Deomcracy is, bottom line, a compromise between totalitarianism and anarchy. The deal we've agreed to is a fixed term (4 years in the USA, think Trump) of dictatorship interrupted by short spells of anarchy (elections). There's nothing great about democracy when you look at it that way; as it is authoritarianism is being favored, given we have to live with it for 4 years, in democracy and that speaks volumes. It seems the logic of democracy boils down to getting robbed and opressed by different people is better than getting robbed and oppresed by the same person. I somehow fail to see the difference.

Up until the last 2 decades the spreading of news was controlled by the orthodox media - TV and newspapers. That news was written by employed journalists; edited, audited for truth and generally respectable if sometimes opinionated - if it wasn't other broadcasters and informed readers would make its shortcomings clear. So the public had reasonably reliable sources. — Tim3003

That past is the result of education for citizenship specifically a citizen of the US. I think the Brits also have a very strong history of freedom of speech and honor. I have read their education was about being English, manners, and customs and they rejected education for technology because they wanted to protect the class social order, and education for technology tends to erase the inherited class order. Germany under Prussian control focused on education for technology for military and industrial purposes. Now you might imagine education for technology is amoral and does not transmit a culture as the US and Britain were focused on their cultures.

The US added vocational training to education when it entered the first world war and there were wonderful benefits to that. However, at that time, war depended more onpatriotism than technology so our schools were used to mobilize us for war and be sure everyone understood our democracy and why it must be defended. Teachers defended our democracy in the classroom. Attorneys defended justice. Newsmen such as our local newspaper called the Register Gaurd defending our liberty with the truth. Investigative reporters had the defined purpose of exposing those things that threatened our democratic principles.

I was greatly saddened when I spoke and a reporter who had no concept of his importance as a reporter because education is no longer explaining what citizens have to do with defending our democracy. We are preparing our young to be products for industry not adults in a democracy. The news business is now about making a profit and it is dying like the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Step one, end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church.
Step two, educate everyone for a technological society with unknown values.
Step three, watch our democracy fall because it is no longer defended.

We are witnessing many serious problems with the internet, but it can also be a place where people learn the principles of democracy and unite to defend it.

Now anyone can report whatever 'news' they want via social media, and anyone else who's curious can read it — Tim3003

I'm active on FB. FaceBook does check facts. Opinions it lets ride, but facts they are serious about.

I can't check facts. I rely on FB, and I trust that its editorial board comprises well-informed people who have access to verified news, because they have full access to the Internet.

Deomcracy is, bottom line, a compromise between totalitarianism and anarchy. The deal we've agreed to is a fixed term (4 years in the USA, think Trump) of dictatorship interrupted by short spells of anarchy (elections). There's nothing great about democracy when you look at it that way; as it is authoritarianism is being favored, given we have to live with it for 4 years, in democracy and that speaks volumes. It seems the logic of democracy boils down to getting robbed by different people is better than getting robbed by the same person. I somehow fail to see the difference. — TheMadFool

And if religions put away their holy books and began teaching math and science, they would be as weak as our democracy is now. Autocracy does not require an educated mass. Democracy does require preparing citizens to be responsible adults who live by shared principles and will defend those principles. Our liberty is impossible without that. Knowing the principles of democracy is as important to a democracy as a Christian knowing the 10 commandments is important to Christianity. Knowing the history and philosophy of democracy is as important to democracy, as Bible stories are important to being an indoctrinated Christian. Without that education, we have anarchy, not democracy.

That news was written by employed journalists; edited, audited for truth and generally respectable if sometimes opinionated - if it wasn't other broadcasters and informed readers would make its shortcomings clear. So the public had reasonably reliable sources. — Tim3003

True. The facts checked out, mostly. The commentary was geared to any opinion, though. They declared the communist countries as evil empires -- they were not as evil as the media depicted, mostly they were rather just inept. The leadership was inept, and their inept way of brainwashing made them look evil, because they did do evil things. Political prisons, for instance. Their inept way of selling their commentary was not bought by the public across the board; they needed terror to take up the slack in compliance.

In the US, Britain, the Western Free World, the difference was that people believed the commentaries, so terror was not needed to quell any resistance to the opinion the ruling class wanted people to accept. That's so because there was no resistance. The media was in complete trust of the people. Because the media created a transferable skill from reporting facts truthfully to getting their opinions accepted as plain truth.

For instance, now we see movies with HEROES in the Viet Nam war. (US-Viet Kong.) At the time the youth was opposing it and condemned it. Famous rockers and philosophers (John Lennon, Bob Dylan et al) condemned the war. People protested against it all over the world, not just on US soil. Now the war is viewed as a just war, producing heroes. And people gobble this new, albeit false, image down, because they still in the same groove as always in the West: believing the facts, believing the commentary.

And if religions put away their holy books and began teaching math and science, they would be as weak as our democracy is now. Autocracy does not require an educated mass. Democracy does require preparing citizens to be responsible adults who live by shared principles and will defend those principles. Our liberty is impossible without that. Knowing the principles of democracy is as important to a democracy as a Christian knowing the 10 commandments is important to Christianity. Knowing the history and philosophy of democracy is as important to democracy, as Bible stories are important to being an indoctrinated Christian. Without that education, we have anarchy, not democracy. — Athena

Do the math. Are Americans voting sensibly? Does the ballot demonstrate/indicate that education makes a difference? I dunno, just askin'. Edify me, pleeaaase.

The US Republican-Trump party is now working to install loyalists in swing-state election-admin posts, so that they can manipulate the 2024 count to ensure he wins - all in defense of the stop-the-steal lie, which 2/3 of them still believe. — Tim3003

And they will probably succeed because we have been educated for that. Trump is our Hitler and the supporters of both men have had the same education for technology. Our power and glory is all about our military might, right? That has always made American great, isn't it? (absolutely not!) That and the blessings of a God who takes care of us and favors us above all others.

Here is our great former President Trump. I am posting it because it is exactly what Chis Hedge explains in his book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

Chris Hedges's book "THE END OF LITERACY AND THE TRIUMPH OF SPECTACLE?" is a must-read for this thread.

"The more we sever ourselves from a literate, print-based world- a world of complexity and nuance, a world of ideas- for one informed by comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans, and a celebration of violence, the more we implode."

Do the math. Are Americans voting sensibly? Does the ballot demonstrate/indicate that education makes a difference? I dunno, just askin'. Edify me, pleeaaase. — TheMadFool

Thank you, you are so right! Americans are not voting sensibly and the change in education is why they are not.

Mad Fool, I don't think you are getting the nuances of my post?

Another threat to democracy I hear about is people lumping together opinions they disagree with as conspiracy theories held by gullible, ill-informed and ignorant people. I'm not sure that contempt for opposing views is a threat to democracy from either direction but it's possibly not helping.

In the US freedom was fought for and provided by the founders. And this was an educated and principled freedom - although with an obvious flaw still a problem 220 years later. After that initial acquiring, all other battles about freedom have been to maintain, preserve, and serve it - at least in principle. The point here being that the founders, those who knew the lack of freedom - as they understood it and that they fought for - warned us that the fight for it would never be entirely over.

Oddly enough so it would seem, among our greatest threats are those that come from within. From those who would pervert all meaning, bending it to their own anti-democratic anti-freedom purposes. And we who take our freedoms, and comforts, for granted are dismissive of these attacks, rationalizing them so that they might not be seen as a too great inconvenience. And near as I can tell, that puts many of us in an historically unique position: of not only having to fight to protect our freedoms, but also to fight to retake those taken. That is, we have to fight the enemy within and not just the enemies without. And a fight for freedom it is.

And this the more difficult because the enemy has attacked and corrupted the language, and from within. At the moment law is our bulwark, our battle line. But will it hold? Our fight, though, is not just a lawsuit; it is a real fight. And it seems that among the first things that have to happen is an awakening of ourselves to be reminded of the principled freedom won for us, the meanings of which we forget.

The wheels and gears of history are large and sometimes - often - millstones that grind. Nor can the imperatives of history be always evaded. American and even world history seems in a moment when we ourselves are expressly called, and it prudent at least to pay attention to the tell-tales of approaching trouble. Our Lincoln told us, "Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history." And ultimately, nor should we try, but instead to face it, always to face it, and in that way persevere and survive.

For instance, now we see movies with HEROES in the Viet Nam war. (US-Viet Kong.) At the time the youth was opposing it and condemned it. Famous rockers and philosophers (John Lennon, Bob Dylan et al) condemned the war. People protested against it all over the world, not just on US soil. Now the war is viewed as a just war, producing heroes. And people gobble this new, albeit false, image down, because they still in the same groove as always in the West: believing the facts, believing the commentary. — god must be atheist

And people believe the Military-Industrial Complex is just theory and the same things as Hitler's New World Order.

Charles Sarolea's book "The Angle German Problem" is perhaps one of the most important books to read in order to understand what has happened to the US since implementing the 1958 National Defense Education Act. One of the first things the Prussians did when they took control of the whole of Germany was to centralize public education and focus it on technology for military and industrial purpose. The Prussians lived for military might as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. Religion is good for war and war is good religion.

The Tea Party that is an essential part of the US history was opposition to Britain taxing US citizens to pay for the military essential to its control of the colonies. When the US entered the second world war its military strength ranked 17th, far below the military strength of much smaller countries. The US and democracy were best known as forces of peace, not forces of war.

That is, we have to fight the enemy within and not just the enemies without. — tim wood

The enemy was welcomed with open arms at the end of WWII, Not only did nations compete for German scientists, but the US also adopted Germany's models of bureaucracy and education. We replaced our education with the German model of education for technology. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. That ended in 1958 and yes the enemy is within.

Thank you, you are so right! Americans are not voting sensibly and the change in education is why they are not.

Mad Fool, I don't think you are getting the nuances of my post? — Athena

Like I said, my IQ is on the wrong side of 69.

Education, education, education! Chant it like a mantra and everything will be ok! The demographic most active in re the small matter of global warming is children - the least educated members of society. Climate scientists - some of the most educated lot - are simply looking to score career points, they aren't really interested in saving the earth. So much for education. Bah!

People protested against it all over the world, not just on US soil. — god must be atheist

True. And other people voted for it, organised it and went to fight in it. Other people thought that John Lennon and Bob Dylan were useless hippies or dangerous communists. The rightness or wrongness of the war was debated then as it is now. There is no agreed history, just as there is no agreed account of current affairs. This is not a matter of ignorance or knowledge but of political judgement.

Charles Sarolea's book "The Angle German Problem" is perhaps one of the most important books to read in order to understand what has happened to the US since implementing the 1958 National Defense Education Act. One of the first things the Prussians did when they took control of the whole of Germany was to centralize public education and focus it on technology for military and industrial purpose. The Prussians lived for military might as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. Religion is good for war and war is good religion. — Athena

I'm not sure if you've seen a lot of US schools.. but a lot of them have nothing to do with the kind of education needed to engineer weapons.. Are we talking urban or suburban schools? Because urban schools are often just trying to keep the kids and its own funding afloat for four years...

I think the ability to communicate instantly is not something that will destroy democracy. I would also say it is untrue that media outlets over the past two decades (anywhere in the world) haven’t been somewhat of a detriment to democracy to some degree.

Now we can see the problems of democracy and we find that we’re all responsible and should check and double check our sources and keep in mind that what we might be hearing may actually be quite false.

The more sensitive the subject the more dangerous it is to stack evidence to back your beliefs and abscond from and derail others. I think younger generations are more adapted than older folks realise as they’ve grew up with the ability to communicate on a global scale.

Your case against independent media reads like it was written by CNN. But to derive your info from the legacy, fake news media, is too puerile an approach to informing oneself. It’s narrow, curated, doesn’t involve much thinking, and is subject to the whims of someone else.

Much better that all information is provided, true or false, and to learn to navigate it. Not everything is meant to be curated and disseminated for us. We ought to wean ourselves from curated information or we will never learn.

In that sense the internet has brought us closer to informed democracy.

Much better that all information is provided, true or false, — NOS4A2

Right, false information. What do you call that? Lies, maybe? And how, genius, do you tell the difference, the usual trustworthy sources being no longer in any way protected or privileged.

Lies, misinformation, errors, superseded theories, pseudoscience. If you need someone to differentiate between truth and falsity then you are a part of the problem.

Lies, misinformation, errors, superseded theories, pseudoscience. If you need someone to differentiate between truth and falsity then you are a part of the problem. — NOS4A2

I asked you how you could tell, and as usual you evade and avoid. Chicken-shit nos4!

You’re a big boy. Figure it out.

You’re a big boy. Figure it out. — NOS4A2

You keep evading, chicken-shit nos4. My question to you was specific. How do you tell the difference between lies and truth if they're both served up equally?

Observation, trial and error, scientific method, logic, principle—foundational critical thinking skills can suffice to help navigate information.

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. :smile:


"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-stone/why-plato-hated-democracy-3221e7dcd96e

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

We ought to wean ourselves from curated information or we will never learn. — NOS4A2

There is no un-curated information

Simply put it: Authoritarian regimes and governments in general have now learned how to control and use (or abuse) the new media called the internet and social media. That's just it.

Of course there's more to this as the negative sides have not happened because of some sinister actors like Russia (or the vast hordes of different lobbyists). I think the historian Neil Ferguson has made a clever comparison with the time we live in:

To understand the current era, Ferguson believes we need to look more at what happened after Johannes Gutenberg developed the printing press. Like the Web, the use of these presses was difficult to centrally control. “At the beginning of the Reformation 501 years ago, Martin Luther thought naively that if everybody could read the Bible in the vernacular, they’d have a direct relationship with God, it would create ‘the priesthood of all believers’ and everything would be awesome,” said Ferguson.

“We’ve said the same things about the Internet,” he added. “We think that's obviously a good idea. Except it's not obviously a good idea, any more than it was in the 16th century. Because what the Europeans had was not ‘the priesthood of all believers.’ They had 130 years of escalating religious conflict, culminating in the Thirty Years War – one of the most destructive conflicts ever.”

The more he studies that period, the more echoes Ferguson sees in the 21st century. “What one can see in the 16th and 17th centuries is polarization, fake news-type stories, the world getting smaller and therefore contagion is capable of spreading much faster,” Ferguson said. “These big shifts in network structure led to revolutions against hierarchical institutions.”

Ferguson points to recent studies showing that fake news can spread faster and farther than real news when it’s especially sensational. “The crazy stuff is more likely to go viral because we're kind of interested in crazy stuff, but this is not surprising historically,” he said. “The idea that witches live amongst us and should be burned went as viral as anything that Martin Luther said ... Indeed, it turned out that witch burning was more likely to happen in places where there were more printing presses.”

Let's just remember the religious wars that rocked the Christian world back then at the time after Gutenberg.

There is no un-curated information

My point, I guess, is the choice between curating your own information or letting others do it for you.

Can informed Democracy survive? — Tim3003

I start from the end :smile:
I would rather call it "Democracy of information", at least this is how I see it.
The problem lies on where democracy starts and where it ends. Can anyone write and spread his shit in the world? Well, Internet certainly allows that. It is then up to the reader to distinguish between unreliable and reliable information. Internet itself provides for it as an "antidote": you can look in it for cross references and other ways of validating information. (BTW, this makes people more knowledgeable and clever. (Except of course the unintelligent, gullible, etc. who are "lost cases".)

So, in the case of the Internet there are no limitations in democracy. Therefore democracy of the information cannot not depend on the Internet. Its survival instead will be threatened only if governments start to censor information in one or the other way.

(BTW, since we are talking about Internet, there are more important issues to be handled than information, which anyway, one can chose what to read. These are e.g. spam, viruses, etc. and concern security.)

Aren't we moving towards a 'Democracy' where the people are so ignorant that election results are meaningless with respect to real issues? Instead the winners will be those who can best whip up fear among the gullible and pretend they will fix its causes. — Tim3003

Democracy was threatened even earlier, with the advent of radio. A booming voice spouting propaganda could be broadcast across an entire continent, in support of whatever rich group was funding the speech. The fascist movements of the 20th century would not have been able to achieve the degree of control they did had it not been for instant communication and high-speed transportation networks. Technology provides the perfect means of domination.

Nowadays in pseudo-democratic countries like the US, citizens routinely go through a ritualistic election of politicians who represent the interests of groups of rich people, and who are paid to convince everyone else that these interests are also their own. People literally elect others to take on responsibilities they do not and likely cannot take on themselves. That is the nature of a highly technicized society; any attempt to isolate the good from the bad is just daydreaming. You want technology that keeps you well-fed and well-entertained? Then you have to accept that you won't have any real freedom. That's just how it goes :roll:

+duplication elsewhere