I think a deeper dive on this is The Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri [1] which argues, in short, that people have been enabled by the internet (which he calls the infosphere) and that mobilization via the internet has created extreme turbulence for systems of authority (which are still needed despite their existing issues). The people enabled by the internet have no way to rule, and in many examples do not wish to rule, but only want to dismantle the status quo without any meaningful replacement or solution leaving everyone in a vacuum of nihilism which is highly corrosive to liberal democracy.
The author missed the mark on the financial barriers to entry. He predicted that the shift from text to broadband/multimedia would make politics "more expensive" and raise entry barriers because video is costly to produce.
In reality, the cost of video production dropped to near-zero (smartphones, TikTok, YouTube). However, he was right about the outcome. The "entry barrier" isn't the cost of the camera, it's the cost of the algorithmic optimization and the "strategies to draw attention" in an information glut. The rich didn't win because video is expensive; they won because virality is gameable with resources. Credits where due, he indeed called out this potential for "international manipulation of domestic politics" well before the major scandals of the 2016 era.
This implies that not having internet was good for democracy before that. Internet was not proliferated in 2003 when the Iraq War happened. Was there democracy then... When Vietnam happened, was it democracy...
The text does not really support the title. It argues: “The Internet is not necessarily good for democracy, as optimists claim. It’s more likely to be a mixed bag that presents new challenges.”
This is a good early example of the “populism is bad for democracy” genre of Ivy League handwringing, with titles like “The People Vs. Democracy”. It’s almost amusing to see how uncomfortable the ruling class is with peer-to-peer discourse unmediated by Fact Checkers, Debunkers, and other Adults In The Room.
I'm not the ruling class but im getting uncomfortable with "peer-to-peer discourse unmediated by Fact Checkers, Debunkers, and other Adults In The Room". Have you seen the popular formats of discussion? The are insane even with fact checkers and adults in the room trying to steer the conversation.
Very good paper, no nonsense and straight to the point(s). These sort of topics need way more visibility and discussion in democracies, especially today.
I think a deeper dive on this is The Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri [1] which argues, in short, that people have been enabled by the internet (which he calls the infosphere) and that mobilization via the internet has created extreme turbulence for systems of authority (which are still needed despite their existing issues). The people enabled by the internet have no way to rule, and in many examples do not wish to rule, but only want to dismantle the status quo without any meaningful replacement or solution leaving everyone in a vacuum of nihilism which is highly corrosive to liberal democracy.
[1] https://press.stripe.com/the-revolt-of-the-public
I genuinely don’t get how anyone could feel anything other than nihilism with regards to American democracy
The author missed the mark on the financial barriers to entry. He predicted that the shift from text to broadband/multimedia would make politics "more expensive" and raise entry barriers because video is costly to produce.
In reality, the cost of video production dropped to near-zero (smartphones, TikTok, YouTube). However, he was right about the outcome. The "entry barrier" isn't the cost of the camera, it's the cost of the algorithmic optimization and the "strategies to draw attention" in an information glut. The rich didn't win because video is expensive; they won because virality is gameable with resources. Credits where due, he indeed called out this potential for "international manipulation of domestic politics" well before the major scandals of the 2016 era.
This implies that not having internet was good for democracy before that. Internet was not proliferated in 2003 when the Iraq War happened. Was there democracy then... When Vietnam happened, was it democracy...
The internet discourse is like handing a megaphone to an angry drunk.
If you read history, this is simply public discourse in general. (Often literally.)
If you’re opposed to the difficult and often irrational voices of the public, you’re in fact opposed to democracy.
What about the difficult and often irrational voices of the elite?
I don’t know, what about them?
The text does not really support the title. It argues: “The Internet is not necessarily good for democracy, as optimists claim. It’s more likely to be a mixed bag that presents new challenges.”
This is a good early example of the “populism is bad for democracy” genre of Ivy League handwringing, with titles like “The People Vs. Democracy”. It’s almost amusing to see how uncomfortable the ruling class is with peer-to-peer discourse unmediated by Fact Checkers, Debunkers, and other Adults In The Room.
I'm not the ruling class but im getting uncomfortable with "peer-to-peer discourse unmediated by Fact Checkers, Debunkers, and other Adults In The Room". Have you seen the popular formats of discussion? The are insane even with fact checkers and adults in the room trying to steer the conversation.
I strongly support this message
Very good paper, no nonsense and straight to the point(s). These sort of topics need way more visibility and discussion in democracies, especially today.