are the sorts of threats that face democracies,
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    Neither party is especially responsive to the will of most Americans. The parties serve the interests of the funders.

    Those are the sorts of threats that face democracies,
    Bitter Crank

    Depends what you mean by 'threat'.

    The population are largely idiots, they've been made that way by companies because otherwise they wouldn't buy stuff. Who'd buy a crappy toaster with a neon light that comes on when it's done even though their old toaster works fine? Who'd buy a t-shirt that's just as good as any other t-shirt just because it's got a tick on it and a famous golfer is paid to wear one like that? You'd have to be an idiot to do either of these things. The point is, since the 20s we've been slowly running out of stuff we actually need or want, so companies have had to rely on selling us stuff we don't need to stay afloat. You'd have to be stupid to buy something you don't even need or want, so it's been necessary for companies to work on making that happen. The result is a population that votes for a president with the mental capacity of a five-year-old.

    If by 'threat' you mean threat to the well-being of the population, then I think parties that do not represent the moronic interests of the general public are absolutely essential, rather than part of the problem.
  • Agustino
    11.3k
    The population are largely idiots, they've been made that way by companies because otherwise they wouldn't buy stuff. Who'd buy a crappy toaster with a neon light that comes on when it's done even though their old toaster works fine? Who'd buy a t-shirt that's just as good as any other t-shirt just because it's got a tick on it and a famous golfer is paid to wear one like that? You'd have to be an idiot to do either of these things. The point is, since the 20s we've been slowly running out of stuff we actually need or want, so companies have had to rely on selling us stuff we don't need to stay afloat. You'd have to be stupid to buy something you don't even need or want, so it's been necessary for companies to work on making that happen. The result is a population that votes for a president with the mental capacity of a five-year-old.Pseudonym
    That is true - in marketing, there is a bigger and bigger insistence to write stuff at 5th grade level >:O - so clearly, we expect people to be dumb.
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k


    Its not just marketing, look at the newspapers, television programmes, exams, social media. I'd challenge anyone to compare any of the above from 2018 to its equivalent in 1950 and tell me the population hasn't become more stupid. It's all glossy bold colours, pictures, and simple language, more like something you'd expect to see in a primary school than in intelligent public discourse.

    Who'd 'like' a photo of someone's dinner? 50 years ago you'd have been laughed out of the room. Now the president of the United States has to condense what passes for intellectual comment into 240 characters so that it fits on a social media platform that's used primarily for teenagers to comment on each other's hair style.
  • Agustino
    11.3k
    Its not just marketing, look at the newspapers, television programmes, exams, social media. I'd challenge anyone to compare any of the above from 2018 to its equivalent in 1950 and tell me the population hasn't become more stupid. It's all glossy bold colours, pictures, and simple language, more like something you'd expect to see in a primary school than in intelligent public discourse.Pseudonym
    Yeah, because people don't have time anymore, there are too many things to do. So the pressure is to compress information in as succinct as possible of a format - this usually degrades the quality of the ideas too.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.