As we have suffered societal and institutional "decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints" across the board in America why are we surprised this "decay" has settled on our politics. Have you looked at TV and movies lately. The media actually celebrates killers. There isn't much in the way of a negative sanction for rude or even just plain bad conduct, so wasn't this to be expected? Or, are these complaints just cover for the angst over the "wrong" candidate winning? Would this discussion be taking place if Hillary had won, or would the Democrat Party and so-called main-stream press be congratulating themselves?
As for power being drained away from the Democrat and Republican parties, so much the better, since they exist to serve the elite in such parties and their financial contributors, not the bottom 90%. But isn't that what the people at the bottom deserve if they don't participate?
And are we calling the click-bait which serves us nothing but "gotcha" soup and "speculation" meat loaf the main-stream media now. These are newspapers and news channels which exist for no other reason than to make money--or in the case of the newspapers, to just survive. No one reads the papers and no one watches the news channels. Look at newspaper circulation/subscription numbers for paper and online formats, and the viewer numbers for MSNBC, FOX, and CNN. And why should I read or watch what might--but probably isn't--real news when I can look at what I want to be the news?
As for power being drained away from the Democrat and Republican parties, so much the better, since they exist to serve the elite in such parties and their financial contributors, not the bottom 90%. But isn't that what the people at the bottom deserve if they don't participate?
And are we calling the click-bait which serves us nothing but "gotcha" soup and "speculation" meat loaf the main-stream media now. These are newspapers and news channels which exist for no other reason than to make money--or in the case of the newspapers, to just survive. No one reads the papers and no one watches the news channels. Look at newspaper circulation/subscription numbers for paper and online formats, and the viewer numbers for MSNBC, FOX, and CNN. And why should I read or watch what might--but probably isn't--real news when I can look at what I want to be the news?
9
It is utterly ironic that this piece is written by a man with the name "Edsall".
"They have disrupted and destroyed institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it."
Might as well just then write:
"Get off my lawn!"
"They have disrupted and destroyed institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it."
Might as well just then write:
"Get off my lawn!"
4
the fact that our modern educational system has produce an electorate who is incapable of telling when they are being conned, and are so easily persuaded to vote against their own economic interests certainly had nothing to do with republican ascendency.
21
I had a Political Science professor as an undergrad who uttered the memorable phrase "Democracy is Messy" in one of his lectures. It's about the only thing I remember from my undergrad days because it is so true. Tim Berners-Lee created a tool that democratizes data. It's up to the user to determine what is useful and what isn't. I do know this. The Web is a threat to the elites who are used to controlling the story line. That's fine with me. Some of these folks need to hang from trees for crimes against humanity. I know most of your readers would like nothing more than to dismiss me as an ignorant, deplorable rube. Go ahead. I couldn't care less. Take it away and we will find another tool. History is on our side, not yours.
18
We do have to remember that the Internet Age is still in its infancy, at least the social media chapter of it. It's a major disruptor, as is many other kinds of technology (like text messaging being a disruptor to safe driving).
Right now, it is chaos. Because proper use of this venue requires prudence and careful measure. If someone lacks those qualities, then things go awry. Trump's poor PR polish is out front in center, like never before. Nobody is gate keeping him... they're too afraid to.
Yes, Democracy is momentarily disrupted. We'll figure it out, as long as we don't allow the nefarious actors the chance to usurp control. THAT is happening. Just look at Bannon. His ulterior motives are pasted all over the Internet.
Right now, it is chaos. Because proper use of this venue requires prudence and careful measure. If someone lacks those qualities, then things go awry. Trump's poor PR polish is out front in center, like never before. Nobody is gate keeping him... they're too afraid to.
Yes, Democracy is momentarily disrupted. We'll figure it out, as long as we don't allow the nefarious actors the chance to usurp control. THAT is happening. Just look at Bannon. His ulterior motives are pasted all over the Internet.
8
"Democracy, disrupted"? You have the wrong tense. The headline should be "Democracy, disrupting". Because that's what democracy does. It gives power to a lot of mean, confused and angry people. And occasionally you get a Trump. And then you have to rely on the established pillars of a great democracy- the balance of powers and the Bill of Rights -to limit democracy's excesses.
As Churchill said, its the worst governing system around, except for all the rest.
As Churchill said, its the worst governing system around, except for all the rest.
11
What we are witnessing is not a failure of democracy; to the contrary, it is a failure of capital. Wealth, it turns out, is not a panacea. Extreme capital wealth, detached from output and labor, portable and secure, has opened a box with greater ills than Pandora's. The source of the trouble began when the tie between work and the Protestant Ethic was lost (See Max Weber for its importance).
That stage was reached without notice. Even the collapse of the Soviet Union was viewed as politics. (It wasn't. Russia's economy is the size of Spain's; without natural gas, it has limited State revenue.)
Suddenly, a new stage emerged: the accumulation of capital no longer depended on production; it developed goals, institutions that had an invisible pull on the social order, to visible effect. Jobs dried up because the production of capital no longer needed workers, not because of low wages.
Capital became excess! Labor became waste. In the inverse of diminishing returns, excess creates waste. (The barren mountain top. Brown fields. Inner city stagnation. Safety net dependency.)
This is coming to fruition in global political economies; but the lumpen hold on the mystic of the past through the failure to analyze the situation properly. Look at Trump's cabinet: billionaires, and billionaires who withdrew (the price of service too high!).
Add race and the waste--economic carnage--is toxic to democracy--waste created by excess!
That stage was reached without notice. Even the collapse of the Soviet Union was viewed as politics. (It wasn't. Russia's economy is the size of Spain's; without natural gas, it has limited State revenue.)
Suddenly, a new stage emerged: the accumulation of capital no longer depended on production; it developed goals, institutions that had an invisible pull on the social order, to visible effect. Jobs dried up because the production of capital no longer needed workers, not because of low wages.
Capital became excess! Labor became waste. In the inverse of diminishing returns, excess creates waste. (The barren mountain top. Brown fields. Inner city stagnation. Safety net dependency.)
This is coming to fruition in global political economies; but the lumpen hold on the mystic of the past through the failure to analyze the situation properly. Look at Trump's cabinet: billionaires, and billionaires who withdrew (the price of service too high!).
Add race and the waste--economic carnage--is toxic to democracy--waste created by excess!
17
"The question now is who benefits more from the digital revolution and the ubiquity of social media, the left or the right?" Why is that the question? The better question would be "Who benefits more from the digital revolution, the citizenry or the Establishment political parties?" Mr. Edsall makes it sound like, but for the internet, Clinton would have won. Forget her homebrew server, the Russian uranium deal, the Libya mess/Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and her failure to campaign in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. It was the Russians! And Breitbart! The next step is to limit conservative internet sites but allow Daily Kos, HuffPo, Slate and, of course, the NTY and WaPo.
5
How many times do we have to say it: HRC had NOTHING to do with Russia and uranium! And when are you people going to let go of Benghazi, for pete's sake? Why don't you turn your attention to the ever widening dark pit that is Trump and his Russian connections? Then you might be doing something really helpful!
12
Welcome to mob rule.
3
"as traditional norms of political competition are tossed aside, it’s clear that the internet and social media have succeeded in doing what many feared and some hoped they would. They have disrupted and destroyed institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it."
I hate to disagree right from your starting contention, but the challenge to democracy has come from those who don't believe in it, who reject the concept of power borrowed, temporarily from the people bestowed by a free and fair vote. They know who they are— traitor thy name is Republican. Whatever the justification, it isn't enough to take history into your hands, to violate the trust of the American people. I don't care if you think you got that abortion killing Supreme Court vote, if you don't believe God loves other sexed people, or if you've come to believe you are special and better than the people who lent the power, you are damned to hell for what you are doing to this country.
I hate to disagree right from your starting contention, but the challenge to democracy has come from those who don't believe in it, who reject the concept of power borrowed, temporarily from the people bestowed by a free and fair vote. They know who they are— traitor thy name is Republican. Whatever the justification, it isn't enough to take history into your hands, to violate the trust of the American people. I don't care if you think you got that abortion killing Supreme Court vote, if you don't believe God loves other sexed people, or if you've come to believe you are special and better than the people who lent the power, you are damned to hell for what you are doing to this country.
16
Don't discount the incompetence of the mainstream media and their huge role in this election. How many stories on issues vs Clinton email stories? The mainstream media botched this election just as they botched the pre-Iraq war coverage. Look inward if you want to see failure.
18
Right now there are probably millions of decent Americans all across the country who are thinking that Trump should be given a chance because it’s the “right thing to do”. The late Maya Angelou would see things differently. She coined a saying - “When someone shows you who they are, you should believe them the first time”. Of course in Trumpworld Ms. Angelou has no credibility. After all, she was female, black and an intellectual. But I am male, white, and not an intellectual so I’m going to put it like this: Anyone who thinks that they are being a good person by “giving Trump a chance” are badly mistaken. They are not being good, they’re just being stupid.
18
Whenever I see a left-wing journalist warning us how the internet is 'destroying democracy' I get a little cynical. Is Mr. Edsall is perhaps nostalgic for the era when the only news outlets were 3 network news divisions, plus the Times and the Washington Post? And all the news was the same, including the opinions expressed in the reporting? I think it's the 2016 election hangover. How could a pompous egotist like Donald Trump beat the liberal poster-woman, Hillary Clinton? Internet or no, Trump won because Battleground States voters refused to vote for another 4 yrs like the last 8. No, Obama, no Trump. It's that simple.
1
The breakdown of trust is such that too many people of different political views cannot imagine others to have anything but bad reasons for their beliefs. Everyone is suspect for them.
6
Since when is democracy defined as the control of communications by either the media or the party apparatus?
Democracy has not been disrupted. Your control of it has.
Democracy has not been disrupted. Your control of it has.
5
The article makes this development sound like it's a bad thing. If you're Hillary Clinton, or establishment career politicians, or globalists, perhaps you think the dilution of corporate media messages meant to, in the words of MSNBC, "control what people think," is a bad thing. For those of us who welcome messages that are not controlled by the 6 ginormous media conglomerates, the internet is a Godsend, a refreshing venue where "alternative facts" (that was sarcasm, in case you didn't know) are openly discussed and we can compare what we hear and see in the old media to what we hear and see in the new media. Give voters some credit for determining what to read and listen to, what to believe, and how to vote. President Trump gave voters that credit, and it served him well.
2
Well it's a good thing then that we live in a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy
1
Trump, with his glaring moral turpitude and massive narcissistic egotism, may cause a loss of our civil rights. personal safety, and financial security, as well as freedom of religion, speech and assembly, and freedom of the press/media, which are the foundation of our traditional American values, as guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Trump’s gang full of his apparent minions, henchmen, lackeys and yes-men & -women, may actually be his seditious, yet very powerful, fearful puppet-masters.
“There is no one week, nor day, nor hour where tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their…spirit of defiance.” ~ Walt Whitman (1819-1892)
Trump’s gang full of his apparent minions, henchmen, lackeys and yes-men & -women, may actually be his seditious, yet very powerful, fearful puppet-masters.
“There is no one week, nor day, nor hour where tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their…spirit of defiance.” ~ Walt Whitman (1819-1892)
7
The internet has brought back moral and ethical restraint in politics by preventing liberal media omission and twisting of facts.
The NYT is just upset because they're fake news and will end up closing as a result of legitimate reporting now being available through the internet.
Boo hoo! The times had 100 years to learn some ethics and never could be bothered.
The NYT is just upset because they're fake news and will end up closing as a result of legitimate reporting now being available through the internet.
Boo hoo! The times had 100 years to learn some ethics and never could be bothered.
5
"Democracy (noun): a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary). Sounds like this country. Were you absent from 5th grade that day?
2
I agree with the commentators that suggest it's not the technology that's the problem - it's the people using it. Our enormous access to all kinds of information (true/untrue, hateful/enlightened, biased/unbiased, etc) has overrun our ability to sort it. I agree that training on critical thinking needs to be part of basic education - starting at an early age. This doesn't have to be political - their are plenty of examples from all sides of the political spectrum of both true and false statements online.
5
The early comments in the article about doing away with the smoke-filled room need to be viewed in the context of the much more worrisome points about the hollowing-out of parties, the lack of "wise elders" and absence of mechanisms of internal correct. Smoke-filled rooms have a bad name, for some valid reasons, but they were the doing of party leaders capable of bringing their main constituencies together, brokering deals *that were likely to be honored* (else the leaders would have little credibility next time around), and building broad coalitions. True that those coalitions embraced many contradictions, and lots of the deals were just the least bit corrupt (or more), but the parties and leaders were able to enforce some discipline and the electoral contest had greater structure and continuity. The more recent move to, for example, nominations by primary did much to establish the hegemony of small, unrepresentative party "base" groups, and to produce loose-cannon nominees and contenders.
Mass democracy is potentially a wonderful thing, but it needs leadership, structure, and limits upon its excesses...
Mass democracy is potentially a wonderful thing, but it needs leadership, structure, and limits upon its excesses...
6
"Goldstein noted a 'horrible development on the internet' last year"
Really? Free speech and true democracy are messy, sometimes rough and hurtful, but the alternative is far, far worse - it quickly becomes fascism.
He goes on to say There is no governing body" - That is precisely why the internet is probably the last hope for true democracy - Why should we need "governing bodies" to tell us what to say and what not to say.
I may not agree with what you say, some of it may hurt my feelings, but you know what? I will forever defend your right to say that and worse.
The minute we start deciding what is acceptable speech and what is not, democracy starts dying.
Really? Free speech and true democracy are messy, sometimes rough and hurtful, but the alternative is far, far worse - it quickly becomes fascism.
He goes on to say There is no governing body" - That is precisely why the internet is probably the last hope for true democracy - Why should we need "governing bodies" to tell us what to say and what not to say.
I may not agree with what you say, some of it may hurt my feelings, but you know what? I will forever defend your right to say that and worse.
The minute we start deciding what is acceptable speech and what is not, democracy starts dying.
3
Still waiting to see the upside for the people (not the .1%) of the United States. So far it all looks pretty grim. Hope Congress will grow a backbone and fix this... I may be wrong, but from where I sit it looks like the current administration is putting decline into overdrive -- looking more like a parody of feudalism with cell phones. And with ICE unleashed, arbitrary seizure of assets by law enforcement, unrestrained civilian killing -- the US looks like a very scary place to visit. Hope it can be repaired.
12
I wish that some knowledgeable, honorable research group would compile a detailed record of the many government programs and protections which have actually, significantly contributed to the common good of our society, during the past 25, 50, 100 years, or longer. This archive could have links to pertinent film clips on a YouTube channel.
Many people who warn about "government overreach" seem to basically be opposed to laws that limit -
- unfair business profits
- unfair violations of voting rights
- unfair "freedom" of religious groups to limit the personal freedoms of individuals of "questionable holiness"
One social concept which has a long history of bipartisan support in our country is the ideal of fair sportsmanship. Millions of sports fans would be up in arms if the richest owners of sports teams were allowed to change the official "rules or the game" in order to favor their own teams. I'm surprised that the phrase "fair rules of the game" is not used more frequently in multiple public discussions about what is in the best interest of the majority of Americans.
Many people who warn about "government overreach" seem to basically be opposed to laws that limit -
- unfair business profits
- unfair violations of voting rights
- unfair "freedom" of religious groups to limit the personal freedoms of individuals of "questionable holiness"
One social concept which has a long history of bipartisan support in our country is the ideal of fair sportsmanship. Millions of sports fans would be up in arms if the richest owners of sports teams were allowed to change the official "rules or the game" in order to favor their own teams. I'm surprised that the phrase "fair rules of the game" is not used more frequently in multiple public discussions about what is in the best interest of the majority of Americans.
9
For example, what was once a fairly gentile forum, Cspan's Washington Journal now has a much higher rate of callers who are suspect, distrustful and more and more often, openly hostile toward the hosts there. Washington Journal's hosts' impartiality in the past was never questioned, it was obvious exactly what Washington Journal was, a reflection of news headlines by anyone calling in by telephone, but I cannot see the future for Washington Journal as the majority of callers have decided their own opinion constructs are made from "all over the internet" and are suspect of anything presented on Cspan as fact.
3
I agree with Sam Greene. Erosion of confidence in Democratic political institutions and processes has occurred because of the right's relentless demonization of all things government, given voice by the Republican Party, and the corruption and self-serving actions of those elected to represent us in those institutions and processes, who just reinforce by their actions the efforts to undermine those institutions.
Where are the champions of democracy? The Democrats are too busy trying not to lose elections to bother to stand up for it or to oppose and debunk right wing anti-democracy/government memes, or too busy individually serving themselves and their own ambitions to care.
The internet isn't doing anything that right wing talk radio hadn't already accomplished. It's not the type of mouthpiece that matters, it's the unopposed message and the willingness of Americans to abandon reason and live inside the reality bubbles manufactured for them, all while refusing to do the hard work of citizenship that is needed to make democracy work, that is putting our democracy, our entire system of government in peril.
Where are the champions of democracy? The Democrats are too busy trying not to lose elections to bother to stand up for it or to oppose and debunk right wing anti-democracy/government memes, or too busy individually serving themselves and their own ambitions to care.
The internet isn't doing anything that right wing talk radio hadn't already accomplished. It's not the type of mouthpiece that matters, it's the unopposed message and the willingness of Americans to abandon reason and live inside the reality bubbles manufactured for them, all while refusing to do the hard work of citizenship that is needed to make democracy work, that is putting our democracy, our entire system of government in peril.
6
"very many voters have stopped seeing government as a tool for the production of the common good, and have instead turned to politicians (and others) who at least make them feel good." Throughout the entire history of the United States there has been a struggle to achieve consensus that government is, in fact, "a tool for the production of the common good," and this struggle I think played a critical role in the last election. Hilary Clinton was suspect in the eyes of many for the very reason that she has played an important role in government for so many decades, a "Washington insider" and thus, contaminated by contact, corrupt. Donald Trump, however, is assumed to be "pure" despite his evident lies and misbehaviour because he has absolutely no government experience, no real exposure to the corrupting medium. New forms of participatory media then had the effect of exploiting the historic angst on the part of some parts of the populace regarding the trustworthiness of any form of government whatsoever. Steve Bannon has said he wants to destroy the "administrative state," which we in Canada understand to be "good government." Analysis of the role of new media in American politics must include an understanding of this peculiarity of the American scene.
2
The last author quoted says, "For reasons that are both complex and debatable, very many voters have stopped seeing government as a tool for the production of the common good." I'm sure there are complex reasons, but surely two reasons are, first, that one party has relentlessly attacked government for the last generation and done its utmost to paralyze it, to starve it of funds, and to create a vicious cycle in which underfunded arms of government perform in ways that make them appear still less deserving of funds. Secondly, the other party decided to cede this terrain entirely. It fails to trumpet the historic achievements of the New Deal and Great Society, it has been bullied away from calling for any kind of tax increases (except for everyone's bogey the super-rich) or even justifying the taxes we already pay, and it will not utter a full-throated defense of government and the common good that it represents. Quite the contrary: President Clinton's "Era of Big Government is Over" remark remains seered in my brain as a gratuitous surrender of a proud legacy. I'm sure there are reasons for government's falling reputation, but its abandonment by traditional defenders at the moment when it was under greatest assault has to be counted as one.
7
Anyone who sees disruption and destruction of "institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it", clearly has a significant stake in an abhorrent status quo that is speeding us toward environmental collapse.
Blaming the internet for damaging the "moral and ethical constraints in American politics" - a political system that has been captured by the anti-democratic, all-powerful force of corporate money - would be comical if the consequences weren't so severe.
The internet has opened up points of view for the public that the corporate-media purposely ignored because those views threaten the domination of our political system by the privileged.
Blaming the internet for damaging the "moral and ethical constraints in American politics" - a political system that has been captured by the anti-democratic, all-powerful force of corporate money - would be comical if the consequences weren't so severe.
The internet has opened up points of view for the public that the corporate-media purposely ignored because those views threaten the domination of our political system by the privileged.
1
The battle for the heart and soul of government and its conscience, democracy, in Ancient Greece and Rome was between the Patricians and Plebeians, in medieval times it was between the Royalists (including their auxiliary the Church) and the Serfs. In early America, it was a battle between the Royalists and landed free men. As the country grew through civil and world war, it witnessed a battle between the GOP's constituency (capitalized wealth and evangelism) vs the Dem's constituency (labor, the poor and people of color). Starting with Reagan and carrying through Bush (I and II), Clinton and Obama government and labor became devalued; monied and corporate interests took hold of both parties. Instead of Royalty we now have corporate/celebrity plutocrats vs the hoi polloi, who have grown more marginalized, compartmentalized, selfish and greedy.
Nevertheless, the people find communion on the internet networking amongst extremes. It grants a moment of meaning and significance to otherwise anonymous and self-absorbed lives. Their mother shuided votes let the plutocrats take over our government. While now we're debating whether that Russian engineered result was intiated solely or in collusion, I'm thankful that since the inauguration the people seem not to have surrendered to apathy and ennui rather they seem to have awakened to what they truly want in a democracy.
Nevertheless, the people find communion on the internet networking amongst extremes. It grants a moment of meaning and significance to otherwise anonymous and self-absorbed lives. Their mother shuided votes let the plutocrats take over our government. While now we're debating whether that Russian engineered result was intiated solely or in collusion, I'm thankful that since the inauguration the people seem not to have surrendered to apathy and ennui rather they seem to have awakened to what they truly want in a democracy.
1
Let me make it simple for ya!
There are 40 million americans who are stupid! They respond to titillating fake news and information like insects to phermones.
They can now swarm together digitally!
Without the filters of intellect and reason they are pure sources for emotional exploitation.
Trump is like a pile of dung to Dung Beatles.
There are 40 million americans who are stupid! They respond to titillating fake news and information like insects to phermones.
They can now swarm together digitally!
Without the filters of intellect and reason they are pure sources for emotional exploitation.
Trump is like a pile of dung to Dung Beatles.
11
Ah yes - all those baskets of deplorables whose votes we don't want.
3
It remains very depressing that so much discussion assumes that Trump won the election, whereas the truly historic aspect of Clinton's candidacy is that she entered the election cycle held in negative esteem by the majority of the electorate, and that she managed to lose an election to an historically improbable and inappropriate opponent.
All the analysis attempting to determine how Trump did it is misplaced. The analysis should attempt to understand how the Democrats did it, how Clinton did it, and determining how they - the Democrats - can avoid losing to a Trump ever again.
All the analysis attempting to determine how Trump did it is misplaced. The analysis should attempt to understand how the Democrats did it, how Clinton did it, and determining how they - the Democrats - can avoid losing to a Trump ever again.
6
@C.Richard ~ Russian interference, FBI interference, a press that was more obsessed with emails than the massive frauds of Trump University and the most outwardly misogynistic candidate ever is how djt was put in the WH as an illegitimate president.
Sec. Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million. The Electoral college and the Press did not do their job during the election and campaign 2016. They failed to reveal djt for the huckster he is, they failed to hammer away about his tax returns like they did the emails and most importantly they failed to investigate his mental capabilities and reveal his unsuitability for such a demanding job.
Sec. Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million. The Electoral college and the Press did not do their job during the election and campaign 2016. They failed to reveal djt for the huckster he is, they failed to hammer away about his tax returns like they did the emails and most importantly they failed to investigate his mental capabilities and reveal his unsuitability for such a demanding job.
5
The internet has been a powerful tool in a democratic country, rather than a threat. Take the example of the United States of America and India, the two largest democracies in the world. In India, there was a supreme court judgement banning 'Jallikattu', a form of bull fight that has been part of the regional culture for hundreds of years, on grounds of cruelty to animals. There was a massive backlash against the ban from the public, that was fueled by social media. The protests gathered momentum gradually, leading to massive protests by almost half a million people on the streets and near government buildings. Finally, the state government had to issue an ordinance to lift the ban.
Here in the United States, we have been seeing protests too. Protests are an important form of resentment in any democracy. It is a way of holding government and other elected officials accountable for their actions. That is pretty much what we have been seeing at Town Halls and in social media. The Internet has let these protesters to be better informed and organize themselves better to make their point more forcefully, thereby reinforcimg the values of democracy.
The downside as I see it is that the Internet has let people like Donald Trump to be elevated to a cult leader. He stoked the emotions of his supporters and presented lies as facts to them. As the author says, "the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts." The internet works for gaslighting.
Here in the United States, we have been seeing protests too. Protests are an important form of resentment in any democracy. It is a way of holding government and other elected officials accountable for their actions. That is pretty much what we have been seeing at Town Halls and in social media. The Internet has let these protesters to be better informed and organize themselves better to make their point more forcefully, thereby reinforcimg the values of democracy.
The downside as I see it is that the Internet has let people like Donald Trump to be elevated to a cult leader. He stoked the emotions of his supporters and presented lies as facts to them. As the author says, "the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts." The internet works for gaslighting.
1
While I believe that Trump is a terrible choice for president, and Brexit most likely a terrible idea, they were both the result of voting tallies that, so far as anyone knows so far, were free and fair.
The internet surely IS eroding postwar Democratic institutions, and it IS probably a bad influence (and re-exported influence) on many people, but in the end, aren't the people the one's who have a say? How, then, can we argue that Democracy is failing?
Perhaps the internet will make it harder than ever for real, evidenced-based information to emerge from the welter of lies, propaganda and uninformed blather out there, but isn't it too early to forecast the end of democracy?
The internet surely IS eroding postwar Democratic institutions, and it IS probably a bad influence (and re-exported influence) on many people, but in the end, aren't the people the one's who have a say? How, then, can we argue that Democracy is failing?
Perhaps the internet will make it harder than ever for real, evidenced-based information to emerge from the welter of lies, propaganda and uninformed blather out there, but isn't it too early to forecast the end of democracy?
2
So old style media is mad at the disruption and power the internet has? I don't have the energy but suffice it to say I disagree with basically everything the author believes and with his conclusions.
2
In today's classrooms, even the young students commonly instruct the teacher about technology. ("Now, scroll down, down, and select the smartboard icon.") And so, society's elders and leaders are among the last to catch on about how the internet has transformed communication in the world--again--just within the last 10 years. Guess what? Young people use the internet differently than we do. Young people expect things to move much, much more rapidly. They process information differently. It's scary.
3
The Internet has not created antisemitism, authoritarianism or xenophobia. It has brought them out in the open, perhaps; but isn't it better to know what is happening in the dark basement of our culture than to be surprised when the monsters break out? Destructive ideologies have flourished perfectly well with no help from digital technology. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot - would the Internet have made any difference to their success? I doubt it. In the Rwandan genocide of 1994, old-fashioned radio played the role of the amplifier and enabler of the hatred that caused the death of 800,000. If democracy is failing, the only ones to blame are the people themselves. "Every nation has the government it deserves". This was true before the Internet, it's true now.
2
I think people, those who can, should think more critically about what they mean by "democracy", or what is really does or should mean.
In effect and actual practice, it means rule by a highly stratified upper layer of mostly meritoriously arrived elites.
In intent it means society structured for the people, all of them, which is contrary to what is observed.
These two senses are in conflict and the workout of that contradiction, naturally driven by the deplorable layers most impacted is the source of the current angst.
In effect and actual practice, it means rule by a highly stratified upper layer of mostly meritoriously arrived elites.
In intent it means society structured for the people, all of them, which is contrary to what is observed.
These two senses are in conflict and the workout of that contradiction, naturally driven by the deplorable layers most impacted is the source of the current angst.
Democracy is messy, I get that. The internet is immediate, unregulated, anonymous--beautiful, ugly, vile, hateful, lovely, inspiring, insipid, stupid, enlightening, lame. I would even hazard to say the internet is truly democratic. It cannot be controlled by a central authority. It is nearly impossible to censor. Totalitarian regimes try to control it to bolster their authority. It is free speech. And how do you defeat irresponsible, vile, ugly, hateful speech? More free speech.
3
If by Democracy, Edsall means the hegemony of entrenched institutions such as political parties and the venerable free press, then, yes, Democracy is being disrupted and destroyed. Welcome to Schumpeter.
This is a Democracy of elites. They are the gatekeepers of Trooth, Facks, Lawgick. They decide the what, when and who of the democratic discourse. A former editor of a "major" paper, on these pages, decried the erosion of the "gatekeeper" function when the upstart Buzzfeed published the "dossier". He argued that it was the right of The Press to have exclusive access to seminal information like that contained in the "dossier" so that The Press could promulgate the correct interpretation of the "news". Providing ordinary people - unwashed, populist, deplorable - with information could only lead to the destruction of democracy. Which would deny institutions their rightful hegemony.
Bull. Democracy by Elites is as hokey as the Divine Right of Kings. It is just a rationale for power. It is conservative. It is reactionary.
The internet is an agent of progressivism, of evolution. Sure, it is a threat to pointy headed academics who pontificate to a closed audience of pointy headed academics at the UT Law School. The internet gives voice to throngs who never had any voice at all.
Sure, the internet is clamorous and cacophonous. Disruptive and destructive. So what? That is the nature of the dialectics that have advanced democracy.
This is a Democracy of elites. They are the gatekeepers of Trooth, Facks, Lawgick. They decide the what, when and who of the democratic discourse. A former editor of a "major" paper, on these pages, decried the erosion of the "gatekeeper" function when the upstart Buzzfeed published the "dossier". He argued that it was the right of The Press to have exclusive access to seminal information like that contained in the "dossier" so that The Press could promulgate the correct interpretation of the "news". Providing ordinary people - unwashed, populist, deplorable - with information could only lead to the destruction of democracy. Which would deny institutions their rightful hegemony.
Bull. Democracy by Elites is as hokey as the Divine Right of Kings. It is just a rationale for power. It is conservative. It is reactionary.
The internet is an agent of progressivism, of evolution. Sure, it is a threat to pointy headed academics who pontificate to a closed audience of pointy headed academics at the UT Law School. The internet gives voice to throngs who never had any voice at all.
Sure, the internet is clamorous and cacophonous. Disruptive and destructive. So what? That is the nature of the dialectics that have advanced democracy.
2
If the author of this article had contacted me, a guy with only a high school diploma who writes postmodern philosophy, the email would have gone like this...
Welcome to the postmodern revolution (I don't like the word disruption).
The power of the Internet, or the emerging postmodern 'digital estate' which includes the Internet, will not only continue to undermine the modern political institutions of the Western World, but will force one of two options upon them.
Change or be replaced.
The existence of the digital estate and the Internet, with its intrinsic individualistic nature, completely reverses the power structure that ideology and modern politics is founded upon. As Marx envisioned, "politics, law, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc... of a people are no longer collective, they are now each a subjective truth."
It is this postmodern definition of truth that got Trump elected. And confronting this new definition of truth with modern ways, only reinforces its postmodern power.
The philosophical parrhesiates of postmodern politics demands a democratic and open participatory element of inclusion for everyone from their perspective of truth, and their individual position of power.
In essence, to undermine the Trumps of this world they must be confronted in their postmodern world (the Internet) with postmodern digital platforms, arguments and ideas.
J.R. Werbics is a Canadian filmmaker, writer and philosopher
Welcome to the postmodern revolution (I don't like the word disruption).
The power of the Internet, or the emerging postmodern 'digital estate' which includes the Internet, will not only continue to undermine the modern political institutions of the Western World, but will force one of two options upon them.
Change or be replaced.
The existence of the digital estate and the Internet, with its intrinsic individualistic nature, completely reverses the power structure that ideology and modern politics is founded upon. As Marx envisioned, "politics, law, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc... of a people are no longer collective, they are now each a subjective truth."
It is this postmodern definition of truth that got Trump elected. And confronting this new definition of truth with modern ways, only reinforces its postmodern power.
The philosophical parrhesiates of postmodern politics demands a democratic and open participatory element of inclusion for everyone from their perspective of truth, and their individual position of power.
In essence, to undermine the Trumps of this world they must be confronted in their postmodern world (the Internet) with postmodern digital platforms, arguments and ideas.
J.R. Werbics is a Canadian filmmaker, writer and philosopher
1
Interesting article, but the inclusion of the actual mechanics of mass manipulation through the offices of big data accumulators like Cambridge Analytica is missing.
Social media as a system disrupting force only begins with the function as nexus for the consolidation of all communicative paths. It is the exploitation of that nexus that topples the standing order.
Social media as a system disrupting force only begins with the function as nexus for the consolidation of all communicative paths. It is the exploitation of that nexus that topples the standing order.
1
The United States has never been a democracy in its purest form. That system is called "direct democracy". (if you are unfamiliar with what that is, please Google).
It is a system that relies on representatives who have to slug their way to positions of power. The system has always been broken and now it may be ending. What comes next is our choice. Get informed, wake up!
It is a system that relies on representatives who have to slug their way to positions of power. The system has always been broken and now it may be ending. What comes next is our choice. Get informed, wake up!
2
Edsall's columns are usually thought-provoking, and for that I thank him. I'm also indebted to the NYT and other publications for the opportunity to use their comments section to work out what I actually think of the changing world. The hollowing out of political parties is a puzzle, and I look forward to Issacharoff's paper. But it occurs to me that a major reason for change in voter commitment is that much has grown beyond our comprehension. We may like our devices, but few of us know how they work. We may want a rewarding economy, but even fewer know how that comes about. All this change in complexity makes thoughtful engagement difficult. So when we decry elites, what do we mean? People who seem to have a handle on what's going on--while we do not? Are we excluded more by our own lack of expert knowledge than by those who engage, however mindless they are? I think increasing complexity is a factor, and hope to see some quantification of its role in the modern political malaise.
Meanwhile, the frustrated let fly at will on the Net, and muddy the issues. And the ill-willed take advantage of that. But these are not the central issues: a world beyond our comprehension is. So too is our willingness to admit this condition, and our willingness to keep our expectations within our limits.
Meanwhile, the frustrated let fly at will on the Net, and muddy the issues. And the ill-willed take advantage of that. But these are not the central issues: a world beyond our comprehension is. So too is our willingness to admit this condition, and our willingness to keep our expectations within our limits.
2
It is funny how you can use logic to fool people. Considering disparate sources to support your argument sounds persuasive and convincing; however, such actions only end in cognitive dissonance: that the left is right and the others, in the ideological spectrum, are dead wrong. Let us consider his arguments. One, he claims the new technology attacks the left, as if the left has no support in the internet driven world. But is not that true that Hillary employed internet trolls to take out facebook groups before "super tuesday" and Trump supporters. It is a two-way game and don't act that you are innocent. Two, the mainstream media, which includes both the electronic and non-electronic, was fully behind the liberals and the so-called left. In fact, NYT and WP is nothing but a mouth-piece for the Democratic Party. Three, democracy did not fail, instead it got re-invigorated after Trump's victory. Consider how many people supported and officially endorsed Hillary during this election. I would say it is 99% including the Hollywood and all the major newschannels and newspapers, except Fox News. Not to mention the campuses filled with social justice warriors and liberal professors like Krugman. Yet, the people came out to defeat the Democrats/liberal; it only re-affirms the faith that people can undo the elites' aspirations. Then again, no one in the liberal side want to do an objective reasoning, because they believe in partisanships and weird conspiracy theories.
8
I am having a hard time believing that I have just read a piece that's main thrust is that transparency and the free flow of information is a threat to democracy. How far will the left's Trump Derangement Syndrome go?
14
There are many, many people who pay no attention to the bloggers and nutcases who swarm the internet. We haven't all been sucked into the fake news void. There are still millions content to read the "mainstream" news and let the freaks go their own way. If people want to buy into the conspiracy theories and crackpot stories created by the unseen hoards, let them. It's hardly the end of democracy. There have always people willing to believe anything. Instead of the tea-leaf reader and her prediction of doom, it's now Breitbart. Nothing new.
2
Any system, process or technology that can be abused, misused or used illegally will benefit the right more than the left.
1
Want to read a great, short, short book? Buy a copy of historian Tim Snyder's "On Tyranny: Twenty lessons from the Twentieth Century". An expert of 20th century European history, Snyder teaches at Yale and knows just about everything about fascism, Nazism and communism; and the cruel consequences these political "experiments" produced.
Small enough to fit in a large pocket, this book does in 126 pages the best prescription for preventing Trumpism from turning into Tyranny, American style.
Costs about $8 and it will put into perspective the ills (and cures) confronting the United States and the Western world.
Buy the book and help save constitutionalism from the Trump's and Bannon's who would destroy it, along with our liberty!
Small enough to fit in a large pocket, this book does in 126 pages the best prescription for preventing Trumpism from turning into Tyranny, American style.
Costs about $8 and it will put into perspective the ills (and cures) confronting the United States and the Western world.
Buy the book and help save constitutionalism from the Trump's and Bannon's who would destroy it, along with our liberty!
1
The party bosses in the Democratic Party had no problem insuring that Clinton was chosen instead of Sanders. This didn't necessarily insure that Trump would win but after being cheated out of a fair opportunity to nominate their candidate, many millenial voters stayed home. The internet and the hacked emails let them see, along with their own experiences in the primary just how unfair the system is.
10
Can we stop hyperventilating. The world isn't coming to an end; it's changing. The printing press was a much more disruptive technology than social media or the Internet. It led to the spread of literacy and the shattering of Catholic orthodoxy as more people read the scriptures for themselves. Reformation and Counter-Reformation; revolution and counter-revolution. The "divine right of kings" to rule over the masses gets debunked by all those pamphleteers, along with lots of other dogma, and next thing you know, we end up with bourgeois democracy and industrial capitalism.
8
Unfortunate choice of words, "Democratic failure." Actually, this is a profound self-obliteration of the Republican Party, a placing of partisan politics above the country, itself. This is unprecedented, this is treasonous behavior tolerated, condoned, and rewarded by one and only one party.
Where are the historical Republican leaders, the Bush family of Jeb, W, and the patriarch, GHWB? They should, in unison, be loudly speaking out and demanding a special prosecutor be appointed. This is a watershed Watergate moment. Even more serious: no one believed that Nixon or his cabal were un-American--- they were merely willing to engage in illegal activities to further their power. They were not, in the truest sense, un-American as President Trump and his closest group now have been shown to be.
This is a "Profiles in Courage" moment for Republicans. To this point, they've shown a decidedly yellow streak down their collective backs.
Where are the historical Republican leaders, the Bush family of Jeb, W, and the patriarch, GHWB? They should, in unison, be loudly speaking out and demanding a special prosecutor be appointed. This is a watershed Watergate moment. Even more serious: no one believed that Nixon or his cabal were un-American--- they were merely willing to engage in illegal activities to further their power. They were not, in the truest sense, un-American as President Trump and his closest group now have been shown to be.
This is a "Profiles in Courage" moment for Republicans. To this point, they've shown a decidedly yellow streak down their collective backs.
3
Edsall quotes Sam Greene: "...very many voters have stopped seeing government as a tool for the production of the common good, and have instead turned to politicians (and others) who at least make them feel good."
Trump understands this perfectly. He made the working classes' desire to feel good again the centerpiece of his campaign, and he will make it the centerpiece of his presidency. This means that all Trump needs to do to get reelected is continue what he's already done: Give the working classes the perception that he is listening to them and working for them. That's something neither the Democratic nor the Republican establishment cared about. (Bernie Sanders did, but he's not establishment.)
Trump doesn't need to accomplish concrete achievements. (He can blame the lack of achievements on the media and on the political establishments of both parties.) And because the media and the Democratic and Republican establishments truly have neglected the working classes in the last 3 administrations, Trump will impress the working classes with his attention to them -- regardless of achievements -- and they will reelect him.
Trump understands this perfectly. He made the working classes' desire to feel good again the centerpiece of his campaign, and he will make it the centerpiece of his presidency. This means that all Trump needs to do to get reelected is continue what he's already done: Give the working classes the perception that he is listening to them and working for them. That's something neither the Democratic nor the Republican establishment cared about. (Bernie Sanders did, but he's not establishment.)
Trump doesn't need to accomplish concrete achievements. (He can blame the lack of achievements on the media and on the political establishments of both parties.) And because the media and the Democratic and Republican establishments truly have neglected the working classes in the last 3 administrations, Trump will impress the working classes with his attention to them -- regardless of achievements -- and they will reelect him.
4
Democracy has always been hard work. In the past, people have relied on the traditional institutions--the media, political parties, etc.--to do the 'heavy lifting.' With the seeming decline of these institutions, we now must now personally take on the responsibilities they bore.
I would speculate that the majority of people do not have the time, the inclination, or education to: check sources, differentiate fact from opinion, or ponder the nuances necessary to appreciate a very complex reality. The result: we gravitate to those people and places were we feel comfortable, knowledgeable, welcomed, and safe. There is no better place to find these things than omnipresent social media.
Will we be better or worse for this...only time will tell? My personal belief: I doubt it.
I would speculate that the majority of people do not have the time, the inclination, or education to: check sources, differentiate fact from opinion, or ponder the nuances necessary to appreciate a very complex reality. The result: we gravitate to those people and places were we feel comfortable, knowledgeable, welcomed, and safe. There is no better place to find these things than omnipresent social media.
Will we be better or worse for this...only time will tell? My personal belief: I doubt it.
3
Prof. Issacharoff seems to have stated the nub, and passed on. It's the money. That's what the parties used to control. A wealthy nut used to, perhaps, be able to fund a local campaign, but for an entire state, or a national office, the organization necessary to run a campaign was tied to the political funds that the parties controlled. And even then, amounts of money were limited by law. Then the Nine Old Lovlies ruled that that stifled speech somehow, and we get the wild west. Once outside money didn't have to go through the parties' hands, they became not much more than labels, intellectual property to be bid on with no lasting policies. Which is where we are today.
5
The power of the internet has become frightening. If it is used to obscure the truth rather than inform and inflame emotions rather than inspire rational thought, and if it can be dominated by whoever has the most tech savvy, every democracy in the world is threatened. If the solutions require some sort of regulation of the internet to prevent fake news while preserving free speech, who can be trusted to do the regulating?
Ultimately, democracies succeed or fail on the ability of the electorate to distinguish between fact and fiction and to draw reasonable conclusions based on facts and logic. That becomes even more crucial in dealing with the flood of information and disinformation on the internet.
Ultimately, democracies succeed or fail on the ability of the electorate to distinguish between fact and fiction and to draw reasonable conclusions based on facts and logic. That becomes even more crucial in dealing with the flood of information and disinformation on the internet.
4
Democracy has not been disrupted. Our constitution defines “democracy”, at least for presidential elections, as a messy process that gives weight to states, with an Electoral College. Trump won the presidency by materially the same rules under which every one of our presidents has been elected since George Washington. Because the winner espouses a worldview that isn’t uniformly liberal doesn’t mean that democracy has been “disrupted” – liberals don’t get to unilaterally specify the proper ideological attributes of democracy.
The internet and its offspring, by facilitating the evangelization of “hate speech”, merely offers more leverage to demagogues – of the right AND left – than radio and TV did before them. But we’ve always had demagogues … and we’ve always had democracy. Yet arguing against the internet is a bootless exercise: it’s not going away, and the rational among us must come up with better ways to counter demagoguery; or, failing Ben Franklin, we may not KEEP our “republic”.
What has been “disrupted” is politics-as-usual. Trump represents a discontinuity in a continuum of rational compromise that was and should again be more technocratic than it is berserker-ideological. If Trump can fix our broken politics by co-opting BOTH ideological extremes and forcing both closer to the center (something NEITHER side actually wants), then he will go away and a healed politics again will hold sway. But, one way or another, ours won’t be an UNdemocratic governance.
The internet and its offspring, by facilitating the evangelization of “hate speech”, merely offers more leverage to demagogues – of the right AND left – than radio and TV did before them. But we’ve always had demagogues … and we’ve always had democracy. Yet arguing against the internet is a bootless exercise: it’s not going away, and the rational among us must come up with better ways to counter demagoguery; or, failing Ben Franklin, we may not KEEP our “republic”.
What has been “disrupted” is politics-as-usual. Trump represents a discontinuity in a continuum of rational compromise that was and should again be more technocratic than it is berserker-ideological. If Trump can fix our broken politics by co-opting BOTH ideological extremes and forcing both closer to the center (something NEITHER side actually wants), then he will go away and a healed politics again will hold sway. But, one way or another, ours won’t be an UNdemocratic governance.
7
Thanks for the term "berserker-ideological."
Perhaps casual and occasional use of the term will help facilitate the healing process.
Perhaps casual and occasional use of the term will help facilitate the healing process.
2
It’s odd reading an article like this and coming away with the feeling that only part of the problem has been addressed. After all, democracy is a big ‘un, right? But in empowering an UNREGULATED internet we are sacrificing more than democracy to Mammon. We are sacrificing civility, fairness, truthfulness, honesty, unbiased discourse and more. Since these are the pillars on which democracy rests, democracy itself is compromised. I, for one, see a striking parallel between an unregulated gun industry and an unregulated internet. There is no more fertile field for scammers and jackals and haters than the internet!
And while I am at it, let me air my own pet peeve. The Electoral College has become the liberals’ favorite whipping boy since Trump’s victory. But wasn’t it conceived precisely as a bulwark against the unfiltered populism that swept Trump to victory? If anything, the “blame” should be assigned to the spineless electors who bowed meekly to populist sentiment, not to the institution itself.
And while I am at it, let me air my own pet peeve. The Electoral College has become the liberals’ favorite whipping boy since Trump’s victory. But wasn’t it conceived precisely as a bulwark against the unfiltered populism that swept Trump to victory? If anything, the “blame” should be assigned to the spineless electors who bowed meekly to populist sentiment, not to the institution itself.
2
To your point that we have sacrificed " civility, fairness, truthfulness, honesty, unbiased discourse", etc. to the internet - none of these things are owed to any of us. They are not owed to us in real life conversations, they are not owed to us online. These are social niceties but they are not rights. I've been in customer service my whole life and I can tell you that people were not civil, fair, or unbiased before the internet and they won't start now. If someone wants to rant,let them. Ultimately you're the arbiter of your own actions and to cut off someone else's voice because you disagree with it betrays your own spinelessness.
5
So you don't believe in free speech. The Internet is just a medium, no different than talking or writing on paper in terms of the speech.
Any control over speech -- presumably the "regulation you're looking for -- is really just plain old censorship, which can and will be used against any viewpoint that disagrees with those in power.
Any control over speech -- presumably the "regulation you're looking for -- is really just plain old censorship, which can and will be used against any viewpoint that disagrees with those in power.
1
Internet leads to extremism in the forging of various political ideologies. By functioning as an echo chamber, the alt right chatroom concentrates a large group of like minded paranoid racists who never have to confront dissenting opinions within their forums. The extremist individual comes away with the complacent feeling of 'being right', no matter how socially objectionable or useless the ideas set forth in a forum happen to be.
3
Ah, the problem of the great unwashed. What do you do with so many uneducated people in a democracy that depends on an educated citizenship?
Everyone has a right to be stupid in our country and has a right to speak up, Tweetle-Dumb's foolish tweets are an example.
The internet is a double edged sword; it's a tool for spreading wisdom as well as a tool for spreading stupidity. The one who figures out how to prevent the stupid from meddling - equitably - deserves the Nobel Prize.
Everyone has a right to be stupid in our country and has a right to speak up, Tweetle-Dumb's foolish tweets are an example.
The internet is a double edged sword; it's a tool for spreading wisdom as well as a tool for spreading stupidity. The one who figures out how to prevent the stupid from meddling - equitably - deserves the Nobel Prize.
3
Part of the problem is that democratic institutions are being disrupted at an unpropitious time.
The World War II generation made plenty of mistakes, but it knew the dangers of tyranny and of fascism in particular. I can't help but think that the passing of this generation from the scene has opened the door to some of the darker impulses out there that are now being openly expressed. There was a time not so long ago that Nazi imagery was simply taboo in this country, the effect of having a generation in power who fought that menace first hand and knew the evil that it represented. We also had victims of that evil around to remind us of where unfettered racism and xenophobia lead.
And so we come to today, where we have amazing tools with which to communicate but at a point in history where we are vulnerable to forgetting some of the harder won lessons of the Twentieth Century. We forget that NATO wasn't just about collective defense against a Soviet threat to the free peoples of Europe. NATO was also about the notion, formed after two bloody world wars, that allies don't go to war with each other. These aren't sexy or exciting new ideas but they are vital lessons from the last century which we ignore at our peril if we are to survive this century. Sadly, the jury is still out on that as nationalism and a new ignorance takes root around the globe.
The World War II generation made plenty of mistakes, but it knew the dangers of tyranny and of fascism in particular. I can't help but think that the passing of this generation from the scene has opened the door to some of the darker impulses out there that are now being openly expressed. There was a time not so long ago that Nazi imagery was simply taboo in this country, the effect of having a generation in power who fought that menace first hand and knew the evil that it represented. We also had victims of that evil around to remind us of where unfettered racism and xenophobia lead.
And so we come to today, where we have amazing tools with which to communicate but at a point in history where we are vulnerable to forgetting some of the harder won lessons of the Twentieth Century. We forget that NATO wasn't just about collective defense against a Soviet threat to the free peoples of Europe. NATO was also about the notion, formed after two bloody world wars, that allies don't go to war with each other. These aren't sexy or exciting new ideas but they are vital lessons from the last century which we ignore at our peril if we are to survive this century. Sadly, the jury is still out on that as nationalism and a new ignorance takes root around the globe.
1
They used to say the same things about newspapers.
7
Tsk, tsk. As is taught in fifth grade civics classes, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. In the pledge of allegiance, it says "to the republic, for which it stand." There is no mention of democracy.
Buy them books, send them to school, and they chew off the covers. Go figure.
Buy them books, send them to school, and they chew off the covers. Go figure.
3
Looking only at the last election, a lot of bad things had to come together for us to elect such a poor excuse for a human being president. Social media and the internet were only part of the mix. The NYT's had spent two and a half decades softening the target with it's breathless Hillary coverage. That made people willing to believe Russian leaks and FBI exposes of non existent law breaking. It took a president too politically inept to expose the Russian intervention in our elective process when the FBI buried the information--Hillary emails serious, attacks of our electoral process, not so much. Most importantly, it took a lot of voters either too dumb or too lazy to deal with real issues--my personal belief is that is what will do in American democracy--who were ready to accept anything that appeared on Facebook without exercising any critical intelligence. What the impact of the internet will be eventually on the political process depends on whether we become more mature and discerning in using it. We are presently awestruck. It takes a while to get any new toy or tool under control.
3
Under control?
Who gets the privilege of controlling it?
Who gets the privilege of controlling it?
2
I'm offering this comment via the international internet. The USA has no worries about comments from international sources, they simply ignore them. From an international point of view there has been no expectation of a pivot or a turn approaching normalcy from your President Trump. You have had 17 years to try and fix your election system, it has gotten worse. You have no federal election role. you are crippled by your biased county registrars and gerrymandered congressional districts. International advice is always ignored, don't worry be happy and stick with your moribund policies.
7
The media is only bemoaning its losses as some editors in hotel bar somewhere can no longer "make" our politics for us. The press loved to threaten that they told us what and how to think, the Internet has proved them impotent. As for "traditional " policy, it is precisely that corrupt, arrogant, and pro Globalists/ Commumist trash that has been openly rejected. You think you know better than the rest of America? We will kill you.
1
Regulating independent voices on the Internet is a sure-fire way to kill Democracy stone dead. In today's age, a hallmark of a totalitarian regime is to require bloggers to have government approval to merely share their thoughts online. Just look at Iran, China, and other repressive regimes which view the Internet as "a threat" to their stability.
This begs the question: Why does the Internet serve as a useful tool for spreading democracy in certain countries (like Egypt) and as a tool for causing division in others (like America)? Trying to answer that particular question would have yielded a far more interesting Op-Ed.
This begs the question: Why does the Internet serve as a useful tool for spreading democracy in certain countries (like Egypt) and as a tool for causing division in others (like America)? Trying to answer that particular question would have yielded a far more interesting Op-Ed.
9
I'm sure there are laypeople people in Egypt who see the internet as a tool for causing division, just as there are those in the USA right now who see it as a tool for spreading democracy.
Sorry, but I think we need to get past the usual tropes and sacred cows. We regulate traffic on our highways, we regulate a world-wide financial system, we regulate the application of laws, we regulate industries. In each case we do it because the alternative, lack of regulation, is worse. We WILL get to the point where, for the internet, the tradeoff will go the other way.
And just because something has been done badly elsewhere by someone else does not mean that it cannot be done right. Isn't that what the republicans are doing with the ACA?:-)
And just because something has been done badly elsewhere by someone else does not mean that it cannot be done right. Isn't that what the republicans are doing with the ACA?:-)
I find it difficult to grapple with the questions you raise because, at the federal level, I can't get past the question of the political courage of the national Democrats and the civic character of the national Republicans.
I loathed the way congressional Republicans and Republican messaging demonized Presidents Clinton and Obama and the way congressional Republicans followed a strategy of scorched earth opposition to the Obama presidency. As an Eisenhower Republican it seemed completely unjustified to me.
I have a continuing high level of frustration that the national Democrats do not defend their accomplishments in a sustained and effective way, even if I'm glad the opposition is around to check against too much or unwarranted government involvement in our lives. I don't see why Democrats use the divisive language of PC and group entitlement when the language of our common humanity and right to dignity and real opportunity would hopefully suffice. I applauded Senator Gillibrand's work to prevent rape, but it's terrifying she embraced Mattress Girl.
And when the national parties recently agreed on important matters they were often proved wrong.
These problems seem independent of the Internet. Would institutional control of political messaging have prevented, or did it cause, our current problems?
I loathed the way congressional Republicans and Republican messaging demonized Presidents Clinton and Obama and the way congressional Republicans followed a strategy of scorched earth opposition to the Obama presidency. As an Eisenhower Republican it seemed completely unjustified to me.
I have a continuing high level of frustration that the national Democrats do not defend their accomplishments in a sustained and effective way, even if I'm glad the opposition is around to check against too much or unwarranted government involvement in our lives. I don't see why Democrats use the divisive language of PC and group entitlement when the language of our common humanity and right to dignity and real opportunity would hopefully suffice. I applauded Senator Gillibrand's work to prevent rape, but it's terrifying she embraced Mattress Girl.
And when the national parties recently agreed on important matters they were often proved wrong.
These problems seem independent of the Internet. Would institutional control of political messaging have prevented, or did it cause, our current problems?
1
This peice follows the course of a bad sociology paper - cite primary sources as factual and not as if they are anything more than random opinion.
Recall the hand wringing before the election - private money would rule that airwaves and corrupt the voters' minds - so how did that work out?
The two most tractable candidates attracted virtually no special interest money.
I am starting to think that progressives really don't bemoan the disruption of democracy. They bemoan that the rest of us - the actual voting public - refused to see the wisdom of "their" path. They need to learn that the forces of disruption cut both ways and you never get to "harness" disruption.
Recall the hand wringing before the election - private money would rule that airwaves and corrupt the voters' minds - so how did that work out?
The two most tractable candidates attracted virtually no special interest money.
I am starting to think that progressives really don't bemoan the disruption of democracy. They bemoan that the rest of us - the actual voting public - refused to see the wisdom of "their" path. They need to learn that the forces of disruption cut both ways and you never get to "harness" disruption.
3
In the absence of compromise and good faith negotiations our Founding Fathers wisely intended government gridlock in order to preserve the status quo ante in our divided limited powered democratic republic. With the disastrous exception of the Civil War that has worked out for the better for the American white majority. For 4 million enslaved Africans the Civil War was all good news.
Since 2000 only white Americans have seen their live expectancy decrease due to drug addiction, alcoholism and depression. About 80% of sucides have been white males. Despite 57%, 59% and 58% of white voters voting Republican party for POTUS in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Barack Obama won two terms and Trump narrowly won one.
Since 2000 only white Americans have seen their live expectancy decrease due to drug addiction, alcoholism and depression. About 80% of sucides have been white males. Despite 57%, 59% and 58% of white voters voting Republican party for POTUS in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Barack Obama won two terms and Trump narrowly won one.
1
Worst yet, the NYT has morphed into an arm of the Democratic Party. Along with CNN, MSNBC, and a few others, they are no longer journalists, but rather a perverse cheering squad of "unnamed sources".
Whatever happened to "Deep Throat" and the days of intensive investigation?
It's gone.
And in it's place is a frenzy to sell stories, 24 hours is no longer valid. A story has hours to live, not days.
And in their haste to get the dollars and stay relevant, fine institutions such as the NYT have prostituted themselves. But this is the world we live in. People can judge for themselves what to read, and what is fake. They can choose to verify on their own, and perhaps the world no longer needs the NYT.
Whatever happened to "Deep Throat" and the days of intensive investigation?
It's gone.
And in it's place is a frenzy to sell stories, 24 hours is no longer valid. A story has hours to live, not days.
And in their haste to get the dollars and stay relevant, fine institutions such as the NYT have prostituted themselves. But this is the world we live in. People can judge for themselves what to read, and what is fake. They can choose to verify on their own, and perhaps the world no longer needs the NYT.
5
"Worst yet, the NYT has morphed into an arm of the Democratic Party. Along with CNN, MSNBC, and a few others, they are no longer journalists"......Where things appear to be depends on the vantage point of the observer. If you wander far to the right, everything in the center is perceived to be on your left, and the farther right you go, the farther left the center seems to be.
1
Well you are perfectly free to believe Trump's press releases and leave it at that.
1
The antidote is to get "big money" out of the political realm. By contrast, can anyone imagine a call to "stop" the internet or close down popular social media platforms? They are here for the duration.
The next step is reversing the decades of bad tax policy that has created a superclass of financial elites. If we can view the rise of people becoming billionaires as a form of uncontrolled growth, in other words, a cancer, then we can apply tax policy to insure very few people can gain access to this class.
Let's discuss all the benefits to society as a whole if the wealthiest of individuals and corporations paid a much higher share (yes, I argue a fair share) of their wealth to serve the public interest.
Our institutions are weak not because of the free-flowing internet but because of corruption. Let's stop that corruption at the source.
The next step is reversing the decades of bad tax policy that has created a superclass of financial elites. If we can view the rise of people becoming billionaires as a form of uncontrolled growth, in other words, a cancer, then we can apply tax policy to insure very few people can gain access to this class.
Let's discuss all the benefits to society as a whole if the wealthiest of individuals and corporations paid a much higher share (yes, I argue a fair share) of their wealth to serve the public interest.
Our institutions are weak not because of the free-flowing internet but because of corruption. Let's stop that corruption at the source.
1
In 1995 Canadian writer and historian John Ralston Saul gave the annual Massey lectures at the University of Toronto. The Massey Lectures have always featured notable public intellectuals like Martin Luther King and Jean Bethke Eishtain.
In 1995 Saul told us democracy in the uSA was a sham and the votes of the citizens no longer mattered. In lecture three he tells the story of Bill Clinton being elected to implement a healthcare for all system. He talks about Gringrich and the neocons and their belief that the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Saul talks about the oil crisis of the early 1970s and how America gave up democracy to ensure the welfare of its corporations but most all in his lectures Saul talks about the 2500 year history of democracy from Solon and Socrates and how Americans were brainwashed to believe that free markets and economic growth were cornerstones of democracy.
Democracy has not been part of America for almost 50 years the American destiny has been decided around boardroom tables not at the ballot box.
In a real democracy people decide the nature of society not Wall Street or Madison Avenue. For almost 50 years neocons or neoliberals have decided the nature of American society not its people.
Donald Trump has given democracy its first life signs in almost fifty years because he is so bad at being a figurehead. Autocrats and tyrants are not very good at selling the myth of democracy.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1995-cbc-massey-lectures-the-unconscio...
In 1995 Saul told us democracy in the uSA was a sham and the votes of the citizens no longer mattered. In lecture three he tells the story of Bill Clinton being elected to implement a healthcare for all system. He talks about Gringrich and the neocons and their belief that the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Saul talks about the oil crisis of the early 1970s and how America gave up democracy to ensure the welfare of its corporations but most all in his lectures Saul talks about the 2500 year history of democracy from Solon and Socrates and how Americans were brainwashed to believe that free markets and economic growth were cornerstones of democracy.
Democracy has not been part of America for almost 50 years the American destiny has been decided around boardroom tables not at the ballot box.
In a real democracy people decide the nature of society not Wall Street or Madison Avenue. For almost 50 years neocons or neoliberals have decided the nature of American society not its people.
Donald Trump has given democracy its first life signs in almost fifty years because he is so bad at being a figurehead. Autocrats and tyrants are not very good at selling the myth of democracy.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1995-cbc-massey-lectures-the-unconscio...
3
If you read about AG Jeff Sessions' "troubles" today in Breitbart, you will see only a very brief report that is actual news. The rest is in the Comments section, and it is clear that Breitbart's readers "believe" that everything is corrupt about government EXCEPT for Trump and his administration. Everyone is to blame except Trump and his advisers. According to Breitbart, the CIA and the FBI are conspiring with others in the "Deep State" to take out Trump's presidency. Any disagreement is insulted to death, along with calls to "Block and troll." Everything wrong on earth is either Obama's or Hillary's fault. Any criticism of Trump is blasted down with conspiracy theories.
How can democracy survive if we no longer hold certain "truths to be self-evident?" To Breitbart, unquestioning allegiance to Trump is more important than democracy is. Trump said it best himself when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still stand up for him.
How can democracy survive if we no longer hold certain "truths to be self-evident?" To Breitbart, unquestioning allegiance to Trump is more important than democracy is. Trump said it best himself when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still stand up for him.
3
ROOT CAUSE: SLAVE ERA COMPROMISES IN US CONSTITUTION
Permissive gerrymandering and voter suppression, plus the unequal representation of citizens in the Senate, are enshrined in our obsolete constitution.
There can be no solution to our broken politics that avoids a re-write of our constitution around one man, one vote, redefining political activities around a pressure toward consensus, not toward partisanship, and updating federal financial management to make it more "public profit" driven, i.e., more businesslike, with the greatest good for the greatest number taking the place of commercial profit.
This will require a Constitutional Convention and leadership with intelligence and integrity. I believe only a collective action by our nation's philanthropic billionaires can accomplish this, as it will require massive funding to overcome the corrupt politics of today.
Permissive gerrymandering and voter suppression, plus the unequal representation of citizens in the Senate, are enshrined in our obsolete constitution.
There can be no solution to our broken politics that avoids a re-write of our constitution around one man, one vote, redefining political activities around a pressure toward consensus, not toward partisanship, and updating federal financial management to make it more "public profit" driven, i.e., more businesslike, with the greatest good for the greatest number taking the place of commercial profit.
This will require a Constitutional Convention and leadership with intelligence and integrity. I believe only a collective action by our nation's philanthropic billionaires can accomplish this, as it will require massive funding to overcome the corrupt politics of today.
1
This seems less about internet technology and more about a poorly educated electorate. The cuts to public schooling seem to be more of a threat in this brave new internet world.
4
"Thus, the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts. That’s where the vulnerability comes in, and its roots are in our politics — not in the internet."
No, the roots are in ourselves. See Christopher Hedges's "Empire of Illusion: The end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle." From the Amazon summary: "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level."
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Our educational system has let us down. The vast majority do not read or think critically. They are vulnerable to the demagoguery that characterized the last election.
No, the roots are in ourselves. See Christopher Hedges's "Empire of Illusion: The end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle." From the Amazon summary: "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level."
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Our educational system has let us down. The vast majority do not read or think critically. They are vulnerable to the demagoguery that characterized the last election.
3
"The question now is who benefits more from the digital revolution and the ubiquity of social media, the left or the right?"
It's the Right, because:
* we saw in the 2106 election that voters on the right are more easily fooled. I don't say this pejoratively; it's the conclusion reached by the "free market" of fake news creators, as reported in the Times.
* the Right has shown a greater willingness to destroy norms at every level. From gerrymandering, to Congressional obstruction and filibuster, to voter suppression. They have shown they are willing to use any tool, new or old, to subvert former norms to "win".
* the Right has a greater thirst for authoritarian leaders, again as reported by Mr. Edsall in these pages. They want to be told what to do, and social media provides an excellent means.
But iIs that really the question? You argue that political norms are failing, and that populism is on the rise. I agree, and think that the old left/right divisions are being replaced, too. It's not Carter v. Reagan any longer. The populist Right want goverment aid and labor support -- for their kind. Both sides decry crony capitalism and lopsided trade deals.
Is this what it felt like in 1781, in American and Europe -- the World Turned Upside Down?
It's the Right, because:
* we saw in the 2106 election that voters on the right are more easily fooled. I don't say this pejoratively; it's the conclusion reached by the "free market" of fake news creators, as reported in the Times.
* the Right has shown a greater willingness to destroy norms at every level. From gerrymandering, to Congressional obstruction and filibuster, to voter suppression. They have shown they are willing to use any tool, new or old, to subvert former norms to "win".
* the Right has a greater thirst for authoritarian leaders, again as reported by Mr. Edsall in these pages. They want to be told what to do, and social media provides an excellent means.
But iIs that really the question? You argue that political norms are failing, and that populism is on the rise. I agree, and think that the old left/right divisions are being replaced, too. It's not Carter v. Reagan any longer. The populist Right want goverment aid and labor support -- for their kind. Both sides decry crony capitalism and lopsided trade deals.
Is this what it felt like in 1781, in American and Europe -- the World Turned Upside Down?
2
Trump's single biggest donor, extreme right wing hedge fund billionaire was Robert Mercer, who also funded Breitbart's development, among other things. Previously, he had been a brilliant computer scientist who made "revolutionary" breakthroughs in language processing, paving the way for modern Artificial Intelligence. Algorithims were used at the hedge fund.
He is also a co-owner of Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics company which claims to have compiled psychological profiles on 220 million American voters. Among other techniques, Facebook profiles are scoured for personal information to build bio-psycho-social profiles, taking physical, mental and lifestyle attributes and working out how people work, how they react emotionally. Facebook "likes" are very potent. It has been said that with 150 likes, their model could predict someone’s personality better than their spouse, and with 300, it understood you better than yourself.
What does one do with this data? One applies it to highly targeted internet advertising. While it might be bad enough to be targeted for commercial junk, when the product being sold is Trump, or Brexit (yes, they were involved there too.), the digital disruption of democracy lurches into the dystopian.
For one of the most frightening things you will ever read, see
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart...
He is also a co-owner of Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics company which claims to have compiled psychological profiles on 220 million American voters. Among other techniques, Facebook profiles are scoured for personal information to build bio-psycho-social profiles, taking physical, mental and lifestyle attributes and working out how people work, how they react emotionally. Facebook "likes" are very potent. It has been said that with 150 likes, their model could predict someone’s personality better than their spouse, and with 300, it understood you better than yourself.
What does one do with this data? One applies it to highly targeted internet advertising. While it might be bad enough to be targeted for commercial junk, when the product being sold is Trump, or Brexit (yes, they were involved there too.), the digital disruption of democracy lurches into the dystopian.
For one of the most frightening things you will ever read, see
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart...
5
The alleged Russian hack of Clinton's campaign. There is just as much evidence that it was a leak. The real problem for the Democrat establishment is that they had decided who was going to be their presidential candidate for 2016 in 2008. Clinton was a terrible selection. She should have been indicted by the Obama Justice Dept. but they corruptly let her slide through. The over confidence of the Clinton campaign and her fly over campaign set the stage for her amazing electoral college defeat despite the winning the popular vote by a significant margin. The internet and social media gave more punch to the racist bigoted nastiness of heart land white folks. The Bernie Sanders campaign showed the positive uses of the internet to tap into peoples desire to get around the campaign dictums from the party establishment.
4
I disagree that the internet and social media threaten democracy. Such suggestions could lead to actions - such as censorship or control - that would pose a far greater danger to democracy than unfiltered platforms of free speech.
I concede that the internet and social media do give a large platform to many differing voices and opinions. However, it does not give an equal voice to everyone. While anyone has the ability to produce online political content, they do not gain instant mass credibility. Very few people obtain a large enough audience to sway a large percentage of voters. Those who do obtain large audiences do so for good reason.
The “traditional institutions” who have historically controlled the largest platforms still hold a tremendous, albeit shrinking, influence on voters. Their shrinking influence is not solely a result of the expansion of the social internet, rather, the expansion is a result of their failing credibility, biased viewpoints and slow adaptation to changing mediums.
The proliferation of “fake news” and political articles that intentionally mislead is a direct consequence of free speech. You cannot have one without the other. Lies used to advance agendas is nothing new, the only thing that has changed is the speed in which they spread. The only defense - short of censorship - against false information is through education and rebuttal.
I concede that the internet and social media do give a large platform to many differing voices and opinions. However, it does not give an equal voice to everyone. While anyone has the ability to produce online political content, they do not gain instant mass credibility. Very few people obtain a large enough audience to sway a large percentage of voters. Those who do obtain large audiences do so for good reason.
The “traditional institutions” who have historically controlled the largest platforms still hold a tremendous, albeit shrinking, influence on voters. Their shrinking influence is not solely a result of the expansion of the social internet, rather, the expansion is a result of their failing credibility, biased viewpoints and slow adaptation to changing mediums.
The proliferation of “fake news” and political articles that intentionally mislead is a direct consequence of free speech. You cannot have one without the other. Lies used to advance agendas is nothing new, the only thing that has changed is the speed in which they spread. The only defense - short of censorship - against false information is through education and rebuttal.
8
Russia (as the core of the former Soviet Union) attacked the Western democracies from the left thorugh communism and failed. It is now attacking through the far right and appears to have got a firm foothold. It remains to be seen how this attack will end. Using the often used word, it will be a "disaster" if it is allowed to succeed.
Give me a break!
If Obama were using the Internet to implement and propagandize progressive social policies, these professors and the editors of the New York Times would be calling him a visionary genius. But, because the Internet is actually democratic, in the sense that everyone has an equal voice and the freedom to express their ideas, the Left is now crying foul, because the ideas being propagated and finding currency with Internet users are not ones that they agree with.
The hypocrisy of the Left, as usual, is palpable.
Let's remember: The only thing anyone found or leaked in the last election was improper, unethical, and probably illegal behavior perpetrated by Hillary Clinton. If she had nothing to hide, there would have been nothing to find. So, you can blame "the Russians" or other "hackers" all you want -- The fact is, Hillary lost because of her own misdeeds and attempt to cover them up.
"It's not the crime; it's the cover up?" Yeah, that seems about right and it applies to Hillary Clinton more than just about anyone else I can think of right now.
The Left is running around screaming about cover ups, feeding an industry of newly-born Left Wing conspiracy theorists, led by CNN and the NY Times. It's all garbage intended to damage the president before he can actually implement his program, which the Left finds anathema and wants to destroy at any cost before it can begin.
People aren't all stupid. The hysteria of the Left is.
If Obama were using the Internet to implement and propagandize progressive social policies, these professors and the editors of the New York Times would be calling him a visionary genius. But, because the Internet is actually democratic, in the sense that everyone has an equal voice and the freedom to express their ideas, the Left is now crying foul, because the ideas being propagated and finding currency with Internet users are not ones that they agree with.
The hypocrisy of the Left, as usual, is palpable.
Let's remember: The only thing anyone found or leaked in the last election was improper, unethical, and probably illegal behavior perpetrated by Hillary Clinton. If she had nothing to hide, there would have been nothing to find. So, you can blame "the Russians" or other "hackers" all you want -- The fact is, Hillary lost because of her own misdeeds and attempt to cover them up.
"It's not the crime; it's the cover up?" Yeah, that seems about right and it applies to Hillary Clinton more than just about anyone else I can think of right now.
The Left is running around screaming about cover ups, feeding an industry of newly-born Left Wing conspiracy theorists, led by CNN and the NY Times. It's all garbage intended to damage the president before he can actually implement his program, which the Left finds anathema and wants to destroy at any cost before it can begin.
People aren't all stupid. The hysteria of the Left is.
8
Great column....but I think the fundamental issue isn't the internet specifically, but our "mass media age," which really since the inception of radio back in the 1920s has altered our ways of communicating. The ante was upped with broad access to television in the 1950s, broader access to cell phones in the 1990s, and now the internet. As the overall communication network became deeper and more pervasive (and invasive), our systems of education have lagged behind, such that citizens are awash in information, but lack the awareness and skills to assimilate and create order from it. Just as Billy Sunday and Charles Lindbergh became household names and influenced cultural attitudes in the last century, media creatures like Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly have done so in this one--and behind the scenes, the money, the money, the money! We don't need to control the internet, but to control the flood of money that is making a public spectacle of our political landscape.
1
As I read this, I am heartened by all the Progressives who are swarming social media to share information, test ideas, plan and organize. An organized resistance has blossomed virtually over night, and will continue to be used to target political action against Trump and the GOP. If we can get 5 million Americans into the streets in massive protest that efficiently, imagine the impact on the 2018 and 2020 elections.
1
You are assuming that the majority of people agree with your viewpoint. I have watched crowds of violent liberals make lots of mayhem, destruction and noise but I have not seen them make any sense. Most people do think we should control our borders. most people do think we should control our immigration, not just let everyone come here. Most people don't wan to import more welfare cases from a countries prone to violence. So if you get 5 million people out protesting it means nothing.
The Internet does not threaten Democracy so much as it threatens Autocracy which marches under the banner of democracy. The Internet does not suppress truth, nor does it try to decide what is truth - because *everything* is out there. It does reveal lies, to the detriment of those whose control over others depends on lies.
4
Great piece.
I've often been struck by the way we American's tend to describe the greatness of this country in terms of its historical ability to deliver success and wealth to anyone who tries hard enough to earn in, sad as that may be and leaving out so many other measures of success as it does.
With the coming of democracy in America, there seemed to be two ways to "get rich," cronyism/diktat and merit.
DTrump is the ultimate in the former and seems to be promising to remove -- to the benefit of his benefactors -- all impediments, including laws passed by legislatures, to their amassing of wealth.
Never has a political message been better suited to the medium by which it is being delivered nor a body politic more susceptible or ready to receive its message.
The Internet -- and the business models it has spawned -- is all about end-running traditional organization/enterprise, process, and proof of concept (or the financial soundness of an enterprise).
This is precisely what Trump has done...and like all the Internet-driven enterprises that have preceded him, it is likely to go bust...leaving shareholders (voters and citizens) holding the bag while the executives walk off with little if no cost to their pocketbooks or reputations.
I've often been struck by the way we American's tend to describe the greatness of this country in terms of its historical ability to deliver success and wealth to anyone who tries hard enough to earn in, sad as that may be and leaving out so many other measures of success as it does.
With the coming of democracy in America, there seemed to be two ways to "get rich," cronyism/diktat and merit.
DTrump is the ultimate in the former and seems to be promising to remove -- to the benefit of his benefactors -- all impediments, including laws passed by legislatures, to their amassing of wealth.
Never has a political message been better suited to the medium by which it is being delivered nor a body politic more susceptible or ready to receive its message.
The Internet -- and the business models it has spawned -- is all about end-running traditional organization/enterprise, process, and proof of concept (or the financial soundness of an enterprise).
This is precisely what Trump has done...and like all the Internet-driven enterprises that have preceded him, it is likely to go bust...leaving shareholders (voters and citizens) holding the bag while the executives walk off with little if no cost to their pocketbooks or reputations.
3
Both leading political parties in the U.S. as well as the vaunted mainstream press have all been sitting on their hands when it came to keeping the public informed and engaged. There are any number of reasons, chiefly its the no stop fund raising for politicians who are more interested in the next race versus running the country. Allowing gerrymandering. The Press becoming absorbed with celebrity culture. Blaming the Internet is a cop-out, in my opinion. Its only a tool. If people are unable to reason and arrive at the right conclusion we deserve to lose our hard won democracy.
2
If you are looking for the seeds fake news and outrage sites like Breitbart, look back to the "chain" emails" people would get about some outrageous event that took place somewhere. And yes they came from the denial of Obama as president beginning in 2009. Just before social media could play the role incubator and spreader of false information.
I can recall repeatedly receiving these emails from people I knew and having to quickly and easily reply to them with quick google searches showing they were fake stories...which only made them angrier.
Like this story about Starbucks and some marines in Iraq: http://www.inquisitr.com/588802/starbucks-does-not-support-the-troops-fa...
Only in hindsight do I see what they all meant.
I can recall repeatedly receiving these emails from people I knew and having to quickly and easily reply to them with quick google searches showing they were fake stories...which only made them angrier.
Like this story about Starbucks and some marines in Iraq: http://www.inquisitr.com/588802/starbucks-does-not-support-the-troops-fa...
Only in hindsight do I see what they all meant.
1
Perhaps we need to devolve as much power to the states as possible because it is harder to lie and spin to a smaller group of people who feel the direct result of your decisions on their lives. The written or spoken word can be truth or lies or somewhere in between, but the change that happens in someone's life is always truth. And giving one man the power that we give our President doesn't work even if you agree with his overall policies because one size NEVER fits all.
Btw, this is a great column on how Congress has given up a lot of its power to the administrative branch: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/three-branches-government....
Btw, this is a great column on how Congress has given up a lot of its power to the administrative branch: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/three-branches-government....
2
A better title might be: How the internet threatens the ability of the deep state and its CIA controlled organs like the NYT, WaPo, etc., to be able to shape public opinion according to their own nefarious agenda.
8
We have to update our skills to be in the job market--shouldn't we do the same as readers on the internet? It took a bit of time to discredit The Elders of Zion; given the technology, it should be faster to discredit some of the information on the net. Most of us who read the NYT do fact check, etc., I am sure but how do we spread this notion?
1
There is no doubt Donald Trump et al are the current masters of digital media communications. This will change as others play catch-up and develop their own mastery.
They key Trump used to unlock this mastery was what not what he said or broadcast online, but what he heard- he listened (he still does). He had his finger on the pulse where Democrats and the Clinton campaign did not. He correctly assessed the mood of the nation. Take a lesson.
There is no threat to democracy from the internet, only new and evolving technologies that require mastery, else risk being yesterday's news and yesterday's politician. Speak less and listen more might be a good ethos for the younger, more adept and vibrant political aspirant in the coming times.
What is past, is past, what is to come is choice. Change always threatens those unwilling or unable to change. The choice is clear, master the technologies or your irrelevance is guaranteed.
But more... the technology used by Trump in our recent election is already out-of-date, tomorrow's technology will have evolved. To succeed you need to become predictive, and you need to continually ask the question, how can I better listen?
(Pride and prejudice) It's the ability to listen that is problematic to many. Not just in politics, but in business and across the kaleidoscope of our social interactions. The 'internet' (for want of a better word) is just the vehicle. Build your own internet and listen!
So, no threat Mr. Edsall, just opportunity.
They key Trump used to unlock this mastery was what not what he said or broadcast online, but what he heard- he listened (he still does). He had his finger on the pulse where Democrats and the Clinton campaign did not. He correctly assessed the mood of the nation. Take a lesson.
There is no threat to democracy from the internet, only new and evolving technologies that require mastery, else risk being yesterday's news and yesterday's politician. Speak less and listen more might be a good ethos for the younger, more adept and vibrant political aspirant in the coming times.
What is past, is past, what is to come is choice. Change always threatens those unwilling or unable to change. The choice is clear, master the technologies or your irrelevance is guaranteed.
But more... the technology used by Trump in our recent election is already out-of-date, tomorrow's technology will have evolved. To succeed you need to become predictive, and you need to continually ask the question, how can I better listen?
(Pride and prejudice) It's the ability to listen that is problematic to many. Not just in politics, but in business and across the kaleidoscope of our social interactions. The 'internet' (for want of a better word) is just the vehicle. Build your own internet and listen!
So, no threat Mr. Edsall, just opportunity.
3
Does it threaten or enable democracy? The evidence supports the latter, that it enables free-speech democracy, even if the online trolls can be obnoxious and annoying- both being like beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Historically oppressive governments like China appear to think the internet enables free speech and democracy why they want to shut parts of it down, at least the free-speech parts that they don't want their citizens to see.
It has been inferred our government sweeps up all electronic communications including the internet, regardless of constitutional, civil or human rights concerns here and abroad about how the information might possibly be used to violate American and foreign citizens rights. That all this is done in secrecy is questionable and worrying, why whistle blowers have been harassed even at the NYT, or otherwise threatened. The secretive, selective even arbitrary use of electronic data can have serious implications for all American citizens and foreigners rights, with a POTUS that constantly says "Trust Me". Trust me with your wives, your daughters, and all your data? Really?
Russia's government has be accused of using the internet too, to further its self-serving agendas. Electronic data that includes the internet might therefore be used by governments to threaten democracy and peoples rights and freedoms overtly or covertly.
One could ask, what good is the internet when rights violations like Tamir Rice etc. etc. don't result in justice?
Historically oppressive governments like China appear to think the internet enables free speech and democracy why they want to shut parts of it down, at least the free-speech parts that they don't want their citizens to see.
It has been inferred our government sweeps up all electronic communications including the internet, regardless of constitutional, civil or human rights concerns here and abroad about how the information might possibly be used to violate American and foreign citizens rights. That all this is done in secrecy is questionable and worrying, why whistle blowers have been harassed even at the NYT, or otherwise threatened. The secretive, selective even arbitrary use of electronic data can have serious implications for all American citizens and foreigners rights, with a POTUS that constantly says "Trust Me". Trust me with your wives, your daughters, and all your data? Really?
Russia's government has be accused of using the internet too, to further its self-serving agendas. Electronic data that includes the internet might therefore be used by governments to threaten democracy and peoples rights and freedoms overtly or covertly.
One could ask, what good is the internet when rights violations like Tamir Rice etc. etc. don't result in justice?
2
This article is wrong in so many ways that it's hard to know where to start. America has always been governed by the party of property, which comes with a Democratic wing and a Republican wing. The media of property, such as television and newspapers such as this, has always framed the issues in a way that represents the interests of their owners. Noam Chomsky brought this out years ago in Manufacturing Consent.
The Internet changed the balance. Believe me, it's a lot easier to send e-mails than to activate a telephone tree to bring people to a demonstration. Posting pictures of animal abuse in factory farms is a lot more effective than passing out flyers at a supermarket.
But the power of money is enduring. The rich can hire provocateurs and goons of every description, and the rise of "fake news" is simply their adaptation to a new form of media.
I find it ironic that Mr. Edsall turns to lawyers for informed comment on this issue. One could argue that the balance of power in electoral politics is determined by laws: on campaign finance, media fairness, union rights and supervision of voting procedures. These were put in place by a past generation of lawyers, and are being undone by the present generation. What have these law school professors been teaching them?
The internet is not the problem here. The concentration of money is what threatens democracy. That and its too eager servants and apologists.
The Internet changed the balance. Believe me, it's a lot easier to send e-mails than to activate a telephone tree to bring people to a demonstration. Posting pictures of animal abuse in factory farms is a lot more effective than passing out flyers at a supermarket.
But the power of money is enduring. The rich can hire provocateurs and goons of every description, and the rise of "fake news" is simply their adaptation to a new form of media.
I find it ironic that Mr. Edsall turns to lawyers for informed comment on this issue. One could argue that the balance of power in electoral politics is determined by laws: on campaign finance, media fairness, union rights and supervision of voting procedures. These were put in place by a past generation of lawyers, and are being undone by the present generation. What have these law school professors been teaching them?
The internet is not the problem here. The concentration of money is what threatens democracy. That and its too eager servants and apologists.
1
What's missed here -- and is far more nefarious -- is the ability of interested parties to harvest our social media data and then use it to invisibly manipulate our decisions.
FB dark ads, artificially intelligent algorithms, and automated websites and social media profiles by the hundreds of thousands create the illusion of consensus and nudge voters/consumers toward decisions.
Weaponized data is subverting our freedom of choice right under our noses.
FB dark ads, artificially intelligent algorithms, and automated websites and social media profiles by the hundreds of thousands create the illusion of consensus and nudge voters/consumers toward decisions.
Weaponized data is subverting our freedom of choice right under our noses.
4
No, the anonymity of the Internet is what threatens democracy.
3
Agreed. Soros slinking around in the background of almost every anti-American organization is a threat to democracy and must be extinguished.
1
Studies have consistently shown that when persons holding various positions, right or left, consider their position either in a group or as individuals, that the positions of the people acting in groups are invariably more extreme then the positions these same persons would formulate as individuals. Add to this the anonymous nature of the internet. The effect is that the internet inherently is more like a mob then an individual. And it is well known that people will do things as anonymous members of a mob that they would never do as an individual. In this environment, facts and rational decision making have little chance against the "I just know or feel it is true" appeal of the mob. In the same way that bad or counterfeit money drives out good money, social media and false news drive out facts and rational decision making. Thus the internet revolution presents a challenge to western democracy that has yet to be fully understood. This poses a clear threat to our existing classic liberal world order currently under attack by demigods like Trump who are false prophets promising easy answers to complex problems. What happens when the internet mob discovers that it is always easier to attack the "establishment" then to built, create or maintain a society? Unfortunately, history shows that the next step is often totalitarianism once this reality is realized.
2
So much of the gullibility of people, particularly in the working class is anchored in the continuing dismantling of our education system. Critical thinking not only is discouraged but some have even tried to legislate the elimination of critical thinking by name. Children really listen to parents and when those parents are making crap up as they go along because they themselves were subjected to an academically substandard curriculum, you have the makings of an idiocracy. Which is where we are now.
Making the populace able to engage with skepticism is really crucial to democracy in the 21st century. In the US, that's going to mean enforcing the division of church and state and going after churches that engage in politics (many minorities voted Trump because they were told to by ministers). The Internet is like a copy of the Weekly World News with New York Times articles on every few pages. If people can't tell the difference between "Batboy" and a Thomas Kaplan article using their own resources, then they are going to forward things based on how they feel. This is dangerous and is what makes the Internet the new battlefield.
Making the populace able to engage with skepticism is really crucial to democracy in the 21st century. In the US, that's going to mean enforcing the division of church and state and going after churches that engage in politics (many minorities voted Trump because they were told to by ministers). The Internet is like a copy of the Weekly World News with New York Times articles on every few pages. If people can't tell the difference between "Batboy" and a Thomas Kaplan article using their own resources, then they are going to forward things based on how they feel. This is dangerous and is what makes the Internet the new battlefield.
2
Democracy is built on trust in institutions to play their assigned roles. Trust in government to represent the common good. Enter the internet.
Parents commonly warn their children, Who is the person posting, really? Is the supposed child actually a predatory adult? Then they fall for faux news themselves.
Why does the internet come to children with this warning label? Because it gives people the freedom to act out their fantasies without fear of reprisal. And our fantasies are often abhorrent. On the internet, hate speech goes unpunished and, in some quarters, is encouraged and rewarded, in ways it never was before. Anyone can pretend to be an expert about anything without having any actual knowledge. Lying on the internet is rampant. Lying to someone's face is hard to do - doing so by hitting the send button is not.
Truth in the age of the internet has become a glimmering mirage. Distrust and lying break apart social bonds. Institutions aren't able to perform their assigned roles in a vacuum of truth. Climate change exists - or in some quarters it doesn't - so how can policy be established, let alone actions in support of the policy be taken?
Enter borderline anarchists like Bannon, who prey upon the unsuspecting - or, perhaps more accurately, the most suspecting - among us. Propagate more lies. Erode trust further. And then scream for destruction of democratic institutions that "don't work anymore."
Parents commonly warn their children, Who is the person posting, really? Is the supposed child actually a predatory adult? Then they fall for faux news themselves.
Why does the internet come to children with this warning label? Because it gives people the freedom to act out their fantasies without fear of reprisal. And our fantasies are often abhorrent. On the internet, hate speech goes unpunished and, in some quarters, is encouraged and rewarded, in ways it never was before. Anyone can pretend to be an expert about anything without having any actual knowledge. Lying on the internet is rampant. Lying to someone's face is hard to do - doing so by hitting the send button is not.
Truth in the age of the internet has become a glimmering mirage. Distrust and lying break apart social bonds. Institutions aren't able to perform their assigned roles in a vacuum of truth. Climate change exists - or in some quarters it doesn't - so how can policy be established, let alone actions in support of the policy be taken?
Enter borderline anarchists like Bannon, who prey upon the unsuspecting - or, perhaps more accurately, the most suspecting - among us. Propagate more lies. Erode trust further. And then scream for destruction of democratic institutions that "don't work anymore."
4
Why the rise of alternative media? The New York Times after the lies it promoted about Iraq, after the lies it promoyed about Libya, after the lies it promoted about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. After the lies it has promoted to help get wars started in dozens of instances just since WW2 Should be lecturing Americans on truth in news? Chutzpah at best.
Then the election. There were about three negative stories about Hillary Clinton during the entire election vrs. hundreds of Clinton promoting stories. But Trump? Litterally hundrds of negative stories about him. Some true and some not. What seems to be the knot in the New York Times shorts is that All of the propaganda they put out against Trump and for Clinton did not decide the issue. For once the people decided to look for themselves beyond the story line of the New York Times and really take a peek behind the curtain.
There is zero proof that Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. Lots of "we think they did it." Lots of " all the indicators are that they did". But not one shred of concrete proof has been produced that they did. Given the track record of the mainstream media in the US fabricating villians to sic the US Military on why is there any wonder at all that the gig is up? That the people no longer believe anything that the MSM have to say. That every single news story is taken with a grain of salt? To me it is no mystery. If some guy lies to me a couple of times I just stop listening to him.
Then the election. There were about three negative stories about Hillary Clinton during the entire election vrs. hundreds of Clinton promoting stories. But Trump? Litterally hundrds of negative stories about him. Some true and some not. What seems to be the knot in the New York Times shorts is that All of the propaganda they put out against Trump and for Clinton did not decide the issue. For once the people decided to look for themselves beyond the story line of the New York Times and really take a peek behind the curtain.
There is zero proof that Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. Lots of "we think they did it." Lots of " all the indicators are that they did". But not one shred of concrete proof has been produced that they did. Given the track record of the mainstream media in the US fabricating villians to sic the US Military on why is there any wonder at all that the gig is up? That the people no longer believe anything that the MSM have to say. That every single news story is taken with a grain of salt? To me it is no mystery. If some guy lies to me a couple of times I just stop listening to him.
6
You think this is new for the 2016 election? Where have you been? Digital political trolls have been active for a very long time. One of the things the left liked about President Obama was that he was tech savvy. So, only now that we have Donald J. Trump is it a democracy destroyer? No. It has proven that our democracy is as strong as ever... the oligarchs lost... and they're pissed. They'll just have to accept that the public finally started to see them for what they are.
2
Shorter Edsall: "It's not democracy if my side doesn't win."
7
This topic goes beyond politics to every social construct we know. Digital communications is a revolution beyond creation of the wheel, so radically important to understanding our times and the future that it is amazing how infrequently its impacts are analyzed and discussed. Digital communications have done some good. However, it's also drawn out some of the worst in human nature.....short attention span, ADHD thinking, lack of reflection, emotional outbursts, fake news, erosion of social cohesion, tribalism, etc. And that includes, but is not limited to politics.
There's a theory that the reason we've never heard from extraterrestrials despite so many planets that appear capable of supporting life is because any species technologically developed enough to leave its home planet will use its technology to destroy itself first. This may be the most unforgettably fascinating article you've ever read:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
There's a theory that the reason we've never heard from extraterrestrials despite so many planets that appear capable of supporting life is because any species technologically developed enough to leave its home planet will use its technology to destroy itself first. This may be the most unforgettably fascinating article you've ever read:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
2
This op-ed--which somehow muddles political campaigns and parties whose popularity has come from the clarity of their vision for a more democratic society grounded in social, environmental, and economic justice (Sanders, Podemos) with the anti-democratic ascendency of rightwing authoritarianism (Trump, Brexit)--is exactly what needs to be loudly and determinatively demolished by the left. The internet doesn't create the weakness of our institutions; it exposes it. It's up to journalists, activists, organizations, and citizens to make sure that those very neoliberal institutions--which are themselves anti-democratic and have long been servants of global capital at the expense of a large swathe of the world's population--aren't simply defended but are rather transformed into institutions which will be bulwarks of universal solidarity and justice. After all, it is the failure of these institutions--not the existence of the internet--which has brought rise to authoritarian nationalism.
2
Lol. Daily we see leftists silencing speech they don't like, criminalizing thought and violently attacking people simply for disagreeing with them, and it's "rightwing authoritarianism"???????LOLOLOLOLOL. So sorry, Americans are seeing for themselves how the Soros run Alt-Left is what needs to be cut out like the cancer it is.
1
I'm part of a leftist organization that is very active in the community and wholly resistant to both political parties. I also work full-time for a living, and far from having a multi-billionaire like Soros funding us, we have a $0 operating budget right now and are run solely on our passion for building a more just world that isn't run by large donors. If only we had a multi-billionaire like Charles Koch funding us!
Also, I'm not sure what "violence" you're talking about. Every protest I've been at has been incredibly peaceful. The only violence I've seen at a protest since the election was a Trump supporter who had to be restrained by police.
Also, I'm not sure what "violence" you're talking about. Every protest I've been at has been incredibly peaceful. The only violence I've seen at a protest since the election was a Trump supporter who had to be restrained by police.
The internet-induced weakening of our democratic mechanisms and institutions has provided the opportunity for Bannon and his alt-right elite to invent nationalism as the pure path to an America that overturns everything we are or have learned to become an autocracy of alt-right ideology.
The big thinking that is needed is to reinvent our democracy to use the power and capability internet to realize the promise of democracy while guarding against the very real threats from the alt-right. Ubiquitous collaboration should enable us to create a "virtual"Athens. If we do think about it, we might find that what we really need is a British-like parliament which could institutionalizes effective political parties. Using the Internet to revive democracy is the smart and right thing to do.
Either way,
The big thinking that is needed is to reinvent our democracy to use the power and capability internet to realize the promise of democracy while guarding against the very real threats from the alt-right. Ubiquitous collaboration should enable us to create a "virtual"Athens. If we do think about it, we might find that what we really need is a British-like parliament which could institutionalizes effective political parties. Using the Internet to revive democracy is the smart and right thing to do.
Either way,
2
Lol. I guess the internet was A-OK when overrun with alt left propaganda, and even though it still is, a few alternatives is all it takes for Americans to realize how the soros run leftist agenda is the true destructive force to our Representative Republic.
1
I think it's wrong-headed to slag the Internet as a threat to democracy. If democracy is one person, one vote, then the bigger threat is the colossal shadow of campaign contributions on our political process. That shadow delivers the promise of one dollar, one vote. And that is the biggest threat to democracy, and has been for decades. It's just accelerating in the past decade with SCOTUS decisions that have made campaign cash even more dominant in politics.
One person, one vote = democratic. One dollar, one vote = undemocratic. Until that gets addressed meaningfully, none of the rest is going to matter.
One person, one vote = democratic. One dollar, one vote = undemocratic. Until that gets addressed meaningfully, none of the rest is going to matter.
1
As a therapist, I also witness toxic internet/socialmedia effects at the intimate communication level (on romances, friendships, parenting, etc.) on a regular basis. Thus far, those toxicities seem to get addressed independently of these alarms for democracy, creating micro-level and macro-level outcries in separate wildernesses.
But the effects of the internet on democracy (and inter-party politics) and those on interpersonal relationships share a common threat - to civility, to critical thinking, to active listening - that has infiltrated our societal fabric when we weren't attentive, were even heralding, cavalierly, all that technological 'progress' (as highly overrated as the atomic bomb, for being championed myopically) without forethought to ultimate ramifications and reverberations.
Two responses seem vital now:
First, we need public education more than ever to keep cross-communication alive and specifically we need new courses that prepare new generations (and hopefully reverberate at home to their parents) for internet processing: Call it "Internet Intelligence," or "Critical Thinking and the Internet" - in, say, 8th grade and 12th grade, immersing kids in teaching them new intelligences as well as the old tried-and-true civilities that are otherwise suffocated in the headlong rushes to judgment and fear that the internet seduces.
Second, for democracy, we the people MUST demand the end of money in politics. Oligarchic power only further perverts internet abuse.
But the effects of the internet on democracy (and inter-party politics) and those on interpersonal relationships share a common threat - to civility, to critical thinking, to active listening - that has infiltrated our societal fabric when we weren't attentive, were even heralding, cavalierly, all that technological 'progress' (as highly overrated as the atomic bomb, for being championed myopically) without forethought to ultimate ramifications and reverberations.
Two responses seem vital now:
First, we need public education more than ever to keep cross-communication alive and specifically we need new courses that prepare new generations (and hopefully reverberate at home to their parents) for internet processing: Call it "Internet Intelligence," or "Critical Thinking and the Internet" - in, say, 8th grade and 12th grade, immersing kids in teaching them new intelligences as well as the old tried-and-true civilities that are otherwise suffocated in the headlong rushes to judgment and fear that the internet seduces.
Second, for democracy, we the people MUST demand the end of money in politics. Oligarchic power only further perverts internet abuse.
3
I disagree with only one point. 'Critical thinking and the internet' must be taught way before the 8th grade, if you can hold the kids' attention long enough.
The writer basically summed it up, the traditional methods of communication aren't working any longer. The mainstream media that is typically leg slanted is being circumvented for other means of communication. No longer can he main stream media edit and omit facts that it doesn't like. Yay.. A better democracy. Get used to it libs.. You're time has passed...
2
This whole discussion about the internet is boring. I am waiting for Trump's next addictive hit on twitter. Truly it is my only source for news. Quick, punchy, and provocative. I don't have to think. He sets my agenda. As the picture shows, he is portable and immediately accessible.
1
So... why are we not spending a whole lot more in public education and civics? Don't kids deserve to know the challenges of living in the 21st Century?
1
First one needs educators who can think beyond the 21st century, before one blinks and it's gone.
The legacy hand-wringing continues.
I'm old enough to remember when Rush Limbaugh and AM radio were The Enemy. Then it was Faux News. Now, according to Edsall, it is the very venue from which I read his views. Media come and go as in any industry. Schumpeter notwithstanding, gray ladies will fight tooth and nail to maintain their reputations; disdain for upstarts and alternatives is par for the course.
President Trump is neither a singularity nor a vanguard nor a verdict on a fragmented media. Enough Americans thought him less intolerable than his opponent -- the one the NYT fully supported.
I humbly suggest that the next meeting of your editorial board take up the idea of installing mirrors in your offices.
I'm old enough to remember when Rush Limbaugh and AM radio were The Enemy. Then it was Faux News. Now, according to Edsall, it is the very venue from which I read his views. Media come and go as in any industry. Schumpeter notwithstanding, gray ladies will fight tooth and nail to maintain their reputations; disdain for upstarts and alternatives is par for the course.
President Trump is neither a singularity nor a vanguard nor a verdict on a fragmented media. Enough Americans thought him less intolerable than his opponent -- the one the NYT fully supported.
I humbly suggest that the next meeting of your editorial board take up the idea of installing mirrors in your offices.
4
What a crock. Tell the truth for just one time, NYT. The only "threat to democracy" is FAKE NEWS like this rag.
3
The weaknesses of US democracy predate the internet by 200 years. Voting eligibility for women, ex-slaves, etc. is a late addition to the Republic. The Senate and Electoral Colleges are both horrid examples of Gerrymandering. Citizens in Wyoming have a far greater voice than those in New York or California. That might suit the current political leanings of some, but it does not make for a good democracy.
1
We should not be worried that the internet will threaten Democracy. Sure, we have never had a platform through which so many can be reached so quickly. Certainly, much of what is being communicated on the internet is so much nonsense, but fear not, because as has been demonstrated time and time again, we will adjust. In this case, people will become more and more suspicious of internet material, and rather than being to move to act, people will instead move to reject.
For the first time on CNN, a correspondent Don Lemon, asked an illegal immigrant what made him think it was alright to come into the country illegally and steal a social security number to get work permits. One would think such a basic question would be asked all the time but political correctness and the mules that carried it (mainstream media) would not dare. Internet chatter had knocked the wall down.
For years programs like the Maury Povich and Jerry Springer shows have carried live interviews with people who carry on the most base, street gutter level of activity and yet it is all passed along as normal. While simultaneously, someone in the public eye would be crucified for anything like that conduct, witness the Clinton affair and how it spiraled to an impeachment. The internet and Trump finally let reality catch up to sanctimony.
When all voices are heard the truth is what eventually wins out. Both the left and the right are frustrated when their groomed PC ideology runs smack into a thousand voices screaming to have their reality heard.
Things are still sorting themselves out. Trump is the first but he will not be the last, who channel the ability of people to trust in their eyes rather than just the anointed ones ideology. Thank you internet.
For years programs like the Maury Povich and Jerry Springer shows have carried live interviews with people who carry on the most base, street gutter level of activity and yet it is all passed along as normal. While simultaneously, someone in the public eye would be crucified for anything like that conduct, witness the Clinton affair and how it spiraled to an impeachment. The internet and Trump finally let reality catch up to sanctimony.
When all voices are heard the truth is what eventually wins out. Both the left and the right are frustrated when their groomed PC ideology runs smack into a thousand voices screaming to have their reality heard.
Things are still sorting themselves out. Trump is the first but he will not be the last, who channel the ability of people to trust in their eyes rather than just the anointed ones ideology. Thank you internet.
4
A few things to keep in mind...First and foremost, our nation is a republic not a democracy. It is not, and never has been about popular vote. It is about balance of power, and mitigation of the power of government over a free person's life. Like it or not.."hate speech" is free speech. Either free speech is allowed or it does not exist at all. More speech is better than less.
The digital age allows for removal of many filters that has been placed on information and it's dissemination in the past. That makes many that adjust that filter, or benefit from it, very concerned.
Who is to say that the weakening of the institutions spoken of is a bad thing? IF you believe in being a free person in a free society, the weakening of government institutions (and others) that would intrude on your life is nothing but a good thing.
Frankly, and respectfully, I believe the pundits in this article have it exactly backwards...
The digital age allows for removal of many filters that has been placed on information and it's dissemination in the past. That makes many that adjust that filter, or benefit from it, very concerned.
Who is to say that the weakening of the institutions spoken of is a bad thing? IF you believe in being a free person in a free society, the weakening of government institutions (and others) that would intrude on your life is nothing but a good thing.
Frankly, and respectfully, I believe the pundits in this article have it exactly backwards...
1
Without the internet, I doubt you could have organized the enormously successful Women's March on Washington and the nationwide, even worldwide marches that accompanied it reaching to even the smallest towns. Now those same women are organizing with the aid of the internet and effectively resisting this new administration with grabyourwallet and town hall meetings and letters to congress.And even all the nasty trolling has had the advantage of showing those of us who were complacent that the racism and ignorance we thought had died out is alive and kicking and still needs to be addressed
2
The best thing about the internet is...it gives a voice to everyone. The worst thing about the internet is...it gives a voice to everyone.
1
The Internet and Social Media were not created in 2016. They have been around for some time now. Barack Obama skillfully used both in 2008 and 2012. So to suggest that the Internet and Social Media are to blame for Trump is wrong. What happened was that the people in charge of both political parties stopped listening to people and their concerns. So they were shocked when the people who they ignored for years turned on them. Political parties have been weakening for years now. They will have to adjust or they will go out of business.
It is not the internet that threatens democracy, anymore than the mail, the telegraph, or the telephone.
What threatens democracy is when people do not value it.
President Trump does not value it, as evidenced by his praise for the Russian dictator, Putin.
President Twitler should be impeached and convicted.
What threatens democracy is when people do not value it.
President Trump does not value it, as evidenced by his praise for the Russian dictator, Putin.
President Twitler should be impeached and convicted.
1
Lol. What crime? It's exactly the grubers like yourself this article is talking about without even realizing it. You believe the flailing alt left media when it shrieks and whines and makes up fake news and the dwindling members of the alt left get violent because they see how increasingly irrelevant they are becoming.
1
Valuing democracy that has deeply entrenched and corrupt representatives is what gave us Trump. Media outlets that carry those corrupt voices, spread ideas devoid of critical thought, amplify the voices of the functionally illiterate, give credence to those socially isolated from reality and evangelize politics are what has given us Trump. We have become more and more a nation of the 'haves and the have nots' and somehow some of the most talented (and wealthy) con-men and grifters have been able to defraud millions of people out of millions, if not billions of dollars, just by putting on a good show. I blame our education system and possibly contaminated drinking water.
The internet and social media "...succeeded in doing what many feared and some hoped they would" as a result of erosion of credibility of our main media outlets. I'm looking at you NYTimes. I still remember the whole Bernie fiasco.
You're one of the main reasons (as a standard for high quality journlism), that opened the window to this mess. Your shortsightedness for near term profits have, and political motives are coming home to roost. Every time you publish an article without acknowledging your coverage of Bernie, you continue to lose credibility.
You're one of the main reasons (as a standard for high quality journlism), that opened the window to this mess. Your shortsightedness for near term profits have, and political motives are coming home to roost. Every time you publish an article without acknowledging your coverage of Bernie, you continue to lose credibility.
1
The internet lacks some things that are essential to human understanding. It lacks touch, and taste, and smell, and yes, even sight as images fly around helter-skelter with nothing tangible behind them but '1's & 0's'. It, by nature, presents the disembodied, which is hardly a successful platform for truth. Handle it with kid gloves or your deeper thoughts will turn to the childish. Just consider the man-child in the White House.
1
This piece can be broken down into two major points. First, crazy people both produce and consume craziness. Second, the Internet offers equal standing to what is crazy, and what is not crazy - it is basically unfiltered. Even for a rational person, the only logical conclusion is that you can't trust what you read on the Internet. So what do you trust? Of course, it's your "feelings" about what you read. Politicians manipulating feelings is as old as politics. But they never had the ability to do it on such a massive scale, with the added benefit of doing it through an almost infinite number of surrogates. As Pogo remarked, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."
1
The article might more appropriately be titled "How Citizens Threaten Democracy".
The internet is a tool. As such, it can used to view pornography, to commit fraud, or to check one's money market account. The heart of darkness is not in this brave new tool, but where it always is found: in the human soul.
The power of the internet has already been used as a force for good in exposing things like police brutality, government sanctioned torture, and things politicians and candidates say that they would prefer not see the light of day.
The shock of the Trump phenomena is that despite an Internet Age vetting, Trump still got elected, admittedly through our very flawed electoral system. But the culprit is not the tool, it is the flawed humans using it, and an electoral system that suppresses voters, discounts votes through the Electoral College, gerrymanders districts, and allows unlimited, unreported money to corrupt.
It is possible that the Trump presidency is the best result our system and our citizens could produce. The inputs produced the output. To change things in the future, we will need to either educate the populace or make the electoral system more democratic. Even then, a despot could get elected.
Despite the very low level of critical thinking skills in this country, I am still hopeful that the disinfectant of disclosure offered by the internet will in the end trump its more base potential.
The internet is a tool. As such, it can used to view pornography, to commit fraud, or to check one's money market account. The heart of darkness is not in this brave new tool, but where it always is found: in the human soul.
The power of the internet has already been used as a force for good in exposing things like police brutality, government sanctioned torture, and things politicians and candidates say that they would prefer not see the light of day.
The shock of the Trump phenomena is that despite an Internet Age vetting, Trump still got elected, admittedly through our very flawed electoral system. But the culprit is not the tool, it is the flawed humans using it, and an electoral system that suppresses voters, discounts votes through the Electoral College, gerrymanders districts, and allows unlimited, unreported money to corrupt.
It is possible that the Trump presidency is the best result our system and our citizens could produce. The inputs produced the output. To change things in the future, we will need to either educate the populace or make the electoral system more democratic. Even then, a despot could get elected.
Despite the very low level of critical thinking skills in this country, I am still hopeful that the disinfectant of disclosure offered by the internet will in the end trump its more base potential.
2
The internet is disruptive, as were the printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio and TV. As were the steamship, the railroad and the automobile.
But "fake news". creating false rumors or relying on gossip have been part of democractic decision making for a very long time. So has external meddling by foreign governments looking to use the process to their advantage.
This is just more of the current mainstream media's hysteria at its loss of perceived influence. It has appointed itself to the central role in our political drama and it is quickly becoming a bit character. That is not the danger to democracy. The danger to democracy is from the increasing concentration of control over capital and technology. This is why we have a retirement system designed to empower and enrich the finance industry. This is why we have proposals for "health savings accounts" that will do the same for health insurance.
To be useful, the media needs to stop its narcissistic navel gazing and start covering real issues. If it had done that we wouldn't be talking about Donald Trump, or now Oprah, as presidents.
But "fake news". creating false rumors or relying on gossip have been part of democractic decision making for a very long time. So has external meddling by foreign governments looking to use the process to their advantage.
This is just more of the current mainstream media's hysteria at its loss of perceived influence. It has appointed itself to the central role in our political drama and it is quickly becoming a bit character. That is not the danger to democracy. The danger to democracy is from the increasing concentration of control over capital and technology. This is why we have a retirement system designed to empower and enrich the finance industry. This is why we have proposals for "health savings accounts" that will do the same for health insurance.
To be useful, the media needs to stop its narcissistic navel gazing and start covering real issues. If it had done that we wouldn't be talking about Donald Trump, or now Oprah, as presidents.
10
No, the biggest threat to Democracy is political parties. First, In stead of thinking about issues, how do we solve this problem, why will it work, what are the disadvantages; people who belong to a political party substitute party dogma for thinking which greatly reduces discussions, persuasion and compromise. Second political driven primaries tend to select fringe candidates diminishing the influence of centrist candidates who would be more likely to compromise. In addition, It is far easier for unsavory special interest forces to influence primary elections, than general elections, and independents are often exclude from primary elections. Further, the negative influence of political primary elections is magnified by gerrymandering. And then we have the nefarious attempts of trying to enhance political power by denying opposition groups the right to vote. We would all be better off if we regarded being a member of a political party as being anti American.
6
Anonymity can allow for whistle blowers who fear retribution, or teenagers in foreign countries to create fake news. Mostly it allows and encourages trolls. Trolls can overwhelm any media channel. They quash civil discussion. They block inquiry that requires careful, considered information.
Worst case: You don't know if they're human! Computer generated text already surrounds us in the form of news, weather, sports broadcasting. Flooding the internet with anonymous computer generated fake news is the problem.
Worst case: You don't know if they're human! Computer generated text already surrounds us in the form of news, weather, sports broadcasting. Flooding the internet with anonymous computer generated fake news is the problem.
1
An ironic headline. As the quote from Goodstein illustrates, the "threat" is not to democracy, but to the ability of the political parties and the traditional, educated elites to control the process and what is "allowed" to be said. Enabling a million people to speak and 300 million people to hear them speak IS democracy.
A more accurate headline would be "How the Internet Highlighted an Intrinsic Weakness of Democracy: Many Voters Can Be Swayed By Nonsense." If you check the history books for political campaigns and popular cartoons from 1796 through 1928, you will see that this issue has been with us from the beginning. The Internet simply amplified it.
What is ironic and disturbing is that the author, like much of the anxious left, seems to believe that the cure for this issue is more control over speech. "If only we could go back to the time when people could only read or hear what good people like me [and my friends] had to say, this threat could be overcome," seems to be the subtle message here. And yet it is the guy in Washington who won't shut up that they call a tyrant. I'm afraid that there is more than one form of tyranny under the stars, and they all lead to the same dark place.
A more accurate headline would be "How the Internet Highlighted an Intrinsic Weakness of Democracy: Many Voters Can Be Swayed By Nonsense." If you check the history books for political campaigns and popular cartoons from 1796 through 1928, you will see that this issue has been with us from the beginning. The Internet simply amplified it.
What is ironic and disturbing is that the author, like much of the anxious left, seems to believe that the cure for this issue is more control over speech. "If only we could go back to the time when people could only read or hear what good people like me [and my friends] had to say, this threat could be overcome," seems to be the subtle message here. And yet it is the guy in Washington who won't shut up that they call a tyrant. I'm afraid that there is more than one form of tyranny under the stars, and they all lead to the same dark place.
8
No, not control over speech. Control over good quality schooling. Just like *45 is attempting to quash. If everyone received a good quality public schooling, leaving out the religious mythology. By the way I am a Spiritual Christian. But, I don't believe the world was created 6000 years ago, & that science is all wrong, etc. I believe God set the world up, with all systems working to HIS specifications long ago. Came back after setting things up differently elsewhere. Designed our souls to look like him (not our bodies, too many different types to all be HIS), offers each one of us a brain, many think His helpers say train, so say "no thank you". We each also receive free will. Problem with that is too many use the second without the first, then hand over their free will to others & turn into fools. Then vote.
So everyone should get good schooling. Parents should be left totally out of the loop. Including sex ed. One or two generations things will be better.
So everyone should get good schooling. Parents should be left totally out of the loop. Including sex ed. One or two generations things will be better.
At 50, seems like I'm a generation stuck between the old media and the new. There was a certainty when Cronkite spoke to a nation, yet those days are gone. News has morphed into a world of niches and that isn't going away anytime soon. As a social studies teacher, we are all of a sudden concerned about fake news and reliability of sources. As a communications undergraduate, I see a lack of media literacy skills. In a common core world, we spend time talking to the text and closed reading. These are tedious and time consuming tasks that most kids find as engaging as watching paint dry. Media literacy should be an explicit part of our curriculum. I would hope this would motivate kids to see a variety of sources and be able to identify solid journalism from agenda driven news. Liberals and conservatives need to be aware of the echo chamber effect and confirmation bias.
2
Most Americans are too stupid to figure out what to do in a Democracy. They are now all experts due to their access to the Internet. They have no life experiences, just second or third-hand knowledge about a myriad of subjects and in their basements in their underpants they scarf up these rumors and innuendos in droves, not being able to ascertain Reality from the Surreal. A country full of gullible goobers cannot govern a nation that requires the grasp of the complex. We as a nation of poorly educated are our own worse enemies. Yes Pogo, it is US.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
2
The internet threatens democracy? No, actually it doesn't. The internet allows anyone to speak their political views, which is a fundamental element of democracy. What this article actually says is that liberals want to limit free speech by taking their standard ad hominem attacks against conservatives to the extreme and censoring the internet to their benefit. If Democrats had their way, simply supporting the 2nd amendment or flying the American flag would be a hate crime.
5
And hence comes a chilling thought of regulating free speech. Most likely under the guise of eliminating hate speech. The censor in chief will be a new government official?
2
Is the Internet really allowing something new and fearsome to emerge?
Or is it simply exposing a truth that has always been there, but out of sight.
While most people may temporarily act differently when they can act anonymously, or while condoned by a mob, most people do not fundamentally change, or at least not quickly.
I suggest that perhaps all the Internet has done is to draw back the curtain on who we really are, and long have been. It might turn out that, faced with the truth, the reality, we can reconstruct our institutions to deal with that reality, and channel our real behavior. Recall that indeed social institutions only arose to deal with the true nature of people in the first place.
Perhaps this is the silver lining of the Internet: We can see more clearly.
Or is it simply exposing a truth that has always been there, but out of sight.
While most people may temporarily act differently when they can act anonymously, or while condoned by a mob, most people do not fundamentally change, or at least not quickly.
I suggest that perhaps all the Internet has done is to draw back the curtain on who we really are, and long have been. It might turn out that, faced with the truth, the reality, we can reconstruct our institutions to deal with that reality, and channel our real behavior. Recall that indeed social institutions only arose to deal with the true nature of people in the first place.
Perhaps this is the silver lining of the Internet: We can see more clearly.
1
Unfortunately, the article under-emphasizes the importance of big money in swaying the direction of politics. If there is a trend away from the smoke filled rooms of party bosses it is to the smoke filled rooms of corporate financial interest and the deep pockets of celebrities. Look at the Republican primaries. There were 17 candidates to begin with. All of them owed their existence to big money and deep pockets. Choices among them was probably affected by information from the internet, but during the primaries I didn't particularly notice much in the way of fake news. There was available, in-depth information, some misleading, on both sides of any position. Contrast that with the very on-sided position of party bosses, and I fail to see deterioration of the democratic process. There was an outpouring of rude, corrosive comments from one candidate that was amplified by the internet, but not external fake news.
Communication has indeed changed; all participants are going to have to learn how to exploit its strengths and not complain about its weaknesses.
Communication has indeed changed; all participants are going to have to learn how to exploit its strengths and not complain about its weaknesses.
1
Oh please, the only thing being threatened is the information hegemony you've enjoyed since local news was destroyed by the corporate mega media.
5
The problem with your article, Mr. Edsall, is that you have seized on the growth and spread of a new technology to explain the rise of populist movements and governments in the United States and Western Europe. As Sherlock Holmes said, it is a capital error to hypothesize in advance of the facts. By doing that you ignore other possible causes in your quest to back up your hypothesis.
Here is another hypothesis:Political parties have been hollowing out for years, long before the rise of the internet. One of the reasons was the McGovern commission of 1968--1972 that reformed the nomination process in the Democratic party. The reforms weakened the power of party bosses in favor of primary elections, which increased transparency and democracy. But now, however, we have an excess of democracy, in which the shrewd judgment of a Richard J. Daley or Jesse Unruh is replaced by ordinary voters, whose knowledge and experience of politics and what it takes to govern effectively is much less. There is a good reason why Democratic presidents of the early and mid-twentieth century were more skillful and successful than those who succeeded Lyndon Johnson. They were chosen by the party bosses.
There are probably other and better hypotheses to explain a complex change in politics, which involve institutions and ideas as well as technology.
Here is another hypothesis:Political parties have been hollowing out for years, long before the rise of the internet. One of the reasons was the McGovern commission of 1968--1972 that reformed the nomination process in the Democratic party. The reforms weakened the power of party bosses in favor of primary elections, which increased transparency and democracy. But now, however, we have an excess of democracy, in which the shrewd judgment of a Richard J. Daley or Jesse Unruh is replaced by ordinary voters, whose knowledge and experience of politics and what it takes to govern effectively is much less. There is a good reason why Democratic presidents of the early and mid-twentieth century were more skillful and successful than those who succeeded Lyndon Johnson. They were chosen by the party bosses.
There are probably other and better hypotheses to explain a complex change in politics, which involve institutions and ideas as well as technology.
2
Don't worry. Americans stopped worrying about Democracy a long time ago.
You will never stem the tide until you stem STEM. Science without Humanities has led to our present oligarchy.
Is the Republican Party as an institution committed to a democracy and free elections? It doesn't seem so. Take these things:
1) The extreme rigging of districts to advantage one party
2) The pursuit of policies to restrict voting by legitimate citizen voters.
3) McConnell's refusal to process a Supreme Court nominee by the "other" party--which could tilt things further into Republican hands (ie--Bush v Gore in extreme)
4) McConnell's refusal to reveal to the public in a bipartisan fashion the Russian interference IN OUR ELECTION before Trump was inaugurated
5) The near 100% support for confirmation of incompetents with no experience to ensure party unity and power to the President.
6) the abandonment of American and even Republican principles to support an inexperienced and President who employs intimidation tactics designed by a fascist political advisor (more powerful than previous political advisors)--to ensure party unity and more power to one party.
7) the relentless and damaging investigations of democrats (Clintons) with incessant public browbeating (by the President) vs the dismissal of millions of dollars in Presidential emoluments and conflicts of interest that have earned not even a "look-see" from any Republican, despite the threat of those conflicts, and despite the breach in the contract with the "Post Office?
Do Republicans have integrity with regard to American democracy? Will Steve Bannon be allowed to lead us into fascist alliances that dismantle it?
1) The extreme rigging of districts to advantage one party
2) The pursuit of policies to restrict voting by legitimate citizen voters.
3) McConnell's refusal to process a Supreme Court nominee by the "other" party--which could tilt things further into Republican hands (ie--Bush v Gore in extreme)
4) McConnell's refusal to reveal to the public in a bipartisan fashion the Russian interference IN OUR ELECTION before Trump was inaugurated
5) The near 100% support for confirmation of incompetents with no experience to ensure party unity and power to the President.
6) the abandonment of American and even Republican principles to support an inexperienced and President who employs intimidation tactics designed by a fascist political advisor (more powerful than previous political advisors)--to ensure party unity and more power to one party.
7) the relentless and damaging investigations of democrats (Clintons) with incessant public browbeating (by the President) vs the dismissal of millions of dollars in Presidential emoluments and conflicts of interest that have earned not even a "look-see" from any Republican, despite the threat of those conflicts, and despite the breach in the contract with the "Post Office?
Do Republicans have integrity with regard to American democracy? Will Steve Bannon be allowed to lead us into fascist alliances that dismantle it?
I could insert the words Democrat for Republican, Obama for Trump and Valerie Jarrett for Bannon and make the exact same claims. Hopefully, your children or grandchildren will grow up to recognize President Donald Trump took down the globalists (who own almost every Congressional member of BOTH parties) and started the country back on the path of constitution, sovereignty, independence and freedom for ALL the American people while lighting a candle of freedom in elections taking place around the globe. It's not Dems vs Repubs, it's globalism vs the people of every country that is the threat.
What the internet has done is transform messaging and enhance the power of any entity to target people with individualised calls to action.
Want to get elected? Do the maths, pick the states you need to win, mine the voting data, target people and forget the rest. 50.1% wins and since its an electoral college and not actual votes, anything over 47% will win also...
Success in American presidential elections has always been predicated by the amount of money a candidate and party could raise. Somewhere along the way, Trump and co realised that they did not need a party, since the internet has reduced the need for on-the-ground networks and structures.
Amazon took out Barnes and Noble - what - 20 years ago? The surprise is not that it has happened, but that it took this long for the penny to drop...
The problem is the certain ability data givens to ANYONE to target the 47% you need to win and discount the majority. That's your threat.
Want to get elected? Do the maths, pick the states you need to win, mine the voting data, target people and forget the rest. 50.1% wins and since its an electoral college and not actual votes, anything over 47% will win also...
Success in American presidential elections has always been predicated by the amount of money a candidate and party could raise. Somewhere along the way, Trump and co realised that they did not need a party, since the internet has reduced the need for on-the-ground networks and structures.
Amazon took out Barnes and Noble - what - 20 years ago? The surprise is not that it has happened, but that it took this long for the penny to drop...
The problem is the certain ability data givens to ANYONE to target the 47% you need to win and discount the majority. That's your threat.
1
The internet is contributing to the decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints in American politics? What might we glean if we were to insert moneyed interest at the apex of the paradigm?
1
The threat to democratic representative government seems exaggerated. Why? There are two models: establish authoritarian control first, then implement bad policies second. This leads of Venezuela-like outcomes. Or the Trump model: push policies that will generate enormous negative push back first, and then try to contain and shape the political fallout through "messaging" second. Bad policy becomes subject to future democratic overthrow unless the representative government is completely undermined.
So far, the Trump administration has been unable to establish authoritarian control before attempting to implement its policies. It's initial attempts at rule by decree appear to have failed.
Health care, social security, and tax cuts for the rich are shaping up as a policy triad guaranteed to generate enormous negative feedback, a wave that will probably swamp the alt-right minority dominating the Republicans right now.
So far, the Trump administration has been unable to establish authoritarian control before attempting to implement its policies. It's initial attempts at rule by decree appear to have failed.
Health care, social security, and tax cuts for the rich are shaping up as a policy triad guaranteed to generate enormous negative feedback, a wave that will probably swamp the alt-right minority dominating the Republicans right now.
The internet a threat to democracy?
The only way I can think of the internet being a threat to American democracy is if it becomes a weapon to further compromise an already deeply compromised American democracy--and I believe it is already being used as such a weapon.
Let me tell you what I am doing now: I am painting my mother's back porch fence white. In her words "I am making it pretty, etc." If you were to know anything about my personal history you would see how horrifying this is to me. I come from the type of family of the big coverup, the big "we don't talk about it". Who knows what occurred in the childhood of my parents to make them the way they are today. But everything is the big front, the big we don't talk about it.
I can recollect high school where I learned this same attitude permeates most of American life. I had problems in school and good old institution America just readily decided I had psychological problems and that was that, end of story. But I started reading deeply and now I am quite well read. I found out America is quite the whitewashed fence, quite the big coverup. Everything from salesmanship to national security depends on the big coverup. A person has to struggle daily to get any coherent sense of reality in American society.
So my prospects for the internet? I once hoped that it would work toward truth, that it would shed light so we would have a lot fewer ruined minds, but I believe now it is ultimate weapon to control truth, reality.
The only way I can think of the internet being a threat to American democracy is if it becomes a weapon to further compromise an already deeply compromised American democracy--and I believe it is already being used as such a weapon.
Let me tell you what I am doing now: I am painting my mother's back porch fence white. In her words "I am making it pretty, etc." If you were to know anything about my personal history you would see how horrifying this is to me. I come from the type of family of the big coverup, the big "we don't talk about it". Who knows what occurred in the childhood of my parents to make them the way they are today. But everything is the big front, the big we don't talk about it.
I can recollect high school where I learned this same attitude permeates most of American life. I had problems in school and good old institution America just readily decided I had psychological problems and that was that, end of story. But I started reading deeply and now I am quite well read. I found out America is quite the whitewashed fence, quite the big coverup. Everything from salesmanship to national security depends on the big coverup. A person has to struggle daily to get any coherent sense of reality in American society.
So my prospects for the internet? I once hoped that it would work toward truth, that it would shed light so we would have a lot fewer ruined minds, but I believe now it is ultimate weapon to control truth, reality.
By definition, democracy is a government whereby everyone has a voice - all the time! Yet here, scholars and highly educated people rue the phenomenon of the unwashed masses actually speaking their minds in a venue that cannot be tuned out and in numbers too ominous to ignore. Unnerving, to be sure, which is precisely why US Founders never created a democracy. They created a republic. It is precisely why checks have balances and balances have checks. The whim of the masses is unpredictable. They have discovered that the press has manipulated them as well as the politicians. The are lashing out. For those of you eulogizing the death of democracy, step back at realize that you are actually viewing democracy at its level best and, that you have NEVER understood what a true democracy was, or meant. Take the opportunity to rejoice in the fact that you live in a republic and find solace in the fact that the rule of law in this republic will protect your minority viewpoint and the well being of your family... unless, of course you prefer the idea of a perpetual "resistance" to republicanism, protests turned violent and destructive, murderous, exercising those perceived "rights of democracy", until....others defend there rights to peace, tranquility, rule of law in the established republic.
1
The major problem with the internet is the "loss of a sense of social cohesion".
People no longer have to be with i.e. physically present with another human being to interact. It is a form of hiding, separation that will not benefit society.
I suppose that the 'god' that the internet has become will be judged in the future when the detrimental effects to society become clearer. The false feeling of connection and power that the internet gives to lonely cyber bullies will eventually have to be condemned. Society will adjust and begin to assign 'value'
to the internet and its formats.
Finally, if public education were valued and supported, it could teach 'critical thinking and use of the internet'. And parents and teachers could instill in children the 'proper role' of the internet in our daily lives. Sitting in front of a screen all day is not healthy. Remember your mother saying Turn off the TV?
People no longer have to be with i.e. physically present with another human being to interact. It is a form of hiding, separation that will not benefit society.
I suppose that the 'god' that the internet has become will be judged in the future when the detrimental effects to society become clearer. The false feeling of connection and power that the internet gives to lonely cyber bullies will eventually have to be condemned. Society will adjust and begin to assign 'value'
to the internet and its formats.
Finally, if public education were valued and supported, it could teach 'critical thinking and use of the internet'. And parents and teachers could instill in children the 'proper role' of the internet in our daily lives. Sitting in front of a screen all day is not healthy. Remember your mother saying Turn off the TV?
"The use of digital technology in the 2016 election “represents the latest chapter in the disintegration of legacy institutions that had set bounds for American politics in the postwar era,” Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Stanford, writes in a forthcoming paper, “Can American Democracy Survive the Internet?”
The question is, can Liberals survive without their legacy MSM propaganda?
The NYT cannot control the people like they used to be able to and they are not happy about it. If the NYT stuck to reporting the facts instead of manipulating and massaging their reporting/agenda, they might just survive.
The question is, can Liberals survive without their legacy MSM propaganda?
The NYT cannot control the people like they used to be able to and they are not happy about it. If the NYT stuck to reporting the facts instead of manipulating and massaging their reporting/agenda, they might just survive.
2
The word is ‘adapt’. We must all adapt to the open and free communication of information and ideas, and stay informed so we can determine biased and misleading news and reporting when we see it. I mean really, we all must be able to see when the Washington Post coordinated with other leading large national papers to run negative hit job pieces after there is a little bit of good press for Trump. It is so transparent its laughable.
1
The parties made a big mistake as seeing the internet primarily as a fund raising method. Every day I receive political email and every one of those is asking for donations. As a result, I tune out the messages that are included and many addresses are consigned to junk mail.
1
At least now we get to kneel on the couch at work!
When this country was founded, it was founded by an elite who happened to have very progressive ideas. They created institutions to enshrine those ideas which have endured, at least through the Constitution, for more than 200 years. In the last 200 years, however, the nature of the elites running the country has changed from one whose overall mindset was progressive to one whose mindset was basically acquisitive. The nature of the elites and the nature of the political institutions no longer match. The biggest threat to democracy is not the internet but the lack of belief in democratic institutions by the governing elite. The internet simply served as a means for a supremely acquisitive candidate such as Donald Trump to become President. The fact that the greed of the Republicans fueled by the Tea Party and their billionaire backers allowed him to capture the nomination in the first place is the key to his regime. The internet was only a means to his end.
3
Good. The internet has actually done the opposite of what Edsall supposes. It has returned us to an immediate communication through gossip networks by word-of-mouth, and has wrested at least some power from media outlets like NYT who have blatantly shown themselves to be bought and paid for by the 1 percent. $100K automobile? $2M house? Look no further than these pages for your best price on such necessities. It is through outlets like this one that the corporate and political classes "manage" our democracy.
The internet is one decent tool the people now possess to fight against Sheldon Wolin's inverted totalitarianism. Use it wisely.
The internet is one decent tool the people now possess to fight against Sheldon Wolin's inverted totalitarianism. Use it wisely.
5
Certainly the internet is disrupting democracy, but I don't think the social order is under any more threat than from previous technologies, like radio or television.
I have been using the internet and its predecessors since the 1980s, in particular to develop open-source software. Initially there was disbelief that anybody could make anything complicated via online community, then there was alarm that the software industry would be destroyed by us radicals and communists, and now, well, open source is part of every cellphone, every computer, and is integral to the net itself. (The younger generation doesn't really believe me when I tell them proprietary vs open was once a divisive issue!) But it did take a long time to figure out, humans still think at the same speed as ever.
The internet *is* a threat to the political establishment, but when I read the complaints, I ask "Is this a fundamental threat, where citizens are literally being blocked from choosing the person they want, or is this just unhappiness at the status quo being upended?" Although I voted for Hillary, I had a sickening unease that the online shouters were better representatives of the electorate's feelings, and that the Democratic campaign was not paying attention.
I have been using the internet and its predecessors since the 1980s, in particular to develop open-source software. Initially there was disbelief that anybody could make anything complicated via online community, then there was alarm that the software industry would be destroyed by us radicals and communists, and now, well, open source is part of every cellphone, every computer, and is integral to the net itself. (The younger generation doesn't really believe me when I tell them proprietary vs open was once a divisive issue!) But it did take a long time to figure out, humans still think at the same speed as ever.
The internet *is* a threat to the political establishment, but when I read the complaints, I ask "Is this a fundamental threat, where citizens are literally being blocked from choosing the person they want, or is this just unhappiness at the status quo being upended?" Although I voted for Hillary, I had a sickening unease that the online shouters were better representatives of the electorate's feelings, and that the Democratic campaign was not paying attention.
This piece reinforces the uncomfortable fact that one of the most pernicious expressions of modern conventional wisdom is that complex entities benefit from being "shaken up" or "disrupted." Anyone who claims to believe this should open up their computer and clip a few connections or swap a few components around, and see if it performs better. The more old fashioned could roll grandpa's pocket watch down a flight of stairs and see if it keeps better time.
I should hope it's a threat to the modern version of democracy, which is pretty much Mob Rule at this point. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic with some democratic leanings. I wish people would take time to understand this
"the internet gives us the many-to-many pattern"
more significant than many-to-many, the internet amplifies the "some-to some" communication that is so pernicious
more significant than many-to-many, the internet amplifies the "some-to some" communication that is so pernicious
How about basic civics classes again - even DeVos could support that- polls have shown that a third of Americans don't know we have 3 branches of government. The citizenry should know it has a duty to be informed and to hold elected officials accountable.
Trump has shown an ignorance of the US Constitution he swore to uphold- let's make sure every elected official actually knows this is their job, not a whim.
We need everyone registered to vote automatically when they come of age. The game-playing around preventing people from voting should be criminal.
Trump has shown an ignorance of the US Constitution he swore to uphold- let's make sure every elected official actually knows this is their job, not a whim.
We need everyone registered to vote automatically when they come of age. The game-playing around preventing people from voting should be criminal.
Its seems whenever a new information technology surfaces, social upheaval both good and bad generally follows, and the old guard always blame it for whatever evils follow. The invention of the printing press accelerated the Great Schism between the Protestant and Catholic religion, but also begat the Enlightenment. The rise of radio allowed the Nazis, Communists, & domestic demagogues like Huey Long and Father Coughlin to reach wider audiences during the height of the Depression, and led the world into war and ruin, but radio also kept the hope alive through the BBC and other freedom networks. Television led to the nightly news, and people were able to see for themselves what was happening in places like Vietnam and East Berlin, but it also brought Sesame Street. It brought edification as much as it did rage and consternation. Now we have the Internet, which the Russians use to compromise our security and groups like ISIS and the alt-right use to spread their hateful ideology in the most unsuspecting of places, but having so many unguarded channels of data flow also allows grassroots organizations to mount effective resistance against the official party line. To people who criticize the Internet as a sordid medium, I have only this proverb to add: when your enemy attacks by sea, do not blame the ocean; build your own fleet. The Internet does not have an ideology; it serves whoever has mastery of it. We must learn to master this thing of our own creation; lest it destroy us.
This article just laments the demise of traditional news sources, suggesting only that the internet replacements produce too much, low-quality material that is too interactive or "many-to-many"..... empty academic jargon. (The fact that TED talks require a soundtrack should tell you something.)
Here's the main threat to Democracy from the internet: search filters and tracking.
What I see on my computer from a search query is not what you would see on your computer. (It's like with positive assortative mating in evolution; it's driving us apart.) The effects are profound.
Here's the main threat to Democracy from the internet: search filters and tracking.
What I see on my computer from a search query is not what you would see on your computer. (It's like with positive assortative mating in evolution; it's driving us apart.) The effects are profound.
1
Internet isn't the culprit. Education is. The Internet is a tool and has no objective. If you cannot decipher the truth and repeat it the telephone was your option. Well now its exponential and exposes exponentially how important education is.
Yep, tools using tools.
Edsall is being intentionally misleading. One might characterize this OpEd piece as "fake news." What Ol' Tommy and his ilk are really concerned over is that the Internet is *restoring* true democracy. The only thing the Internet is threatening is the mainstream media's dominance of control of the public narrative on what is perceived to be the truth. No longer can NYT, WashPo, or the other Leftist-elite fishwraps dictate the information getting out to the electorate. MSM is becoming marginalized by the best iteration of Free Speech the world has ever known: The Internet. Now that the elites and globalists realize they longer have a stranglehold on the information being carefully molded and fed to the masses for consumption, they're beginning a campaign to stigmatize the Internet as dangerous, threatening, and inaccurate, with the end goal of tight controls and censorship to end the free flow of unfiltered, un-propagandized information getting to anyone.
2
The internet is not destroying democracy. It is, however, destroying polite democratic discourse.
1
Partly the disruption is due to new technology, just as the printing press and more widespread literacy led to the Reformation, and all the wars of religion in Europe. The internet has yet to settle down in any real sense, with a large number of players, most of whom are losing money in the endeavor.
The other major thing going on is the perverse effect of "reform". Civil service laws did away with patronage, with the cost of a less responsive and responsible government. The campaign finance reforms gutted the control of the political parties, but left no real way to vet candidates.
The other major thing going on is the perverse effect of "reform". Civil service laws did away with patronage, with the cost of a less responsive and responsible government. The campaign finance reforms gutted the control of the political parties, but left no real way to vet candidates.
The Internet has opened a lot of communication channels and that is good and irreversible. What needs to be addressed is the ability of people to comprehend what they're reading. Someone - Jefferson ? - said that democracy depends on an educated population. This is even more essential because of the lack of filters on information. People have to do their own filtering. This requires two things: they have to understand how the American government was set up to be self-limiting and preserve liberty, and they have to be able to realize when information they see has been twisted to be misleading. Job #1 is education. Secretary DeVos probably won't help.
2
The internet is, and will be, the savior of American democracy. The media -- now owned by 4 or 5 people -- is chasing its own agenda -- largely wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel. Let the people have their voice. The media would love to destroy the influence of Facebook -- because we are finally able to call the media on its games.
3
Look, sir: The internet did not create racists. Those people who are indulging in hate screeds had the hate in them all along. Now it is in the open and - oh dear - we are horrified. This country indulged in "political correctness" until some of us, courteous and ethical, were gagging on it. "Microaggression?' Please. Treat aggression harshly and officially. Leave the micro bits to the individual to handle. Concentrating on political correctness in my opinion gave words far too much power. Slam actions, leave words alone. But do slam the hateful actions. Don't just go tsk-tsk. You think that the internet is to blame for Russia's interference in our business? No. It wasn't the internet, which is just a tool, it was politicians who were in contact with Russia in hopes of furthering their racist and exclusionist agendas. What frightens me far more than the loose lips of the internet is, for one example, the group of ICE police who are - under the guise of legal action - abusing people whose color or religion they do not like. We - not the internet - have allowed this right-wing, for lack of a more accurate sobriquet, to take power. And we will regret it. Lack of courtesy, hate speech, are all fueled by feelings. You cannot adjudicate feelings. Or language. But you can make and uphold laws against hateful action. Let's concentrate on that.
1
I agree with the premise of this article, but for different reasons. In an ideal world, the internet is not a threat to democracy. It would actually expand it as many comments seem to naively imply here.
But there is a big, very big elephant in the room that not even the article talks about: Social media is incredibly easy to manipulate.
No, it is not only that Trump or Sanders supporters were more active. It is not one person one post. It is not a digital democracy. State agencies and special interests run armies of bots that plague social media and push miss-information and lies. And yes, that back-room strategy is very effective against political opponents. During the primary, Sanders could stay classy and show measure while his supporters would fill the social media with bots and smear Clinton (her campaign eventually did it as well). Of course that was nothing compared to the bots-army of the Trump campaign and its shady Russia and Wikileaks help.
So, there is no digital democracy. Just special interests manipulating the internet, and voters through it.
But there is a big, very big elephant in the room that not even the article talks about: Social media is incredibly easy to manipulate.
No, it is not only that Trump or Sanders supporters were more active. It is not one person one post. It is not a digital democracy. State agencies and special interests run armies of bots that plague social media and push miss-information and lies. And yes, that back-room strategy is very effective against political opponents. During the primary, Sanders could stay classy and show measure while his supporters would fill the social media with bots and smear Clinton (her campaign eventually did it as well). Of course that was nothing compared to the bots-army of the Trump campaign and its shady Russia and Wikileaks help.
So, there is no digital democracy. Just special interests manipulating the internet, and voters through it.
The Internet and social media are democracy. We are constitutional republic because our founders understood from experiences with direct democracy that human nature needs moderating, and our impulses purposefully slowed by deliberation and compromise. The internet and social media, particularly by the use of filter bubbles and the granting of anonymity, have revealed why human beings need good, divided government that mitigates against the nature of truly democratic expression. Legacy media is in crisis. Not only are they mirroring new media in order to stay financially viable, they no longer have the resources or the will to be the watchdogs that a free press needs to be. One cannot abide fake news, but we should remember that weak news is just as destructive. One cannot devote ink to competing views and in depth analysis, when the audience, addicted to quick recaps from sources queued by an algorithm, only wants small servings of what they already think. Add to that the unfiltered and titillating emotion of getting hits on social media, and we have developed exactly the fora that inflame the worst tendencies of democracy while suffocating the information, thinking, deliberation, and understanding of the other that our republic requires for survival. The Internet is democracy. Democracy is poor government that unleashes eventually the worst side our natures.
2
Eight years ago, President Obama and his political operatives were being heralded for their revolutionary use of social media which put together the coalition that helped win him the election. Now, this is a threat to democracy? What happened? Simply put, the wrong people, as defined by the liberal establishment, won. No doubt, when the political cycle turns again, they will go back to telling us how wonderful the political use of the internet is.
1
Mr. Edsall rues the demise of "wise elders" without acknowledging that the concept is inherently in tension with democratic political regimes, and is particularly at odds with the raucous cacophony of voices that comes with the direct and all-inclusive democracy promoted by the Internet. With social media, in particular, the most foolish, stupid and ill-informed voices are forever rising and falling, most of them eventually sooner or later dissolving into the ether.
I ask, who, exactly, defers to "wise elders" any more? Children? No. Students? No. Citizens? No. To most Americans, the concept of "wise elders"--one that's always been integral to Republics as well as aristocracies--is a risible anachronism. Every semi-literate farmer in Iowa and Kansas, as well as every pontificating commenter in The New York Times (me included) thinks he or she capable of pronouncing opinions on domestic and foreign policy, not to mention everything from climate change to literature, that are as sound as those of the most experienced and expert statesmen or intellectual leaders in their fields.
This is an insurmountable problem in all mass democracies that will get worse and worse until, eventually, everyone is babbling endlessly, fooling themselves into thinking they have a voice, while an oligarchic tyranny secretly rules.
Tocqueville was right: People in democracies inevitably end up valuing equality more than anything else--even freedom.
I ask, who, exactly, defers to "wise elders" any more? Children? No. Students? No. Citizens? No. To most Americans, the concept of "wise elders"--one that's always been integral to Republics as well as aristocracies--is a risible anachronism. Every semi-literate farmer in Iowa and Kansas, as well as every pontificating commenter in The New York Times (me included) thinks he or she capable of pronouncing opinions on domestic and foreign policy, not to mention everything from climate change to literature, that are as sound as those of the most experienced and expert statesmen or intellectual leaders in their fields.
This is an insurmountable problem in all mass democracies that will get worse and worse until, eventually, everyone is babbling endlessly, fooling themselves into thinking they have a voice, while an oligarchic tyranny secretly rules.
Tocqueville was right: People in democracies inevitably end up valuing equality more than anything else--even freedom.
4
What a bunch of hooey! The Internet is merely one more method of disruption that goes back hundreds (if not thousands) of years, beginning with the formation of written language, the printing press, pamphleteering, newspapers, radio, TV, and any other mode you care to think of.
To say that the Internet is producing a decay in the political process need only research the ways in which politicians slinged mud and falsehoods during the colonial era to know that none of this behavior is new. It is simply decentralized now, and we are still in an adolescent stage of apprehending it.
Relax! We'll get used to it soon enough.
To say that the Internet is producing a decay in the political process need only research the ways in which politicians slinged mud and falsehoods during the colonial era to know that none of this behavior is new. It is simply decentralized now, and we are still in an adolescent stage of apprehending it.
Relax! We'll get used to it soon enough.
2
Can internet promote democracy over authoritarianism? Not necessarily. Turkey is a good example. President Erdogan effectively used Face Time to call for public resistance against the military coup that aimed to depose him and succeeded. What did the Turkish people get after he returned to power? He became increasingly authoritarian and cracked down heavily on internet freedom. Internet can be a boon or a curse for democracy.
We don't need The New York Times to be the "gatekeeper" of the news. The Times, which confessed on its front page it had no intention of covering the election in an objective manner. The Times, which stated there was no famine in Ukraine, no purges in Stalin's USSR. You went all in and Clinton lost the presidency; you, your credibility. Now you want a cartel to do the news under a protective coercive wing of government.
1
The destructive power of social media rests on well-established trends in American society:
- The long-recognized "culture of complaint"
- Consumers' insatiable appetite for novelty and readiness to dispose of the old, stoked by the pervasiveness of advertising, marketing and soft journalism
- Our history of anti-intellectualism, which now has expanded to distrust of expertise and competence in virtually every area. This attitude has even spread to middle-brow audiences by "thinkers" like Malcolm Gladwell, who argues that commonly held understandings are misguided and that simple (simplistic) correctives are sitting right under our noses, and the internet itself, which promises answers to every question at the click of a mouse.
- The persistence of the paranoid style in American politics
- Rampant individualism, which in our "You Decide" culture of polls, games and reality TV, now includes the inalienable right to express oneself by weighing in on any issue in personal or public life
- The long-recognized "culture of complaint"
- Consumers' insatiable appetite for novelty and readiness to dispose of the old, stoked by the pervasiveness of advertising, marketing and soft journalism
- Our history of anti-intellectualism, which now has expanded to distrust of expertise and competence in virtually every area. This attitude has even spread to middle-brow audiences by "thinkers" like Malcolm Gladwell, who argues that commonly held understandings are misguided and that simple (simplistic) correctives are sitting right under our noses, and the internet itself, which promises answers to every question at the click of a mouse.
- The persistence of the paranoid style in American politics
- Rampant individualism, which in our "You Decide" culture of polls, games and reality TV, now includes the inalienable right to express oneself by weighing in on any issue in personal or public life
I'm grateful for the large amount of alternative news sources available on the internet. The opinions and slants and bias have been steadily creeping from the Editorial pages into the "straight news" stories in all of the traditional MSM. Everyday I have to play investigative journalist scouring 10 different sources in order to get the full factual picture and all perspectives of any given news story.
2
"...to the decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints in American politics."
What?!
Without the internet and it's efficient ability to communicate with the citizenry we would not have learned of the corruption of the DNC via Wikileaks or the timely and well documented evidence of Hillary Clinton's extreme carelessness with our national security. We would not have seen Hillary stumble and falter while trying to take just a few steps, thus exposing her serious health problems that she was covering up.
The internet is changing how politicians and government communicate but it is not damaging our democracy. It's just rearranging the power of institutions that controlled the flow of information to the public.
What?!
Without the internet and it's efficient ability to communicate with the citizenry we would not have learned of the corruption of the DNC via Wikileaks or the timely and well documented evidence of Hillary Clinton's extreme carelessness with our national security. We would not have seen Hillary stumble and falter while trying to take just a few steps, thus exposing her serious health problems that she was covering up.
The internet is changing how politicians and government communicate but it is not damaging our democracy. It's just rearranging the power of institutions that controlled the flow of information to the public.
5
The article claims that internet with it's "many to many" format has created a pattern of communication the supersedes previous patterns. Surely, previous patterns include geographical proximity and neighborly discussions. Yet, the 2016 election showed strong geographical concentrations - which seems to undermine the claim of internet communication, and favor instead the power of physical billboards planted on front lawns, and in-family discussions and inter-personal physical discussion instead.
Perhaps we also also need to look at migration patterns - e.g., is there less geographical and economical mixing and migration, especially from the strongly red areas to the more urban areas, for various socio-economic reasons?
One last point which may be related: What is the impact on democracy when a large percentage of unskilled and semi skilled labor positions are taken by workers without the rights of citizenship and the democratic right to vote? (Aka illegals).
Finally, an assertion: To maintain an effective democracy, all immigration must be above board, legal, with numbers negotiated by democratic means, and with a strict limited time before voting rights are allowed, e.g., 5 years. Anything else is a serious injury to democracy.
Perhaps we also also need to look at migration patterns - e.g., is there less geographical and economical mixing and migration, especially from the strongly red areas to the more urban areas, for various socio-economic reasons?
One last point which may be related: What is the impact on democracy when a large percentage of unskilled and semi skilled labor positions are taken by workers without the rights of citizenship and the democratic right to vote? (Aka illegals).
Finally, an assertion: To maintain an effective democracy, all immigration must be above board, legal, with numbers negotiated by democratic means, and with a strict limited time before voting rights are allowed, e.g., 5 years. Anything else is a serious injury to democracy.
2
I'm waiting for the day when the gov't pulls the internet plug due to rising tensions of the populace. The reaction will be overwhelming if this does indeed ever happen. If you want to upset the peonage interfere with their connectivity.
And yes, they can easily do it. As was done during the Arab Spring in Egypt and elsewhere. It's harder to organize the masses without this technology readily available.
And yes, they can easily do it. As was done during the Arab Spring in Egypt and elsewhere. It's harder to organize the masses without this technology readily available.
1
It's stunning that Edsall uses this terminology to bash the decentralization of news heralded by the Internet age. My reaction: Go Internet!
It's more and more alarming how many liberals seem to be seriously arguing that corralling/controlling speech is a necessary reaction to the new populism. It makes even non-Trump fans glad he won.
Meanwhile we are feted to the delusional meme again and again that "fake news" is only the province of sites like Drudge whilst the NYT published so much fake news this last election cycle that even its own liberal readers complained.
More bottom-up freedom, I say, and win your debates on the merits instead of by constraining a wild and raucous public square for the interplay of ideas.
It's more and more alarming how many liberals seem to be seriously arguing that corralling/controlling speech is a necessary reaction to the new populism. It makes even non-Trump fans glad he won.
Meanwhile we are feted to the delusional meme again and again that "fake news" is only the province of sites like Drudge whilst the NYT published so much fake news this last election cycle that even its own liberal readers complained.
More bottom-up freedom, I say, and win your debates on the merits instead of by constraining a wild and raucous public square for the interplay of ideas.
4
Whatever you wish to believe, you will find ample confirmation of it on the Internet.
3
For all the internet activity in our country and denied contact with Russia by Flynn and Sessions during the campaign, and it seems increasingly likely, by others working for Trump during the election process, and for all the talk of a few to control the internet for censorship purposes, one must recall that the American people did not elect Trump to the Presidency through democracy.
We elected Clinton by three million votes. The Republic however, through electoral college, a relatively small number of pre-selected representatives from relatively few States, elected Trump.
For all the talk of American ignorance, malaise, fear, anger, I will not blame the internet for the Trump/Bannon/Miller etc. cabal. It was ultimately, the Republic, the system, that elected Trump into his position of potentially apocalyptic power.
My thought is that the internet opens doors into macro and microcosms of human experience that some wish not to know exists, while others find freedoms in their abilities to discern what they wish, or not, to learn of.
I support our Government in advancing security against hacking. I do not support censorship of information through the internet. The internet provides us access into ourselves and others, whether we want access to such a broad spectrum of knowledge or not, as no other source of information has in our history as a species. I cherish freedom of internet as I do freedom of the press and our freedom to read the books of our choosing.
We elected Clinton by three million votes. The Republic however, through electoral college, a relatively small number of pre-selected representatives from relatively few States, elected Trump.
For all the talk of American ignorance, malaise, fear, anger, I will not blame the internet for the Trump/Bannon/Miller etc. cabal. It was ultimately, the Republic, the system, that elected Trump into his position of potentially apocalyptic power.
My thought is that the internet opens doors into macro and microcosms of human experience that some wish not to know exists, while others find freedoms in their abilities to discern what they wish, or not, to learn of.
I support our Government in advancing security against hacking. I do not support censorship of information through the internet. The internet provides us access into ourselves and others, whether we want access to such a broad spectrum of knowledge or not, as no other source of information has in our history as a species. I cherish freedom of internet as I do freedom of the press and our freedom to read the books of our choosing.
3
To me, the biggest change occurred when the Roberts SCOTUS made their notorious Citizens United decision. It gave carte blanche to the real winners in this recent obvious decline in democracy: the corporations. Making it absurdly easy to corrupt our legislature, even when a moderate, intelligent person was in the White House, was the beginning of the end of our democracy. Greed and lust for power made it relatively easy to accomplish the gerrymandering we've seen over the past 8 years. Now, with the assistance of russia (and who knows what inside deals there are with the so-called president), the transnational corporations are assured of deregulation of restrictive (to them) environmental protections, more "friendly" tax rates, resulting in even less revenue for "infrastructure" projects, which have now been recast as opportunities for private corporate gain, at the public's expense.
Social media has become the ubiquitous cloud that has erased any sense of national morality or ethics, diminished the once-shared believe in the value of our educational and social institutions, and blatantly appealed to our baser instincts. It has, to a great degree, poisoned our society and culture, as evidenced by the current occupant of the White House.
Social media has become the ubiquitous cloud that has erased any sense of national morality or ethics, diminished the once-shared believe in the value of our educational and social institutions, and blatantly appealed to our baser instincts. It has, to a great degree, poisoned our society and culture, as evidenced by the current occupant of the White House.
8
The free press doesn’t threaten democracy, poor education on critical thinking does.
218
There is "democracy" and then there is "liberal democracy", a big difference.
The two are not the same. One is mere openness tied to no moral ideals, while the other is a complicated system of checks and balances and compromises that is guided by an underlying belief in such classical liberal values as universal human rights, the equality of mankind and the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is a system that requires a lot of hard work and maintenance on the part of all involved.
As Plato warned more than 2,500 years ago, pure democracy, untethered to any moral system, is nothing more than mob rule.
In our age, we equate democracy with simple freedom from restraint and naively assume that pure openness of ideas and lack of structure will automatically produce the best result.
We need to constantly remind ourselves that openness of dialogue is merely a first step in the democratic process, a means to the end of classical liberal ideals, and not an end in itself.
The two are not the same. One is mere openness tied to no moral ideals, while the other is a complicated system of checks and balances and compromises that is guided by an underlying belief in such classical liberal values as universal human rights, the equality of mankind and the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is a system that requires a lot of hard work and maintenance on the part of all involved.
As Plato warned more than 2,500 years ago, pure democracy, untethered to any moral system, is nothing more than mob rule.
In our age, we equate democracy with simple freedom from restraint and naively assume that pure openness of ideas and lack of structure will automatically produce the best result.
We need to constantly remind ourselves that openness of dialogue is merely a first step in the democratic process, a means to the end of classical liberal ideals, and not an end in itself.
171
Dear John M: Thank you for making this helpful distinction between "democracy" and "liberal democracy" and remarking on the attributes and importance of the latter. I found your comment insightful.
How do we define "moral values"?
Religion is a total failure in this regard. Consider the Bible. It supports slavery and genocide. It promotes killing people over trivial offenses to some imaginary God. What possible justification can some one dream up for banning birth control? Do we want to make "Soylent Green" a reality? Does greed justify the destruction of our environment? It appears that the evolution of Homo Sapiens produced the most destructive species of all.
Religion is a total failure in this regard. Consider the Bible. It supports slavery and genocide. It promotes killing people over trivial offenses to some imaginary God. What possible justification can some one dream up for banning birth control? Do we want to make "Soylent Green" a reality? Does greed justify the destruction of our environment? It appears that the evolution of Homo Sapiens produced the most destructive species of all.
----the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
That's not democracy. That's socialism or communism. Mob rule is not freedom.
That's not democracy. That's socialism or communism. Mob rule is not freedom.
The dystopian model described here only works for a person emerging from legacy media who can weaponize the internet to enhance and extend his or her pre-existing base of popularity. The internet itself is too fragmented on which to build or, as they say in the trade, scale a political personality. Trump is a singularity - the one-off success who seems to stand for a permanent shift.
I do agree with Mr Edsall's commentary.
People's susceptibility to seeking out political positions that fulfill their emotional needs makes them easily a prospective casualty of the ever expanding amount of "trash" easily distributed as truth via the internet.
Sometimes in politics, reality can punch one in the face, however.
I grew up in SE Tennessee in the 1950's and left for college in the Midwest in 1966, returning to my hometown in 1973, where I began a career in Houston he business end of television. 1973 was also the year of the Watergate hearings. I remember visiting the control room of the tv station where I worked. Some local mid-fifty year old white guys, WWII vets with no college education we're working there and they were typical old South Dems turned GOP, Nixon supporters all the way. They were convinced it was all a sham and that the Dems were just "out to get Nixon". I left town in March, 1974 for a major market and returned for a visit at Christmas time. Went by the tv station to wish old friends Merry Christmas, and there were the two control room guys, Charlie and Bob. I couldn't resist. Nixon had resigned in August. Theynwe Ed still in semi shock. "Why, I never would have believed it of Nixon", one said. I can still see the look on his face. He finally was brought to reality.
Today the question is, will ANYONE accept reality when the piper is paid some day with Donald Trump.
People's susceptibility to seeking out political positions that fulfill their emotional needs makes them easily a prospective casualty of the ever expanding amount of "trash" easily distributed as truth via the internet.
Sometimes in politics, reality can punch one in the face, however.
I grew up in SE Tennessee in the 1950's and left for college in the Midwest in 1966, returning to my hometown in 1973, where I began a career in Houston he business end of television. 1973 was also the year of the Watergate hearings. I remember visiting the control room of the tv station where I worked. Some local mid-fifty year old white guys, WWII vets with no college education we're working there and they were typical old South Dems turned GOP, Nixon supporters all the way. They were convinced it was all a sham and that the Dems were just "out to get Nixon". I left town in March, 1974 for a major market and returned for a visit at Christmas time. Went by the tv station to wish old friends Merry Christmas, and there were the two control room guys, Charlie and Bob. I couldn't resist. Nixon had resigned in August. Theynwe Ed still in semi shock. "Why, I never would have believed it of Nixon", one said. I can still see the look on his face. He finally was brought to reality.
Today the question is, will ANYONE accept reality when the piper is paid some day with Donald Trump.
1
I wonder if Mr. Edsall would have written this essay had either HRC or Bernie won? The proliferation of communication has enabled people to finally express things they don't like about the establishment Western order. Maybe the problem is with the establishment and not the ease with which we communicate?
2
Although this column says "the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts," that statement has always been true about how people consume their news and vote. However, the echo chamber that is the Internet multiplies this tendency.
I remember years ago, before the Internet became what it is, a friend was asking my opinion of two candidates locked in a tight race where one, much better funded (Candidate A), was running commercials endlessly on local TV, while the other candidate (Candidate B) was limited to sparse advertising. I told her I preferred the political positions of the fellow with fewer ads. But she kept saying, "But I just feel better about A." She couldn't understand why she felt that way and was unable to grasp how her emotions and feelings were being manipulated by those ads.
Now we have a multiplicity of dubious, web-based news sources that are like emotional manipulators on steroids. And folks don't want to see (and can't seem to understand) how they are being played.
I remember years ago, before the Internet became what it is, a friend was asking my opinion of two candidates locked in a tight race where one, much better funded (Candidate A), was running commercials endlessly on local TV, while the other candidate (Candidate B) was limited to sparse advertising. I told her I preferred the political positions of the fellow with fewer ads. But she kept saying, "But I just feel better about A." She couldn't understand why she felt that way and was unable to grasp how her emotions and feelings were being manipulated by those ads.
Now we have a multiplicity of dubious, web-based news sources that are like emotional manipulators on steroids. And folks don't want to see (and can't seem to understand) how they are being played.
It seems, Annie, by your saying the Internet is the most democratic thing ever, that you think it is just everyone's individual voice. But it is not. It is widely manipulated, for example by 'fake news' from Russia, and by echo chambers of 'alternative facts'.
The Internet persuades, like advertising, by simply repeating baloney over and over again from what are only apparently different sources and from seemingly unbiased testimonials. A ground swell of popular support is all perception, not reality.
The Internet persuades, like advertising, by simply repeating baloney over and over again from what are only apparently different sources and from seemingly unbiased testimonials. A ground swell of popular support is all perception, not reality.
2
In other words, the leveling of the playing field in information production and consumption as made the populous dumber. No wonder 1984 has soared to the top of the best sellers list. Too bad the recent recipients of the opus of information about the police state waited until their 30-50 years instead of jumping on it in high school. Sorry to say it, but we the half way intelligent, open minded people are doomed to be ruled by the idiots of Hillbilly Nation. Thank you all you wonderful disruptors.
NY Times backed Lenin& Castro-enough said about Powers that Be ideology.Trump is not a cult of personality. Trump s rise is due to disgust with the fake 'two party" system.I for one hope the NY Times goes bankrupt, and the last story they cover prior to that is George Soros being locked away by Putin in a Russian prison
2
It looks like the government and media elites are disappointed that the Internet and social media technologies, which did empower the common man and woman, did not somehow will lead to wear societal revolution I can to the Soviet or French one, were said a leads could then leverage to exert power over the people. What happened instead is that the masses actually have become empowered – something that Marxist always wanted in theory – and started using their brains. Whether you love or hate Trump, you have to admit that what happened is a massive disruption in the business of government. And keep in mind that in other conversations – those about technology and society – Disruption is supposed to be a good thing!
The corporate domination of our economic lives should have stifled Republican political growth long ago. How could rank & file Main Streeters seeing their businesses swallowed whole by international corporate interests continue to identify with the "conservatives"?
The Democrats of time past were universally opposed to the plutocrats & expanding greed. An FDR could motivate large spectrums of the country who were totally unprotected from the ravages of an economy that saw them as ciphers to be used & discarded.
Today we see large numbers of Demos mouthing the platitudes of Gates & Buffett as they are encouraged to invest "for the future" by ubiquitous media advertising. You too can become the millionaire next door. The ridiculousness has reached such heights that we often read of lottery winners planning on keeping their jobs.
At least the internet provides us with pop-up blockers. Political ads & sponsored commentary will however, continue to become more creative & entertaining; the equivalent of the whiskey bribe offered for a vote in the olden days. The unending quest for the "independent voter" effects us all.
The Democrats of time past were universally opposed to the plutocrats & expanding greed. An FDR could motivate large spectrums of the country who were totally unprotected from the ravages of an economy that saw them as ciphers to be used & discarded.
Today we see large numbers of Demos mouthing the platitudes of Gates & Buffett as they are encouraged to invest "for the future" by ubiquitous media advertising. You too can become the millionaire next door. The ridiculousness has reached such heights that we often read of lottery winners planning on keeping their jobs.
At least the internet provides us with pop-up blockers. Political ads & sponsored commentary will however, continue to become more creative & entertaining; the equivalent of the whiskey bribe offered for a vote in the olden days. The unending quest for the "independent voter" effects us all.
1
If we didn't know it before 2016, it's now painfully clear that the electorate is surprisingly unsophisticated when it comes to the basic critical thinking skills needed to sort through the (dis-)information overload let loose by multifarious forces over the Internet. But when you have a U.S. president quoting Stalin and openly saying that the traditional free press is the "enemy of the American people," THAT is more than just a failure of democracy. It's open contempt for democracy at the highest levels of government.
4
"... a hybrid regime... would keep the trappings of democracy..." This is exactly what we have had for decades, at least since Jimmy Carter, and in many respects, since well before that. The fact that Edsall and other elites posit this as a new development brought on by Donald Trump, or the internet, just shows how very stupid they think the American people are.
1
Obama never could have been elected in 2008 without the internet, through which he crushed the fat cats so complacently enthroned behind Queen Hillary. And Bernie never could have earned more than enough money to have beaten Queen Hillary and her fat cat owner-operators yet again in 2016, except for the willingness of the sell-out Congressional Black Caucus and black preachers to help Hillary's fat cats smear Bernie with the absurd lie that he was less committed to blacks than the Clintons, who so eagerly threw blacks under the bus twice when it was politically convenient in the Nineties, with their welfare and crime bills.
1
The internet is a tool--designed, developed, and maintained by human beings--and nothing more. It's just a tool, like a hammer, stove, pen, or sewing machine. As with all tools, the internet itself is inert and neutral, posing no threat or harm to anything, but just as a hammer can be used to destroy property and not just as a tool for construction, it is how human beings use the internet that matters.
That which is produced or destroyed through use of the internet--or any other tool--is dependent upon the human beings using it. The problem is not the internet. The problem is the people using it.
It is time for Americans to value and invest in developing quality *people* with the same (or greater) amount of resources (time, energy, money, dedication, etc) that we apply to developing careers, products, services, and companies. Underdeveloped critical thinking skills, lack of strong identity, feelings of fear, insecurity, isolation, loneliness, or having been "ripped off", "not valued" or ignored, the inability to differentiate between thinking and feeling (separating thoughts from emotions)--on top of the stressors of day-to-day life--produce people who are vulnerable to manipulation by others who use the internet to communicate and spread toxic ideas.
It is time to seriously invest in high quality education *for all*, taxpayer-paid healthcare *for all*, development of communities *off line*, and quality of life *for everyone*. Such is the basis for a thriving democracy.
That which is produced or destroyed through use of the internet--or any other tool--is dependent upon the human beings using it. The problem is not the internet. The problem is the people using it.
It is time for Americans to value and invest in developing quality *people* with the same (or greater) amount of resources (time, energy, money, dedication, etc) that we apply to developing careers, products, services, and companies. Underdeveloped critical thinking skills, lack of strong identity, feelings of fear, insecurity, isolation, loneliness, or having been "ripped off", "not valued" or ignored, the inability to differentiate between thinking and feeling (separating thoughts from emotions)--on top of the stressors of day-to-day life--produce people who are vulnerable to manipulation by others who use the internet to communicate and spread toxic ideas.
It is time to seriously invest in high quality education *for all*, taxpayer-paid healthcare *for all*, development of communities *off line*, and quality of life *for everyone*. Such is the basis for a thriving democracy.
4
"[The internet and social media] have disrupted and destroyed institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it."
As if that's a bad thing.
The idea that we have a two party system in America is a myth sold to suckers. There is no difference between the Repulicats and the Democans when it comes to sticking it to the people and helping out the rich. Look at wealth stratification. You won't find any accident there.
Furthermore, the idea that America is a democracy is another myth. This is a republic, and the elected officials are supposed to be the representatives of the people.
The undeniable fact is that these corrupt, narcissistic sleazeballs haven't been doing much representing of the people for decades. Thank God for more freedom of expression; thank God for more avenues of communication.
If this is a free country, all ideas should be free. If we have a free market, let the ideas compete head-to-head. Let establishment rags like the NY Times stop the propaganda that ideas they don't like are "fake news". Let the establishment make its best arguments and seek to persuade the people with calm rationales. Let the establishment rely less on trying to drown out or stifle dissent.
Does the establishment have the guts for freedom?
The Founding Fathers included the First Amendment in the Constitution for a purpose.
It is time for us to be Americans. If established order falls, so be it, and good riddance.
As if that's a bad thing.
The idea that we have a two party system in America is a myth sold to suckers. There is no difference between the Repulicats and the Democans when it comes to sticking it to the people and helping out the rich. Look at wealth stratification. You won't find any accident there.
Furthermore, the idea that America is a democracy is another myth. This is a republic, and the elected officials are supposed to be the representatives of the people.
The undeniable fact is that these corrupt, narcissistic sleazeballs haven't been doing much representing of the people for decades. Thank God for more freedom of expression; thank God for more avenues of communication.
If this is a free country, all ideas should be free. If we have a free market, let the ideas compete head-to-head. Let establishment rags like the NY Times stop the propaganda that ideas they don't like are "fake news". Let the establishment make its best arguments and seek to persuade the people with calm rationales. Let the establishment rely less on trying to drown out or stifle dissent.
Does the establishment have the guts for freedom?
The Founding Fathers included the First Amendment in the Constitution for a purpose.
It is time for us to be Americans. If established order falls, so be it, and good riddance.
1
The threat to democracy has always been the old media's control and manipulation of information. Before the internet, democracies were beholden to the fourth estate, and dictators rose to power through their control of the fourth estate. Now, people have the ability to communicate in masse, in small groups, in large groups, in affinity groups and quickly. People are now 5 degrees of separation from someone who was there.
There is still a need for journalism. Unfortunately, in the race for dollars, the media threw the baby out with the bathwater and lowered their journalistic standards. Even the Times, this august publication, has caved to Trump derangement syndrome in the quest for clicks.
No, the Internet is not a threat to democracy. It will most certainly exacerbate the risks of direct democracy, but it also allows people to organize and communicate as a people, instead of just as led groups.
There is still a need for journalism. Unfortunately, in the race for dollars, the media threw the baby out with the bathwater and lowered their journalistic standards. Even the Times, this august publication, has caved to Trump derangement syndrome in the quest for clicks.
No, the Internet is not a threat to democracy. It will most certainly exacerbate the risks of direct democracy, but it also allows people to organize and communicate as a people, instead of just as led groups.
2
Edsall sees political parties as the last best hope for democracy. The Founding Fathers feared political parties ("factions") as an enemy of the republican form of government they constructed. They envisioned elected representatives as independent actors engaging in socratic debate about issues. Parties they feared would impose discipline on representatives they and submerge the nuance of legislative debate under the thumb of a few bosses. Certainly the House after the Hastert Rule is run from the top down. And the Senate under McConnell is no better. Social media disturbs the party system. But are the players up to the responsibility the founders envisioned for them?
3
The internet has been around since before the 2000 election between Gore and Bush. Growing and evolving year after year. Facebook opened up to the world in 2007. The first iPhone was released in June 2007. Then, Obama in 2008 was the first candidate the exploit the internet, probably because he was young enough to embrace new modes of communication. Around 2010 republicans started getting on board, a company I was working at was developing a "conservative social network"... all this was leading up to 2012... Romney was supposed to be the Reagan to Obama's Carter, but failed. So, 2016... Republicans finally figured it out. Democrats could've done the same thing, but we were "going high". Going low has more entertainment value, especially in angry chats and comments sections. All I am saying is, trends will continue to change, the internet isn't going away, and we all need to learn from all these experiences and grow up. This I say as an "Experience Designer" since 1995.
"...decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints in American politics."
Are you serious? Do you really expect us to believe this? The internet is like a light thrown on roaches. Government has been slipping for 70 years into deeper and darker control of corporate elites, greased by the a media that fears the common citizen and leftists who prefer decisions be made by a small group of elites. In pursuit o this goal, the left abandoned traditional moral and ethical constraints decades ago. The rise of the internet has perhaps crystallized a younger conservative movement that seeks to mimic the tactics of impoliteness of the left. Hence the outrage from certain writers over the "negative" influence of the internet and social media and who don't see the irony of their "Let them eat cake" protestation.
Are you serious? Do you really expect us to believe this? The internet is like a light thrown on roaches. Government has been slipping for 70 years into deeper and darker control of corporate elites, greased by the a media that fears the common citizen and leftists who prefer decisions be made by a small group of elites. In pursuit o this goal, the left abandoned traditional moral and ethical constraints decades ago. The rise of the internet has perhaps crystallized a younger conservative movement that seeks to mimic the tactics of impoliteness of the left. Hence the outrage from certain writers over the "negative" influence of the internet and social media and who don't see the irony of their "Let them eat cake" protestation.
The last point is the best, and it explains Trump's win: it's just feel-good politics, tribal and sports-like, with all emotions amplified through the web.
Who can argue that the internet has great *potential* for advancing democracy? But the dumbing down of conversation, the short clips and videos, tweets, memes, etc., limits the potential. It's not identity politics and self-segregation (which has always been with us) that limits discourse, but the narcotic effect of the play-by-play action.
We've sunk to the point where many or most Americans treat a presidential election like the super bowl. It's all in the win and not what it stands for. My team won this time!---I've heard from many Trump supporters---and sorry, I know what it feels like to be on the losing side. The victory, the parade, and the fans' celebration is what makes them feel good. It helps them imagine they were out there on the playing field, not sitting on the couch having a beer. Watching. With a thumb on a smartphone.
Who can argue that the internet has great *potential* for advancing democracy? But the dumbing down of conversation, the short clips and videos, tweets, memes, etc., limits the potential. It's not identity politics and self-segregation (which has always been with us) that limits discourse, but the narcotic effect of the play-by-play action.
We've sunk to the point where many or most Americans treat a presidential election like the super bowl. It's all in the win and not what it stands for. My team won this time!---I've heard from many Trump supporters---and sorry, I know what it feels like to be on the losing side. The victory, the parade, and the fans' celebration is what makes them feel good. It helps them imagine they were out there on the playing field, not sitting on the couch having a beer. Watching. With a thumb on a smartphone.
1
Had "legacy news institutions" held fast to rules of journalistic impartiality and not turned to advocacy, more reliable sources would not have needed. "There is no governing body" is untrue. The American Public is the authority, as hatefully disagreeable as this is to the authoritarian left who believe they alone should decide what is and isn't to be heard or known.
1
This is one of the dumbest editorials I've read in awhile. Edsall refuses to acknowledge that the so-called left and right are even the same as they were "back in the day" when a shift back and forth was advantageous. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are the same as they were, infact, there are times when it is hard to tell the difference! The internet have helped more people to realize the failure of the two party system and have made more and more consider libertarianism. Someday we will see either a libertarian in the White House or at least a libertarian leaning individual. This Trump thing is just a slap in the face to the old standard. The internet certainly does NOT threaten democracy any more than true journalism does.
1
Yes, let's blame the Internet for the activities of the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and their ilk.
1
Sooooo... the internet threatens democracy because it gives people the freedom to say anything at any time and thus breaks the old media's stranglehold on information and control over who sees what? Sounds like another liberal journalist striking out against his ever increasing insignificance.
1
10 million cretins saying anything at any time are hardly the basis for a sound system of government.
2
What we still don't understand is HOW Trump trumps everybody!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats don't get it. The press doesn't get it.
Trump trumps everyone with his, "anything you can do, I can do better" instant messages. He trumps with his instant lies. and with instant threats.
Why is it that the Times, still does not get the power of INSTANT messages?
Your NY Times reporters have to fill a page with copy and so you ramble on an on, but you still haven't figured out Trump's INSTANT game, have you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who hesitates is... LOST!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats don't get it. The press doesn't get it.
Trump trumps everyone with his, "anything you can do, I can do better" instant messages. He trumps with his instant lies. and with instant threats.
Why is it that the Times, still does not get the power of INSTANT messages?
Your NY Times reporters have to fill a page with copy and so you ramble on an on, but you still haven't figured out Trump's INSTANT game, have you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who hesitates is... LOST!"
1
Very interesting...as law professor Perisly states, digital technology in the 2016 election "represents the latest chpter in the disintergration of legacy institutions that had set bounds for American politics in the postwar era." The idea that there was/is a vacuum between mainstream media and political party organizations is good to read as it explains a lot in terms of the rise of "unmediated, populist nationalism." That says a lot: How to mediate this when someone at the top of the leadership chain encourages it? Practices it? Revels in it? Thanks for this insightful and sobering look at today's world.
"Such a regime, in his view, would keep the trappings of democracy, including seemingly free elections, while leaders would control the election process, the media and the scope of permissible debate. “What you get is a country that is de facto less free.”"
This quote describes just how I view the standard operating procedures of the liberal left for the past 70 years.
Oh how they miss the days when most of the country was limited to 3 TV networks and a heavily left leaning press. It was so much easier to control the message and stifle opposing views in those good ole days.
This quote describes just how I view the standard operating procedures of the liberal left for the past 70 years.
Oh how they miss the days when most of the country was limited to 3 TV networks and a heavily left leaning press. It was so much easier to control the message and stifle opposing views in those good ole days.
Just because you don't get what you want, doesn't mean democracy failed. The internet is equalizing all voices - the essence of democracy. Yes, some are distasteful to me, and some seem ill-informed. But they deserve representation too, according to democratic ideals. One person, one vote. NOT a rule by elites.
1
A bit naive, I'm afraid. There is organized manipulation of the Internet pushing fake news, alternate facts, fake indecent comments and sources. And of course filtering of Google searches to put at the first items that pay, not items that are factual or important.
1
The population is ignorant and under-educated. That doesn't bode well for a democracy.
3
What the Internet has done, is raise the bar on both sides of the aisle. First, on political parties, by replacing instant one-way television, to multi-dimensional two-way communication. Second, on the electorate, where recipients of political messages not just possess unlimited means to parse, but also endorse and/or challenge or hear a combination of the two, before making-up minds. All in real time, all highly flux, until the next message gets beamed-down.
The problem is, both sides of the aisle are struggling to adapt to this new reality, which in theory actually works to perfect democracy, but also requires all parties to be completely comfortable with technology, mature, and also savvy-enough to separate wheat from chaff.
Of course we are not there yet, which means needles are swinging too wildly to our liking, mainly due to penetration of fake news and extreme viewpoints, again on both sides.
However, we have to assume these are temporary glitches on way to Democracy 2.0. The internet empowers everyone. At some point, only wheat will work, chaff best quelled at source. That's when things begin to get interesting.
How does President Trump figure in this ongoing evolution? Unlike Al Gore, he didn't discover the internet, but he did stumble on its yet-untapped power, and once thus-stumbled, never looked back. While Democrats (and this paper) clung to their worn 2008 big-data weapons, clueless that it had outlasted its usefulness.
To be continued in 2020.
The problem is, both sides of the aisle are struggling to adapt to this new reality, which in theory actually works to perfect democracy, but also requires all parties to be completely comfortable with technology, mature, and also savvy-enough to separate wheat from chaff.
Of course we are not there yet, which means needles are swinging too wildly to our liking, mainly due to penetration of fake news and extreme viewpoints, again on both sides.
However, we have to assume these are temporary glitches on way to Democracy 2.0. The internet empowers everyone. At some point, only wheat will work, chaff best quelled at source. That's when things begin to get interesting.
How does President Trump figure in this ongoing evolution? Unlike Al Gore, he didn't discover the internet, but he did stumble on its yet-untapped power, and once thus-stumbled, never looked back. While Democrats (and this paper) clung to their worn 2008 big-data weapons, clueless that it had outlasted its usefulness.
To be continued in 2020.
29
Hey, guess what...it took me less than a minute to find multiple & credible sources debunking the idea that Gore ever said he discovered/invented the Internet. And Trump didn't stumble into the Internet or its "untapped" power...the users of that power would be Bannon & all those (Russians? Macedonians? 400-lb. people sitting in their basements?) producing fake news stories to promote the clueless candidate. Of course, it's pretty obvious that there are plenty of clueless consumers of information who bought the stories hook, line, & sinker. As Trump would say, SAD!
1
Is TMK suggesting that facts are no longer of any use?
Or merely outdated as a method to convince the ignorant to follow in the leader's chosen direction?
Which is more absurd - and more dangerous?
Or merely outdated as a method to convince the ignorant to follow in the leader's chosen direction?
Which is more absurd - and more dangerous?
1
"At some point, only wheat will work"-- I see no reason to reach that conclusion, and you gave none. It turns out the chaff is much more useful to throw out there, and goes down so smooth and is so addictive, even if it gives us no nourishment and may ultimately kill us. Anyone who had the slightest interest in setting aside the chaff last year because they knew the wheat was good for them was free to do so. There was no such interest. What will change that? This is all so terribly amusing; apparently nothing else matters.
1
We saw the same type of reaction by the establishment to the invention of the printing press. Suddenly people could communicate outside the control of the power structure. So how did the power structure react? They burned people at the stake literally.
This attempt at suppressing communication will be just another footnote on the grave of the old establishment. The king's claim to have divine right to rule was revealed to be hogwash by the printing press. Now we are seeing that the traditional media has been nothing but hogwash.
I fully expect the establishment, and the Times is certainly a big part of that, to get violent in the extreme trying to prevent communication because it upsets their happy little system of raping and pillaging.
Welcome to the new reality. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You won't shut down real communication. Squawk all you want. In the end you will be remembered for the bullies you are.
This attempt at suppressing communication will be just another footnote on the grave of the old establishment. The king's claim to have divine right to rule was revealed to be hogwash by the printing press. Now we are seeing that the traditional media has been nothing but hogwash.
I fully expect the establishment, and the Times is certainly a big part of that, to get violent in the extreme trying to prevent communication because it upsets their happy little system of raping and pillaging.
Welcome to the new reality. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You won't shut down real communication. Squawk all you want. In the end you will be remembered for the bullies you are.
33
And yet, you elected a bully.
1
So we are getting the type of direct democracy that the founding fathers feared They of course feared it as it diminished the role of the wealthy educated elites who they thought should lead.
Certainly the decline of political parties as a gatekeeper to participation in politics.is hardly something to be mourned. They have become machines for raising money and the object of influence peddling.
The statement increased engagement through the internet does not favor the left because social media confuses and misleads the public is particularly cynical and condescending. It suggests the left is afraid of the great unwashed public
Certainly the decline of political parties as a gatekeeper to participation in politics.is hardly something to be mourned. They have become machines for raising money and the object of influence peddling.
The statement increased engagement through the internet does not favor the left because social media confuses and misleads the public is particularly cynical and condescending. It suggests the left is afraid of the great unwashed public
1
Maybe the controlling elites are crumbling but we need to look closely at what is rushing in to replace it. All evidence indicates we are substituting one exploitive power elite with another, except the new power elite isn't bothered by any stated moral principles and are even more difficult to influence then the old bunch. The internet is being hijacked by trolls and manipulators and if we don't figure it out, we will no longer be able to change it to a political system that acts for the good of all instead of the powerful few.
2
The internet turned rouge a long time ago. What can you expect from a media whose business model is stealing your data, Still the free for all has got to better than the old party system. Just look at the Democrats. Moral principles? Just look what the email hacks and FOIA requests uncovered. The whole nomination process is undemocratic with super-delegates and the DNC chair cheating in favor of the candidate who can raise the most money. The Republicans are just as bad with a few old white men picking a candidate in a smoke filled room.
I'll help out hte editorial board and researchers at the NYT with this issue. What is being discussed really has very little to do with the extremist side of what was posted on the internet. While it did play a small role, by FAR the largest problem was the opposing candidate. The MAJORITY of Trump voters voted for him because they didn't want a Clinton back in the highest office after remembering what that caused in the late 90's and what it was going to cause with years of e-mail scandal questions and issues. Top that off with the smugness of Obama toward the end of his presidency, basically just doing whatever he wanted, and you had an electorate that wanted anyone but her. Sanders would have won in a landslide, as would ANY other Dem candidate. You had almost no other options on that side, while 20 or more republicans ran. It's not that Trump was an amazing candidate backed by internet crazy people, it's that Hillary was so bad no one wanted her!
2
With the internet, we are no longer bound to MSM fake news! Unless one is a fascist, how is that a threat to democracy???
3
"The question now is who benefits more from the digital revolution and the ubiquity of social media, the left or the right?"
Clearly it was the Right. The right was already primed by entity's like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that has been making a nice living spewing propaganda and fake news. Winning the Presidency, at least in part, by fake news is the answer to the question.
Clearly it was the Right. The right was already primed by entity's like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that has been making a nice living spewing propaganda and fake news. Winning the Presidency, at least in part, by fake news is the answer to the question.
2
Thanks for another smart, informative column. I notice that the role of campaign finance does not appear in your discussion. Before Trump's campaign, the capture of the Democratic Party by wealthy donors was the main source of concern for those who want Democrats to represent the vast majority of Americans. See Thomas Frank's "Listen, Liberals." The internet's unmediated communication undercuts much of the financial pressure on candidates, even as it allows for the problems you describe. But I don't think the unmediated communication model that Trump so successfully used is the end of the story. It's obvious flaws are rapidly becoming well known, creating a demand for more trustworthy information. Solutions are on the way, and I think they include a more aggressive internet presence by the NY Times. Fox News has eaten the grey lady's lunch for too long.
1
Bullcr... it is the corrupt politician and his/her entitlement and the fact that they are becoming professional bureaucrats seated for the long run on the cushy chairs of power and self-serving interests that is destroying our democracy.
2
No, its unregulated capitalism that does the most to undermine both community and democracy.
The "back rooms" might not be smoke filled anymore (ISIS doesn't allow smoking, either) but deal making in them is alive and well. How does the author think the Democrats ended up with a losing ticket?
3
The author had me at "the Internet and social media disrupted and destroyed institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it."
Really? America had such constraints? Sounds like a reference to precisely the kind of regime the Left fears we may get under Trump...
Really? America had such constraints? Sounds like a reference to precisely the kind of regime the Left fears we may get under Trump...
1
The internet has endangered democracy by subverting the basic institutions of political parties and media.
It used to be that the political parties are built with activists who channel their energies by participating in the organizational structure of parties, gaining experience, and rising in rank and learning the political process along the way. Now people are energized through participating in social media, forsaking the often mundane work of effecting change by person-to-person engagement. The social media is very effective in fanning populism, but also in damaging the process of reasoned social activism.
The internet democratizes information, creating exponential amount of sharable information. Social media continues to gain its position as a major source of information. The fact that most of the information on social media is neither vetted nor filtered - often containing misinformation - means that it dilutes the truthfulness of media as a whole. The continuing decline in people's trust of the honesty of media greatly weakens media and free press as a foundation of our democracy.
It used to be that the political parties are built with activists who channel their energies by participating in the organizational structure of parties, gaining experience, and rising in rank and learning the political process along the way. Now people are energized through participating in social media, forsaking the often mundane work of effecting change by person-to-person engagement. The social media is very effective in fanning populism, but also in damaging the process of reasoned social activism.
The internet democratizes information, creating exponential amount of sharable information. Social media continues to gain its position as a major source of information. The fact that most of the information on social media is neither vetted nor filtered - often containing misinformation - means that it dilutes the truthfulness of media as a whole. The continuing decline in people's trust of the honesty of media greatly weakens media and free press as a foundation of our democracy.
2
Media Matters for America did an expose on Trump's recent false immigration claims---and found they came directly from right wing fringe media sites and groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, which have an agenda of distorting data. These outlets also discredit studies to further anti-immigrant agendas.
Trump does not use reliable sources, which is why he is so often incorrect with his so-called statistics on just about everything.
He above all abuses the Internet to create false news/fake facts.
It is fully embarrassing for the nation, and creates a misinformed populace.
It must be tough being a teacher these days, confronting such nonsense.
Trump does not use reliable sources, which is why he is so often incorrect with his so-called statistics on just about everything.
He above all abuses the Internet to create false news/fake facts.
It is fully embarrassing for the nation, and creates a misinformed populace.
It must be tough being a teacher these days, confronting such nonsense.
2
If only we could go back to the era when the sheep unquestioningly accepted whatever the MSM wrote.
4
This has some validity, but is lacking in two major insights: historical perspective, and also it completely ignores the forces which create the brew for the disturbance: the level of economic and social pain in a given society under different historical epochs. It's focused all on the means.
No mention of Yanis Varoufakis' fine essay - ahem, from 2014, here at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/yanis-varoufakis-can-internet-dem... - which worried that economics and economists, what William Greider has called our "modern thought police," were reducing the choices of voter's to only the narrowed and pre-approved policy changes which the 1% (and the top 20 percent meritocracy who make the system run) were comfortable with, which would have been a Jeb Bush- Hillary race, not a Trump-near Sanders one.
Don't forget, observers not allowed onto the Time's pages - Naomi Klein - for example, said that Trump won because his message - "All has gone to hell" - while exaggerated, was closer to what voters felt and believed than Clinton's
"All is well."
All through the rise of Trump, as early as 2015, I was reading Peter Fritzsche's "Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany." It's a road map on pre-1933 radicalization which is eerily close to this article, as long as one adjusts for the level of pain, which was far greater in Germany, 1918-1933, but the same forces at work: economic pain and social displacement.
No mention of Yanis Varoufakis' fine essay - ahem, from 2014, here at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/yanis-varoufakis-can-internet-dem... - which worried that economics and economists, what William Greider has called our "modern thought police," were reducing the choices of voter's to only the narrowed and pre-approved policy changes which the 1% (and the top 20 percent meritocracy who make the system run) were comfortable with, which would have been a Jeb Bush- Hillary race, not a Trump-near Sanders one.
Don't forget, observers not allowed onto the Time's pages - Naomi Klein - for example, said that Trump won because his message - "All has gone to hell" - while exaggerated, was closer to what voters felt and believed than Clinton's
"All is well."
All through the rise of Trump, as early as 2015, I was reading Peter Fritzsche's "Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany." It's a road map on pre-1933 radicalization which is eerily close to this article, as long as one adjusts for the level of pain, which was far greater in Germany, 1918-1933, but the same forces at work: economic pain and social displacement.
4
I just simply wonder whether you would have written this article had anyone but President Trump won. I just find this article yet another in a whole warehouse full of 'We can't believe we lost" articles. The democratic process was in full display during these elections. The internet puts, of course, another dimension. But I heard nothing about this in the 2014 elections, or, the 2012 elections - when the internet was also in full force. Certainly what is different is the full exposure of how compromised the MSM is. This is definitely due to the courage of independent media and investigative reporters not tied to corporate empires. And I say YEAH! Democracy lives and an independent media lives on!
3
In prior elections, different tools were used to sway the outcome. In 2004, for example, G.W. Bush won in part because the issue of gay marriage was placed on the ballots of 13 states, thus encouraging Catholic and other religious conservatives to turn out and vote. (My state of Maryland is the only state in the nation that has ever approved the issue by direct, citizens voting.) Had Bush lost the state of Ohio, he would not have had a second term in the W.H.
The "independent media" of which you write was part of an explosion of false information circulated eagerly and persistently on the Internet, particularly on Facebook. People believe this stuff. They read something that appears to confirm their bias and go, "Yeah!, just what I thought."
Working on a video documentary, I interviewed a woman in Frederick, Md., who insisted that Hillary and Bill Clinton had transferred over 1 billion dollars from the Clinton foundation to the middle east so that they would have money when she lost the election. She said, "This has been proven." On my return to my office, it took me less than five minutes to find out this was not true (it strained the mind to believe it in the first place).
You have been taught to distrust and hate the major media. As one who worked there for years, I can tell you this: at least those professionals are trying to honestly present information to you. "Independent media" in contrast is trying to gather information to push you in a certain direction.
The "independent media" of which you write was part of an explosion of false information circulated eagerly and persistently on the Internet, particularly on Facebook. People believe this stuff. They read something that appears to confirm their bias and go, "Yeah!, just what I thought."
Working on a video documentary, I interviewed a woman in Frederick, Md., who insisted that Hillary and Bill Clinton had transferred over 1 billion dollars from the Clinton foundation to the middle east so that they would have money when she lost the election. She said, "This has been proven." On my return to my office, it took me less than five minutes to find out this was not true (it strained the mind to believe it in the first place).
You have been taught to distrust and hate the major media. As one who worked there for years, I can tell you this: at least those professionals are trying to honestly present information to you. "Independent media" in contrast is trying to gather information to push you in a certain direction.
2
By enabling everyone to become a publisher, the Internet has changed the nature of information in ways we are only beginning to understand. Facts and opinions used to be mediated and vetted, and norms were imposed over what constituted acceptable conversation. 2016 made it clear how much this has changed. In the case of #BlackLivesMatter, it brought welcome attention to an issue that the media had not sufficiently covered. But in the case of Trump, it has allowed all manner of uninformed nonsense to become part of the national conversation. A part of this is overdue -- for instance, meaningful conversations about trade's effects on workers, or the failure of American wars, or the effects of immigration -- but too much of it is woefully unmoored from facts.
We can undo Trump, but I'm not sure how we can undo this change.
We can undo Trump, but I'm not sure how we can undo this change.
3
What I learned during this years election and after Trump got in, is that much of America is populated by racist, xenophobic jerks. We are, basically, a country filled with A-holes, and the internet has given these A-holes power. The Republicans have been tending to this base of jerks for years, but now they have lost control and Trumpism has taken over. It seems likely that the Democrats are now energized enough to beat them back in two years, but that is yet to been seen. In the meantime, we have to put up with this crap for another 2 years. And, sadly, many of us have discovered that there is a vast swath of hateful, uneducated, xenophobic jerks out there who will never change. Lincoln was wrong: We should have let the South secede.
8
Agree, but it certainly wasn't just the South that gave Trump his victory.
1
What this all proves is that every technological advance has the brain and soul of man in it. Nuclear power or nuclear war, chemicals to cure illness or chemicals to kill opponents, electronic lights or electronic chairs?
The same is true of the internet. It is so new that we were blindsided in thinking that is was all so democratic, so individualistic, so anti-government. But it is also the incubator of ignorance, the tool of mass dumbness, of zombies who look at Instagram all day and never read a book.
More ominously it sweeps up hate and broadcasts it worldwide. Yet, remarkably, it has also shown police brutality on phones, and brought daylight to events once hidden by reactionary authorities.
Humanity is now living under the The Lord Internet, believers and non-believers alike.
The same is true of the internet. It is so new that we were blindsided in thinking that is was all so democratic, so individualistic, so anti-government. But it is also the incubator of ignorance, the tool of mass dumbness, of zombies who look at Instagram all day and never read a book.
More ominously it sweeps up hate and broadcasts it worldwide. Yet, remarkably, it has also shown police brutality on phones, and brought daylight to events once hidden by reactionary authorities.
Humanity is now living under the The Lord Internet, believers and non-believers alike.
7
The internet has simply exacerbated the free ice cream problem. For the last 50 years elections have been about what can the government give me. Whoever promises the most free ice cream wins. Seldom do we look to the character of the person running; instead we ask how they can solve my personal ill. The government can't fix social problems and should not be in the business of solving social problems. That is up to society and the individual. As long as we look to government mandates as the solution we will continue to revolve problems from one side of the aisle to the other. Return to limited constitutional government and let the different societies in the individual state address their own problems.
1
Sounsd like more whining and excuse making for the Hillary loss. Y'all don't like not being the gate keepers of information and final arbiters of truth, do you?
2
One threat to democracy exists because the public gets their information
from one source. Socrates said you should thank people for showing you alternative views. We are trained to mock and shun them.
How many of you got some news from a source opposed to your traditional views today?
The other threat exists because the public does not consider it their responsibility to educate themselves about the issues of the day.
from one source. Socrates said you should thank people for showing you alternative views. We are trained to mock and shun them.
How many of you got some news from a source opposed to your traditional views today?
The other threat exists because the public does not consider it their responsibility to educate themselves about the issues of the day.
2
Edsall is correct in identifying the trends, but not in his cause and effect analysis.
Let history be our guide. The printing press did not create but exacerbated and accelerated trends towards the Protestant Reformation, capitalism and democracy.
If the internet has done anything, it has done the same for economic and political trends -- religious if you want to use a broad concept for belief systems such as nativism and nationalism -- in this era.
For liberals, (in its classic not political party sense) that is not a good direction. Any effort to stem its tide will be weakened by confusing the medium with the message, however.
The preferred path would be for liberal societies to get serious about updating the legal and social norm structures that are lagging behind market and technological developments with the fundamental notions of free markets, free speech and republican (in the classic, not political sense) citizenship front and center of those reforms.
Let history be our guide. The printing press did not create but exacerbated and accelerated trends towards the Protestant Reformation, capitalism and democracy.
If the internet has done anything, it has done the same for economic and political trends -- religious if you want to use a broad concept for belief systems such as nativism and nationalism -- in this era.
For liberals, (in its classic not political party sense) that is not a good direction. Any effort to stem its tide will be weakened by confusing the medium with the message, however.
The preferred path would be for liberal societies to get serious about updating the legal and social norm structures that are lagging behind market and technological developments with the fundamental notions of free markets, free speech and republican (in the classic, not political sense) citizenship front and center of those reforms.
Countries where the government does serve the people and bribing politicians is illegal (lobbying and wealthy donors contributing millions of dollars to campaigns) don't have a huge problem with the internet interfering in their democracy. Fringe movements may start to become more visible to the general public due to the internet, but they remain fringe. In the USA one of the fringe movements somehow gained control. This is precisely because our democracy has been bought and decades ago people decided they wanted to watch "infotainment" instead of real news. It is hard to force people to read and listen to real news, but we could try and get campaign finance reform legislated. Nothing will get better for us until we get the money out of politics.
One tires of this good-old-days-before-X-was-invented fantasy. It's gimmicky journalism. Put the violin down, Rome is burning. The Republican party is the threat to democracy, and their equivalent fascists in countries all over the world. The internet didn't make humans any worse any more than the steam engine, or the radio, or the telephone did. We have always been awful.Some of us worse than others. Some of us are even criminals and are in power now. Keep your eye on the ball here and appoint an independent, bipartisan, outside commission to investigate the Trump political, personal and financial connections to the Russians. We can discuss the role of the internet some other time.
3
Apparently you don't understand what free speech is about. It's about speaking freely, even if your views are disgusting and atrocious. Our ability to have a true Democracy is stronger now because of the internet and social media. You may not like who a lot of your fellow countrymen are, but this country is their country as much as it is your own. We each have one vote to cast and Democracy isn't "threatened" because you don't like the outcome of the election or because the establishment powers that be in the smoke filled back rooms are no longer able to effectively control the dialogue.
2
There are actually limits to "free" speech - and all of them involve the kinds of harm that can result from whatever the "speech" is. Secondly, yes, we do all have one vote. However, mine hasn't counted for twenty years...because I live in a state where I am the minority party - and thanks to the still "smoke-filled rooms," and gerrymandering of Republicans. If that isn't control, I don't know what is. Some republic/democracy.
Democracy is threatened by voter suppression, fake news and the unconscionable meddling of government institutions like the FBI in the electoral process. Democracy can survive the internet. Whether it can survive the direct, ongoing assault by anti-democratic forces is an open question.
1
The internet is new and powerful and nobody really knows the extent to which it will drive us into a less democratic and fractured society. We can get a clue from the power that the Fox network has acquired. It used to be that broadcast networks had to be balanced. No more. Mainstream media has a pretty low approval rating from the general population. But it is they who produce news and their stories are edited and fact checked. How much easier it is to create your own blog and type away anything you feel like writing. No checks at all. And with the internet you can monetize your 'facts' and opinions. It is a win win.
Meanwhile newspapers are fighting for ad revenue so they can pay for actual newspeople who write actual news and most of whom probably studied journalism in college. How not of the moment. Facebook rakes in tons of money without having to produce anything. They know what you want and give it to you. Not much challenge there to either the 'producers' or the users. Many conservative newspapers threw their editorial support to the Democratic candidate for president, many for the first time. Did it help? No, because newspapers are not as esteemed and trusted the way they were before the internet. So much easier to go to your favorite site and suck up all the unsubstantiated news you want that makes you feel good and superior. The internet is an insidious medium and we are just a the dawn of this new reality.
Meanwhile newspapers are fighting for ad revenue so they can pay for actual newspeople who write actual news and most of whom probably studied journalism in college. How not of the moment. Facebook rakes in tons of money without having to produce anything. They know what you want and give it to you. Not much challenge there to either the 'producers' or the users. Many conservative newspapers threw their editorial support to the Democratic candidate for president, many for the first time. Did it help? No, because newspapers are not as esteemed and trusted the way they were before the internet. So much easier to go to your favorite site and suck up all the unsubstantiated news you want that makes you feel good and superior. The internet is an insidious medium and we are just a the dawn of this new reality.
1
Thanks to the Internet, I can clearly discern that the author is blind and foolish. A corrupt monopoly like the NYT always hates entrepreneurs because its chokehold on power, wealth and the truth is being broken. The NYT is the recipient of a glorious beat down, metaphorically speaking, and it should tap out and give up its lying ways.
2
"...established institutions — particularly, the mainstream media and political party organizations — have lost most of their power..."
I'd like to read Nathaniel Persily's paper. I couldn't agree more. You can watch the their sweat beading too.
Samuel Issacharoff is a little more off though.
"Neither party appeared to have a mechanism of internal correction."
Bernie Sanders still lost. His defeat was partially his own fault but largely connected to existing barriers imposed by the Democratic party. By contrast, the Republican winner-take-all system enabled rather than inhibited Trump's ascendancy. I agree both parties were surprisingly vulnerable to hijacking though.
Clay Shirky is right on points one and three. I'm less confident about point number two. The internet's impact on information versus coordination is debatable. Yes. You now have one digital media instead of an assortment of medias. However, a person's interaction with that media is largely contingent on preference. Those who are predisposed to engage will engage but they probably would have done so anyway. Other people won't ever post a comment in their life even if they read reviews. In that case, the influence exists but not necessarily the personal agency. The degree in difference and the trend over time are interesting questions to ask.
Last but not least, Sam Greene poses one of the most interesting concepts in my opinion. I might write a whole second comment on his statement alone.
I'd like to read Nathaniel Persily's paper. I couldn't agree more. You can watch the their sweat beading too.
Samuel Issacharoff is a little more off though.
"Neither party appeared to have a mechanism of internal correction."
Bernie Sanders still lost. His defeat was partially his own fault but largely connected to existing barriers imposed by the Democratic party. By contrast, the Republican winner-take-all system enabled rather than inhibited Trump's ascendancy. I agree both parties were surprisingly vulnerable to hijacking though.
Clay Shirky is right on points one and three. I'm less confident about point number two. The internet's impact on information versus coordination is debatable. Yes. You now have one digital media instead of an assortment of medias. However, a person's interaction with that media is largely contingent on preference. Those who are predisposed to engage will engage but they probably would have done so anyway. Other people won't ever post a comment in their life even if they read reviews. In that case, the influence exists but not necessarily the personal agency. The degree in difference and the trend over time are interesting questions to ask.
Last but not least, Sam Greene poses one of the most interesting concepts in my opinion. I might write a whole second comment on his statement alone.
1
"This may be the clearest condemnation of why progress is not always an admirable goal." Thus quote is by the horse buggy industry head in 1898 when the first horseless carriage was involved in a fender bender rear end hit.
Mr. Edsall, pardon the expression, is out of his mind, if he thinks the future will be any less civil based on the accessibility and reach of the internet. The internet collisions of our day will be dealt with just fine thank you. It's called having faith in the "rational man".
Mr. Edsall, pardon the expression, is out of his mind, if he thinks the future will be any less civil based on the accessibility and reach of the internet. The internet collisions of our day will be dealt with just fine thank you. It's called having faith in the "rational man".
Shakespeare may provide the most modern commentary on our condition: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…” We blame the media for everything since obviously and with great certainty we just know that we cannot be the source of the problem—whatever the problem may be.
The fault is not in democracy, but in how we work within it. There is so much ‘news’ out there that we cannot process it all. So …. we pick one source and ignore all else, thereby violating the first rule of good democratic citizenship: be informed. We have the task of studying the sources and drawing conclusions from their sum, not just from one source. We need help in doing this. We need education and effort.
Physics has long been thought to be the science of certainty. Everything works like the balls on a pool table. To the regret of many practitioners, uncertainty and probabilities have entered their field when they study the very small world of sub-atomic phenomena and the very large world of the universe. What exists within the atom, within a quark? How big and old is the universe? Today’s certainties become tomorrow’s questions and are thrown out by Friday’s findings. The problems of physics and the workings of democracy are not so different.
The fault is not in democracy, but in how we work within it. There is so much ‘news’ out there that we cannot process it all. So …. we pick one source and ignore all else, thereby violating the first rule of good democratic citizenship: be informed. We have the task of studying the sources and drawing conclusions from their sum, not just from one source. We need help in doing this. We need education and effort.
Physics has long been thought to be the science of certainty. Everything works like the balls on a pool table. To the regret of many practitioners, uncertainty and probabilities have entered their field when they study the very small world of sub-atomic phenomena and the very large world of the universe. What exists within the atom, within a quark? How big and old is the universe? Today’s certainties become tomorrow’s questions and are thrown out by Friday’s findings. The problems of physics and the workings of democracy are not so different.
4
Because ordinary people are pushing aside the establishment elites to get their own views represented for a change this is a failure of democracy?
So you must therefore define democracy as rule by elites rather than the people? Do you even have the faintest clue what the actual dictionary definition of democracy is?
The hypocracy and ignorance of this article is literally painful to me; I winced several times while reading it.
So you must therefore define democracy as rule by elites rather than the people? Do you even have the faintest clue what the actual dictionary definition of democracy is?
The hypocracy and ignorance of this article is literally painful to me; I winced several times while reading it.
3
Well. It's certainly a good thing that we were created a Republic. Sadly, populists have eroded the Republican nature of our government over time. We are on track to Idiocracy, where the poorly formed opinions of the uneducated and ill informed mob directly drive policy decisions instead of selected representatives of the people.
Oh, wait... you thought the United States was a Democracy? My point exactly.
Oh, wait... you thought the United States was a Democracy? My point exactly.
3
If you ask Bernie supporters, you'll find great appreciation for the democratization of information. There's a train of thought out there that more info is better than less; maybe held by those not holding a disdain for the intellect of the public at large. It seems some on the left, increasingly finding themselves more in the center, are in want of manipulating the public's viewpoints vs providing them the information to decide for themselves. The Russian "hack" only revealed this truth (Pied Piper Strategy) and the fact the Russians used our own freedom of speech to reveal it being undermined by a major party is what really is remarkable and unforgivable to this group of establishment career politicians.
In terms of the damages technology can wreak on our people and planet, the internet isn't even in the top ten. I'm more worried about the financialization of everything and quite possibly the elimination of paper currency. At that point, the government has complete control and we're all at risk against authoritarianism. We're not too far away.
In terms of the damages technology can wreak on our people and planet, the internet isn't even in the top ten. I'm more worried about the financialization of everything and quite possibly the elimination of paper currency. At that point, the government has complete control and we're all at risk against authoritarianism. We're not too far away.
3
The Founding Fathers very much anticipated the tyranny of the mob and the practice of the 'small art' of publicity and self-promotion by politicians. And they specifically built in safeguards against it. Problem is : our republic has thus far lacked the political will to deploy these safeguards (looking at you Electoral College).
So once again, the trail away from
Democracy traces back to the cave of the GOP leadership - people who refuse to rein in the fringes of conservatism for the greater sake of the country.
So once again, the trail away from
Democracy traces back to the cave of the GOP leadership - people who refuse to rein in the fringes of conservatism for the greater sake of the country.
9
In England in 1381 the peasants revolted against the government citing socio-economic and political tensions. It seems our generalized stereotype of peasants as ignorant and submissive people is slightly overblown. Some of them, not a lot but some, could read. They learned what was happening in relation to the Black Death and the high taxes due to the Hundred Year's War, and it seems they had enough of the current leadership pulling the wool over the eyes of the English citizens. The revolt had a significant impact on the war. Today we have the internet in a world where 99% of the wealth is held by the top 1% of the population. People are talking, debating, and looking for answers to their problems. People don't like what they see. Welcome to 1381Part II - We're Mad As Hell, And We're Not Going To Take It.
5
There is one other unsettling explanation: the fact that the "common man" may be quite often just a cretin who has valid grievances but who is easily duped and brainwashed into supporting evil. And by "common man" I also refer to professionals and middle class who have means and some education but who never learned to think critically, past the hold of their emotions, racism and hatred. How else can you explain Hitler and Trump?? And many other smaller versions of the same evil.
Good for Mr. Edsall. He's one of the few on these pages who provides food for thought instead of howling at the moon
1
"what many feared and some hoped"
The vast numbers who have leaped at the chance suggests the hope side was much bigger. They've invested their time and energy in vast quantities, showing by doing exactly what they hoped for.
Where is this less popular? Among those who lost something. Those who lost control of the national narrative, a control once near absolute, and now merely the first draft of something that is rewritten within the hour.
The exception among those who might have lost is those who are followed, who offer better ideas.
Unfortunately, another exception is the partisan elite, who offer raw emotional bait. They too get a big following, one which before could not react and so did not reward them.
The best editors would be building their brand with the good ideas types, rather than the rabid partisan types. I don't see much of that. When found, it tends to be a growing alternative media, as the established outlets do instead what seems easier.
The vast numbers who have leaped at the chance suggests the hope side was much bigger. They've invested their time and energy in vast quantities, showing by doing exactly what they hoped for.
Where is this less popular? Among those who lost something. Those who lost control of the national narrative, a control once near absolute, and now merely the first draft of something that is rewritten within the hour.
The exception among those who might have lost is those who are followed, who offer better ideas.
Unfortunately, another exception is the partisan elite, who offer raw emotional bait. They too get a big following, one which before could not react and so did not reward them.
The best editors would be building their brand with the good ideas types, rather than the rabid partisan types. I don't see much of that. When found, it tends to be a growing alternative media, as the established outlets do instead what seems easier.
1
Well, to say the internet is acting directly against democracy is an exaggeration, for the simple reason that democracy is the power of the majority, it doesn't relate to the fact if this majority is manipulated or not, more educated or not.
What I agree is that this narrative that internet has democratized knowledge and make people more educated and/or smarter is Western propaganda (mostly against China and North Korea, countries that officially censor certain websites, although for completely different reasons, but are enemies of the USA and Western Civilization in general).
For example, in 2015, Brazilians spent 1010 hours in the internet per month. Remarkable rate, but not so remarkable when we see more than two thirds (650 hours) were spent in social networks (78% in Facebook). Three out of four advertisements in the internet in Brazil were in social networks (Mark Zuckerberg's golden goose). 90% of all time Brazilians spent on the internet in 2015 were in smartphones.
So it's a myth the internet is making the people more educated or smart. People are not, on average, absorbing knowledge in the internet, even though there is a lot of knowledge avaiable there.
[source: http://blog.aotopo.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Futuro-Digital-do-B...]
What I agree is that this narrative that internet has democratized knowledge and make people more educated and/or smarter is Western propaganda (mostly against China and North Korea, countries that officially censor certain websites, although for completely different reasons, but are enemies of the USA and Western Civilization in general).
For example, in 2015, Brazilians spent 1010 hours in the internet per month. Remarkable rate, but not so remarkable when we see more than two thirds (650 hours) were spent in social networks (78% in Facebook). Three out of four advertisements in the internet in Brazil were in social networks (Mark Zuckerberg's golden goose). 90% of all time Brazilians spent on the internet in 2015 were in smartphones.
So it's a myth the internet is making the people more educated or smart. People are not, on average, absorbing knowledge in the internet, even though there is a lot of knowledge avaiable there.
[source: http://blog.aotopo.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Futuro-Digital-do-B...]
The internet threatens democracy in the same manner the invention of the printing press or radio threatens democracy.
It doesn't. Not at all. Thomas Edsall can use big words but has the emotions and intellect of a child.
It doesn't. Not at all. Thomas Edsall can use big words but has the emotions and intellect of a child.
5
I would add to this analysis two other negative consequences the internet has imposed on our political system: 1) the internet fosters tribalism---we now all can spend the day accessing sites that fuel our "confirmation bias; 2) the overwhelming amount of of information coming at consumers each day neuters any form of critical inquiry. Both tribalism and uncritical thought are deadly to a democracy.
1
so a political system with more than 2 parties (i.e., tribalism) is a threat to democracy (and one more than the lack of competition in the political sphere)?
1
The internet IS democracy (mob rule)... Luckily in the US our forefathers had the vision to install a Constitutional Republic, which is not a democracy.
2
"They are contributing — perhaps irreversibly — to the decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints in American politics". There has never been moral or ethical constraints. A free media is essential to a democracy, a free media with an agenda is no longer a media but a propaganda machine. The internet has been a tool this election to show how much the media now has become the propaganda arm for political parties to lead the American people whom you saw in the article referred to as "unwashed masses". By that statement alone it shows what level the media and academia think of the majority of the American people. Are we, the American people, sheeple? As they think are we to be lead, too blindly believe what we are told by those who have had the platform in the past? Those people whose only true intent is to help a specific party rule over us, and not work for us as they were elected to do! The internet maybe flawed but it is far less flawed than the MSM and our political parties.
1
A dangerously intrusive and effective method of cyber based mind control was developed by Robert Mercer, the billionaire supporter of Donald Trump. I also question Mercer's involvement with the Russians....
Social media can further reason and truth as well as emotion and hog wallow, Currently the latter dominates, hands down -- which probably confirms Churchill's famous comment about a five minute chat with an average voter.
1
Unmentioned in discussions of the politicized internet is the threat of hyper-democracy, where instant communication between leaders/organizers and the various bases comes ever closer to mass, instantaneous, i.e., unconsidered voting. The Founders were unanimous in their fear of this in the abstract.
3
THIS requires a fully-considered and well-researched separate article. I generally support fuller democratic access to all at all levels of society but if voters don't inform themselves adequately of both sides of the question or candidate, it could damage that very same democracy. This isn't elitism, it's fact.
Example: LATimes did a story on a woman in Florida with a sick family member dependent on ACA insurance. She voted for Trump but is now worried he may actually destroy the very insurance she needs. When asked why she voted for a man who vocally threatened her insurance, she responded, "I didn't think he was serious." Had she researched the very recent insurance-threatening actions of the party with which he aligned himself and then researched Clinton and the Democratic Party, she would have seen a definite trend line with Clinton that favored her insurance interests. Some may say that they voted for Trump rather than Republicans. Again, with basic understanding of how government works, it'd be obvious that the president can't do too much without Congress, which is Republican-dominated. A vote for Trump IS a vote for anti-ACA Republican ideology, no matter how you spin it.
As another commenter here said, citizenship in a democracy is hard work and without that work, it means little. This is why the Founders worried about the threat uneducated, ill-informed, and flat-out lazy citizens present to a well-functioning democracy. And I share that unease as well.
Example: LATimes did a story on a woman in Florida with a sick family member dependent on ACA insurance. She voted for Trump but is now worried he may actually destroy the very insurance she needs. When asked why she voted for a man who vocally threatened her insurance, she responded, "I didn't think he was serious." Had she researched the very recent insurance-threatening actions of the party with which he aligned himself and then researched Clinton and the Democratic Party, she would have seen a definite trend line with Clinton that favored her insurance interests. Some may say that they voted for Trump rather than Republicans. Again, with basic understanding of how government works, it'd be obvious that the president can't do too much without Congress, which is Republican-dominated. A vote for Trump IS a vote for anti-ACA Republican ideology, no matter how you spin it.
As another commenter here said, citizenship in a democracy is hard work and without that work, it means little. This is why the Founders worried about the threat uneducated, ill-informed, and flat-out lazy citizens present to a well-functioning democracy. And I share that unease as well.
2
One more brick in the Fake News Wall.
Only an totalitarian elitist would believe that MORE information is a barrier to Democracy.
Only an totalitarian elitist would believe that MORE information is a barrier to Democracy.
4
Our representative democracy was stifled before the internet because leaders only heard from those funded their campaigns. I see more activism and soon these voices will be organized to confront the danger we meet today from King Trump and his Court. There is always a dark side to technology, in this case the internet can be used to reach more people and "persuade" them that their view on democracy is the only one. Propaganda machines have been created to exploit weaknesses many times in human history.
We need to accept that humans are vulnerable to attack not only by physical means but also by psychological tactics. (Many historians have tried to reach a consensus about why Germans were led so easily by the Hitler Regime.) The internet works it's magic every day, one can reach someone in Pakistan and chat about the horrible conditions in both countries or about the weather. Perhaps a Web 101 should have be taught in public schools to alert children on how to collect data and information from the Web. The internet is supposed to be a communication tool. Now it is being used as a propaganda machine to spout what is on everyone's mind and some of those thoughts can be lethal.
Let us not panic, soon the internet will fade into the fads category and something else will take it's place. Democracy will endure only if we decide it will.
We need to accept that humans are vulnerable to attack not only by physical means but also by psychological tactics. (Many historians have tried to reach a consensus about why Germans were led so easily by the Hitler Regime.) The internet works it's magic every day, one can reach someone in Pakistan and chat about the horrible conditions in both countries or about the weather. Perhaps a Web 101 should have be taught in public schools to alert children on how to collect data and information from the Web. The internet is supposed to be a communication tool. Now it is being used as a propaganda machine to spout what is on everyone's mind and some of those thoughts can be lethal.
Let us not panic, soon the internet will fade into the fads category and something else will take it's place. Democracy will endure only if we decide it will.
1
The Catholic Church discouraged its parishioners from reading the Bible in the Dark Ages, accomplishing as much by discouraging them to learn to read. It wanted only its priests to have access to God's word so that only its priests could interpret what it meant.
Martin Luther, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment broke the Church's stranglehold on truth. Indeed, as Galileo whispered, "It moves", no matter how forcefully the Church claimed otherwise.
Would Edsall prefer that politics return to something akin to a geocentric model, where only political parties and their pundits (i.e., hacks and shills) are allowed to proffer opinions on politics? Probably so, considering that political punditry is what Edsall does.
It's always hard, perhaps impossible, for a man to see things in a way that impairs his own interests. Which is why the democratization of information that the internet affords is so necessary and important.
Martin Luther, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment broke the Church's stranglehold on truth. Indeed, as Galileo whispered, "It moves", no matter how forcefully the Church claimed otherwise.
Would Edsall prefer that politics return to something akin to a geocentric model, where only political parties and their pundits (i.e., hacks and shills) are allowed to proffer opinions on politics? Probably so, considering that political punditry is what Edsall does.
It's always hard, perhaps impossible, for a man to see things in a way that impairs his own interests. Which is why the democratization of information that the internet affords is so necessary and important.
4
the printing press unleashed learning and freedom (on a net basis). The internet has done the same (on a net basis).
The problem is not the technology, but rather the people with fingers to keyboard, mouse, touchpad, phone, camera. The assumption was that by putting these technologies in the hands of reasonable, intelligent people, we would increase the power of rational discourse and decrease the power of vested interests. But aside from reach, when did this ever occur? In 399 BCE, Socrates presented a reasonable defense of his right to free speech before the Council of 500. The wonder was that he convinced 220. The rest voted to execute, based on emotional, self-serving, irrational positions. Did we think that by expanding the 500 to 7 billion, we would simultaneously replace the underlying human element in evidence the past 2500 years?
We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. The only hope is to educate those using technology to be critical, both of what they read, see and hear and to act in accordance with that critical perspective. Sadly, what we have seen over the past year is that millions are too lazy or gullible to do that, and one party finds it in its interest not to educate them to see otherwise.
We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. The only hope is to educate those using technology to be critical, both of what they read, see and hear and to act in accordance with that critical perspective. Sadly, what we have seen over the past year is that millions are too lazy or gullible to do that, and one party finds it in its interest not to educate them to see otherwise.
3
We get it.
Traditional print and broadcast media want's to keep their monopoly on information.
Too bad.
Traditional print and broadcast media want's to keep their monopoly on information.
Too bad.
4
No. Fears about the internet, social media, fake news, conspiracy incubators, foreign interference, etc. are just a smoke screen for concerns that people will just not vote the "right" way.
As long as our elections are essentially accurate and honest--which I believe despite the right's boogeyman of voter fraud and the left's whine about disenfranchisement--our democracy functions just fine.
I also get a whiff of condescension and whispers about limiting democracy to "qualified" voters. Now that would be a threat.
As long as our elections are essentially accurate and honest--which I believe despite the right's boogeyman of voter fraud and the left's whine about disenfranchisement--our democracy functions just fine.
I also get a whiff of condescension and whispers about limiting democracy to "qualified" voters. Now that would be a threat.
3
Voter fraud is factually undocumented, fake news. Voter suppression is a well documented, on-going, anti-democratic effort of the GOP. The voter fraud fraud is only a threat to the extent it is used to justify voter suppression.
The Internet is a marvellous digital instrument to spread information, and even knowledge when our education is good enough to understand that difference. Trouble is, too much information does not equate freedom nor justice or even common sense, and certainly not fairness or ethics, and leasst of all wisdom. The profusion of information 'out there' is similar to the famous phrase 'biting off more than we can chew', where it is easy to get lost, be misled (fake news), get indoctrinated, and even instructed not only in legal/useful things but also harmful tools for destruction. Imagine yourself entering s shoe store where the options are excessive (say 50 brands), instead of a dozen (even that is too much for some of us), where leaving the store may be the next best thing to keep our sanity. Now go to the Internet, unprepared, and meet thousands of options (and the lethal propaganda that goes with it, proud consumption society?); enough to feel at a loss and more confused, if not ignorant, about what to do. If this situation isn't enough to alter our 'politics', and democracy, and our community values, and not in a good way, you tell me!
The internet threatens only people and organization who wish to themselves threaten or curtail free human expression. I would suggest that whatever Edsall envisions as as "Democracy" actually threatens the internet as seen through recent attempts at control by the FCC. Thankfully, that has come to an end --for now.
2
If someone tells you that the unregulated exchange of information is anti-democratic then they are a fascist...
10
exactly, this is the problem with this argument. It is all fine unless the "wrong" candidate wins. Then it becomes satanic. Nevermind that Trump's opponent was very lame herself and played a very important role in her own defeat. If there would have been a Democrat that was a real candidate Trump would have been crushed like a bug. But thanks to the nomination of someone incredibly disliked by about 20%-30% of voters the election is lost. Lesson: nominate someone who can actually win.
A chimp could have beaten Trump. yet Clinton could not. Now there is talk of bringing her in for another round instead of going with someone totally new.
A chimp could have beaten Trump. yet Clinton could not. Now there is talk of bringing her in for another round instead of going with someone totally new.
1
Thank you for this insight. My reasoning for Trump's election was just that there are a LOT of stupid people in the USA. But your insight makes sense. That group of people always existed here, but now they can easily be swayed by what they see on social media on the Internet. It's more personal, and it's directed to them, and it's in their simple language and way of thinking. Reading the New York Times is no longer necessary to find out who they should vote for.
4
After Brexit and Trump, the message should perhaps also be that nations with effectively an exclusive two-party system are particularly vulnerable to being hijacked by the internet.
When people are forced to choose between two alternatives, two thing can happen. They either abstain or pinch their nose and go for the option that they find most in tune with their particular hot-button issue.
In that climate, where party loyalty has evaporated and is being or has been replaced by convenience and short-term expediency, the impact of stories circulating via the internet of social media are increasingly more likely to find credence and to sway people.
After all, who in the US can summarize in a single paragraph what either the Republicans or the Democrats stand for? What is their unifying project, other than trying to gain as many seats in as many legislatures as they can? Unfortunately, the Republicans being more right wing and, hence, less googly-eyed about human potential, have over the past decades succeeded in loading the dice... So, what Thomas Edsall describes is broadly speaking true, but more likely to hurt the Democrats.
It may be a harsh lesson to absorb, but the average voter is not interested in politics and even less inclined (or capable) to understand mid- or long-term consequences. Put a simple message before him that shifts blame for any unpleasantness he may be feeling to "the other" and he will vote for you. And live to regret it (and repeat it).
When people are forced to choose between two alternatives, two thing can happen. They either abstain or pinch their nose and go for the option that they find most in tune with their particular hot-button issue.
In that climate, where party loyalty has evaporated and is being or has been replaced by convenience and short-term expediency, the impact of stories circulating via the internet of social media are increasingly more likely to find credence and to sway people.
After all, who in the US can summarize in a single paragraph what either the Republicans or the Democrats stand for? What is their unifying project, other than trying to gain as many seats in as many legislatures as they can? Unfortunately, the Republicans being more right wing and, hence, less googly-eyed about human potential, have over the past decades succeeded in loading the dice... So, what Thomas Edsall describes is broadly speaking true, but more likely to hurt the Democrats.
It may be a harsh lesson to absorb, but the average voter is not interested in politics and even less inclined (or capable) to understand mid- or long-term consequences. Put a simple message before him that shifts blame for any unpleasantness he may be feeling to "the other" and he will vote for you. And live to regret it (and repeat it).
7
It may be a harsh lesson to absorb, but the average voter is not interested in politics and even less inclined (or capable) to understand mid- or long-term consequences. Put a simple message before him that shifts blame for any unpleasantness he may be feeling to "the other" and he will vote for you. And live to regret it (and repeat it).
or the typical voter is sick of the same "establishment", right or left, that is more than willing to throw them under the bus. Hopefully more competition in the political sphere will mitigate this propensity of both parties (both of whom have been captured by many of the same interests [i.e, financial interests, the wealthy, etc.])
or the typical voter is sick of the same "establishment", right or left, that is more than willing to throw them under the bus. Hopefully more competition in the political sphere will mitigate this propensity of both parties (both of whom have been captured by many of the same interests [i.e, financial interests, the wealthy, etc.])
1
The internet threatens the status quo. That's what upsets "establishment" forces.
10
Pandora's Box. A few of us have been around since the ARPA net was used by universities and engineering laboratories. It is a useful tool in knowledgeable hands. It is dangerous in the rest. Everything is accelerated on a exponential scale - faster than human users can digest the data. There is no magic in any of this and it could have been managed responsibly. Instead, it became a huge money maker for a few. Atomic power was managed carefully because it's devastating power was so obvious. The Internet is actually more threatening because it effects the entire human activity in ways not imaginable - it plays directly into the hands of those who would do harm for personal gain. It warps the human psychology. Dazzling, drug-like. Pandora's Box.
1
It's not just the participants. It's the Bots!
Trolls, Bots... when the history of this past election I see finally written, I feel sure we will learn how Clinton was weakened by Bots, pretending to be Bernie Sanders supporters, etc. after that it was Bot supporters for the third party candidates. And Bots for trump.
Thank you Mr. Edsel for your excellent reporting. Keep it up! For sure you're not a Bot!
Trolls, Bots... when the history of this past election I see finally written, I feel sure we will learn how Clinton was weakened by Bots, pretending to be Bernie Sanders supporters, etc. after that it was Bot supporters for the third party candidates. And Bots for trump.
Thank you Mr. Edsel for your excellent reporting. Keep it up! For sure you're not a Bot!
1
I fear greatly for the future of our democracy. The problem is that the internet allows anyone to post anything with no accounting for their credentials, or knowledge. The vast majority of people have NO idea of what they speak, and yet they spout off their opinions based on false or anecdotal information, and others take it for truth and spread it virally. This has had the additional effect of minimizing the importance of credentials, education and experience in evaluating issues, in favor of who can "yell" the loudest and with the most frequency. People who lack critical thinking skills, or who do not read, or who are limited to only one side of an argument don't know what is correct and what is not and therefore cling to information that verifies their opinions, wrong or right.
2
That is fundamentally the argument AGAINST democracy.
"The vast majority of people have NO idea of what they speak, and yet they spout off their opinions based on false or anecdotal information, and others take it for truth and spread it virally. This has had the additional effect of minimizing the importance of credentials, education and experience in evaluating issues, in favor of who can "yell" the loudest and with the most frequency. People who lack critical thinking skills, or who do not read, or who are limited to only one side of an argument don't know what is correct and what is not and therefore cling to information that verifies their opinions, wrong or right."
"The vast majority of people have NO idea of what they speak, and yet they spout off their opinions based on false or anecdotal information, and others take it for truth and spread it virally. This has had the additional effect of minimizing the importance of credentials, education and experience in evaluating issues, in favor of who can "yell" the loudest and with the most frequency. People who lack critical thinking skills, or who do not read, or who are limited to only one side of an argument don't know what is correct and what is not and therefore cling to information that verifies their opinions, wrong or right."
1
It starts a lot earlier than reading. If you are raised to believe in the various religious myths, and you are taught as you are in America that religious beliefs are sacred and cannot be criticized, then it's just a hop and a step from there to thinking that I can believe any sort of nonsense without evidence, but nevertheless my truth is better than yours.
This is why education has to be secular, private schools are poison, and religion teaches that you can choose to live by whatever mythology matches your prejudices. It's no accident that Republicans dominate the Bible Belt...
This is why education has to be secular, private schools are poison, and religion teaches that you can choose to live by whatever mythology matches your prejudices. It's no accident that Republicans dominate the Bible Belt...
1
Everything and everybody in this "administration" threatens democracy, and the security of each one of us. trump has made it his goal to overturn every aspect of individual safety as he attempt to destroy our government. He is a dangerous monster who must be stopped.
2
MSM's stranglehold on its version of the truth has come to an end. NYT is a leading advocate of the globalists global warming hoax. It can no longer stuff bad science down the throats of the climate realist public.
Nor can the NYT ignore Wikileaks devastating disclosures on the corrupt DNC primary and Hillary's pay for pay as SOS. Hide her $140 Russian Uranium deal.
MSM is force feeding acceptable for Sharia Law, Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR and the importation of the 3rd world to the Western Cultures.
Thanks, but I will stick with a wider source of news.
Nor can the NYT ignore Wikileaks devastating disclosures on the corrupt DNC primary and Hillary's pay for pay as SOS. Hide her $140 Russian Uranium deal.
MSM is force feeding acceptable for Sharia Law, Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR and the importation of the 3rd world to the Western Cultures.
Thanks, but I will stick with a wider source of news.
8
"voters’ perceptions have become untethered from reality."
There is an old saying sometimes attributed (erroneously) to Henri Bergson: "For the eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend."
The Internet with its trolls, its echo chambers, its fake news, its alternative facts, shape what the mind is prepared to comprehend, and at present that ain't reality.
This problem is not a right versus left phenomenon, but about who best has mastered the medium. The Internet is unregulated, and its faults are amplified by unfettered exploitation via Twitter, Facebook, U-Tube, and innumerable viscous web sites.
The role of thought and of humane principle are drowned out by the Internet, which has escaped our ability to regulate its pernicious aspects. We are allowing exploitation of the Internet for profit to shrivel democracy and replace it by the rule of mobs.
There is an old saying sometimes attributed (erroneously) to Henri Bergson: "For the eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend."
The Internet with its trolls, its echo chambers, its fake news, its alternative facts, shape what the mind is prepared to comprehend, and at present that ain't reality.
This problem is not a right versus left phenomenon, but about who best has mastered the medium. The Internet is unregulated, and its faults are amplified by unfettered exploitation via Twitter, Facebook, U-Tube, and innumerable viscous web sites.
The role of thought and of humane principle are drowned out by the Internet, which has escaped our ability to regulate its pernicious aspects. We are allowing exploitation of the Internet for profit to shrivel democracy and replace it by the rule of mobs.
10
Imagine a room full of people discussing an idea with some agreeing and some disagree, and a consensus is still developing. This was how people built ideas into governments. How our democracy formed. How our new government grew.
Now imagine that same room, but now the people who are passing around ideas are masked, using tools to obstruct who is representing themselves, and who is representing other people or governments. That is how digital media is changing our ability to communicate.
There is one company that entered the Brexit and Trump campaigns. Billionaire Robert Mercer invested in a company that spent decades perfecting psychological operations (PSYOP) specialize "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting". This company SCL claims to foment military coups successfully. Steve Bannon is on the board. Let that sink. This is not fiction; this is happening.
Facebook and Twitter leave footprints for each person online. Likes, mentions, and the web of links to friends allow a web of influence to control the thinking of people in subtle ways. Combined with retargeting systems, media sites like Breitbart present personalized messages in advertising and media placements to reinforce thoughts and ideas. The programming interfaces (APIs) are published, and anyone in any country can use the documentation to create a web of information about anything a person is doing online.
Our democracy is being hacked, and we need to stop it now!
Now imagine that same room, but now the people who are passing around ideas are masked, using tools to obstruct who is representing themselves, and who is representing other people or governments. That is how digital media is changing our ability to communicate.
There is one company that entered the Brexit and Trump campaigns. Billionaire Robert Mercer invested in a company that spent decades perfecting psychological operations (PSYOP) specialize "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting". This company SCL claims to foment military coups successfully. Steve Bannon is on the board. Let that sink. This is not fiction; this is happening.
Facebook and Twitter leave footprints for each person online. Likes, mentions, and the web of links to friends allow a web of influence to control the thinking of people in subtle ways. Combined with retargeting systems, media sites like Breitbart present personalized messages in advertising and media placements to reinforce thoughts and ideas. The programming interfaces (APIs) are published, and anyone in any country can use the documentation to create a web of information about anything a person is doing online.
Our democracy is being hacked, and we need to stop it now!
7
Thanks for the mention of Robert Mercer. Embarrassed to say I didn't know about him, but do now: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart...
1
Democracy in America seems to be a three legged stool. One leg hates the Republicans, another hates the Democrats and a third don't vote. Each party is a coalition of correlated beliefs that often compete. Once elected the winners get to rule and in our current situation, rule without much check and balance. But what that might mean is that the government rules with only a 33% mandate, or at best a <50% mandate. The advent of a "Strong Man" style without compromise destroys the concept of "Democracy". Yet, without a centrist ideal, compromise may not be possible. The question is: Why do people line up with such divergent views. I believe it is because they no longer have filtered truths to work with, they have more belief-truths or beliefs they hope are true. People are conditioned to believe what they see in media, because we have been bombarded with cleverly designed advertisements through the media to influence our thoughts. Otherwise why would there be "Ford" truck guys and "Chevy" truck guys. Now we have a demagogue for president and and alt-right guy designing our government. Maybe one can fool all of the people all of the time.
5
Anything the establishment can't control they hate and label as a threat.
The Internet is indeed a threat. A threat to the establishment's mind control system. They've lost the info war and now it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
The Internet is indeed a threat. A threat to the establishment's mind control system. They've lost the info war and now it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
11
what your saying is you cannot control the message anymore! for the past 40 years the message was whites are bad and government solves all problems! just recently a editor outed the truth of the msm. we control the message that american's get. we select what you see and read! the internet has put that quote in the trash bin. we now have a true and free flow of info and all you need is a desktop or a laptop to find it! now that is truly a free press and people like this guys opinion does not like it!
5
The Internet is just the Medium- it is not the message.
In the case of vile and hateful speech, the Internet is just showing what people used to only say privately.
In the case of vile and hateful speech, the Internet is just showing what people used to only say privately.
64
But it's a medium also for insightful and smart speech. No matter what views Yiu support, you cannot just assume that only what YOU think is correct – and everything else is stupid and hateful. That's madness
exactly - it just brings it out into the open
1
Of course - but the dissemination of vile and hateful speech used to be 1 on 1 or close, and now it has immense power!
Communists don't trust the people to hear all sides and make a decision, they want to control what the people hear and believe. Of course the internet is a threat to these people
5
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Trump is President because of the internet! Funny, when Obama won, the internet was just fine. The internet did not make Hillary Clinton stand up in public, on TV, on the internet and say to a bunch of frightened desperate coal miners that they would lose their jobs. The internet did not force Hillary Clinton to waste time and money campaigning in states where she was comfortable. The internet had nothing to do with the email mess. She was a stiff. One of the worst campaigners in history. The irony is that in spite of this, she would have made a splendid president. The takeaway here is that the internet is just a tool that’s only as good as the person’s judgement in how to use it.
3
Social media is far too easy to manipulate, hack, deceive. It should not be trusted as a form of communication under any circumstances for important government and financial communiques. The 2016 election will become the most obvious example of using social media to directly affect a national election. If I was an elected official I would return to traditional forms of communication for any important issues. I would not leave myself open to having information hacked and used against me.
Stop blaming the internet. The right wing propaganda machine, rarely challenged by the mainstream "liberal" media, has been damaging our democracy for years. Fox News and right wing talk radio has had a huge effect. In the nineties we taxpayers funded a multi million dollar investigation into the completely bogus Whitewater "scandal" that was shopped to mainstream media outlets (I am talking about you, NY Times) by right wing political smear artists. The Clintons were even investigated for murder and drug running! None of this was driven by the internet. The same mainstream media also bought the bogus Wen Ho Lee spy story and Cheney's WMD lies.
We should never forget Karl Rove famously said that, contrary to the "reality-based liberals, Republicans create their own reality. They have done this by playing the mainstream media as well as with their own propaganda outlets. I know far too many people who were bamboozled by these lies long before the internet began to play a major role. Had Republicans been made to pay the price for all their lies and dog whistles by exposure and censure in the MSM they would have been forced to live in the reality-based world. Instead they have gotten away with whoppers like Reagan's tax cuts on the rich that magically pay for themselves, aversion to debt, love of Christian values such as sexual fidelity and concern for the poor......the list of lies is endless and goes back well before the internet became a major force in our politics.
We should never forget Karl Rove famously said that, contrary to the "reality-based liberals, Republicans create their own reality. They have done this by playing the mainstream media as well as with their own propaganda outlets. I know far too many people who were bamboozled by these lies long before the internet began to play a major role. Had Republicans been made to pay the price for all their lies and dog whistles by exposure and censure in the MSM they would have been forced to live in the reality-based world. Instead they have gotten away with whoppers like Reagan's tax cuts on the rich that magically pay for themselves, aversion to debt, love of Christian values such as sexual fidelity and concern for the poor......the list of lies is endless and goes back well before the internet became a major force in our politics.
2
Beware any man that tries to silence voices and control thoughts. Incredible that people will support a freedom that supports their cause, then attempt to deny that same freedom to others when it no longer supports their cause. Scary stuff.
The number one reason the Internet scares certain people is because it threatens their control of the debate, and they know the best way to win a debate is to control the language, the terms, the rules.
In this very collection of comments .... the words of the poor and disenfranchised is just as prominent as the words of the rich and powerful .... that threatens the system that has feed the ruling class for centuries.
The number one reason the Internet scares certain people is because it threatens their control of the debate, and they know the best way to win a debate is to control the language, the terms, the rules.
In this very collection of comments .... the words of the poor and disenfranchised is just as prominent as the words of the rich and powerful .... that threatens the system that has feed the ruling class for centuries.
3
Yes, you can fool some of the people all of the time. But, more importantly, you can always fool all of the people who willingly suspend reality and want to be fooled.
The Internet is only the vehicle. The driver Is the vast number of people who would rather feel validated than think critically. As their internet encourages that number to grow any hope of rational discussion will disappear.
The Internet is only the vehicle. The driver Is the vast number of people who would rather feel validated than think critically. As their internet encourages that number to grow any hope of rational discussion will disappear.
The anonymity provided by the Internet has changed the concept of freedom of speech to freedom to lie. The far and fast reach of various Internet tools/sites make them even more potent. The solution probably does not res in technology but being better citizens. Enforcement of that, alas, will be rather difficult if not impossible.
Quite to the contrary. The Internet has changed the freedom of speech from the freedom of the editorial board to the freedom for all. If the editorial board approved of the message, then the lie was accepted. Now, the editorial board has lost control, and that is why the author is upset.
2
This is what happens when you have an uninformed population, and a majority of people in this country who simply do not give a damn or know any better. When did not teaching civics become a thing? Too many Americans know nothing about our nation's founding and less about our history let alone current events.
1
Not teaching civics is a leftist a.k.a. Democrat invention – keep that in mind. The purpose of it was to have precisely an uninformed populace, which then could be easily ruled by the elites. And many would argue what the internet and social media accomplished was a roadblock on the mission of the Democrat-run educational system.
1
The biggest threat to Democracy? The Internet? Of course not.
Hitler came to power without the Internet.
Trump has come to power despite the Internet.
No, it isn't the Internet; it is the abdication of responsibility that has put our Democracy at risk - beginning with the voter right up through the ranks to the leadership in the House and Senate.
I don't know what to think of the current Supreme Court but in the past, the Court has certainly failed to protect and defend our Constitution as in December of 2000. Take that as an example of failed responsibility or take the Electoral College in 2016 as your example. Or take the example of the vast majority of the 63 million American citizens that cast a vote for Donald Trump.
It is the abdication of responsibility that is - by far - by far - that is the greatest threat to our Democracy.
Hitler came to power without the Internet.
Trump has come to power despite the Internet.
No, it isn't the Internet; it is the abdication of responsibility that has put our Democracy at risk - beginning with the voter right up through the ranks to the leadership in the House and Senate.
I don't know what to think of the current Supreme Court but in the past, the Court has certainly failed to protect and defend our Constitution as in December of 2000. Take that as an example of failed responsibility or take the Electoral College in 2016 as your example. Or take the example of the vast majority of the 63 million American citizens that cast a vote for Donald Trump.
It is the abdication of responsibility that is - by far - by far - that is the greatest threat to our Democracy.
2
"Thus, the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts. That’s where the vulnerability comes in, and its roots are in our politics — not in the internet."
Gossip, disinformation, misinformation, manipulation of truth and lies, whether by sign language, lip reading, Morris Code, telegraph, telephone, fax, or internet, all lead to where we are today: the net just exposed and hurried the process.
Gossip, disinformation, misinformation, manipulation of truth and lies, whether by sign language, lip reading, Morris Code, telegraph, telephone, fax, or internet, all lead to where we are today: the net just exposed and hurried the process.
1
The internet is preserving Democracy because it allows the TRUMP Administration to go around the clearly biased, corrupt Establishment media and speak directly to the citizenry.
It also allows the public to see things that the MSMedia would have hidden. Which of the Democrat emails exposed by Wikileaks showing Hillary and the DNC's corruption should the public not have seen before the Election? Should the public not have seen video of a sickly Hillary's collapse on 9/11 before being dragged cold into a medical van? In both those cases, the MSMedia was complicit in hiding those issues from the public.
The MSMedia is attacking TRUMP's use of the internet because it threatens their control fo the message. No other reason.
It also allows the public to see things that the MSMedia would have hidden. Which of the Democrat emails exposed by Wikileaks showing Hillary and the DNC's corruption should the public not have seen before the Election? Should the public not have seen video of a sickly Hillary's collapse on 9/11 before being dragged cold into a medical van? In both those cases, the MSMedia was complicit in hiding those issues from the public.
The MSMedia is attacking TRUMP's use of the internet because it threatens their control fo the message. No other reason.
3
Thanks so much for this important article summarizing the positive and negative aspects of the Internet. Eventually, I expect people will become more discerning readers....no one wants to be duped. Perhaps instructors who teach children and adults to use computers and the Internet should also devote considerable time and effort to versing them about safeguards/warning signs re Internat fraud/abuse. However, truthfulness, good manners and respect for others probably are learned best at home.
1
It doesn't threaten "democracy" at all. It makes politicians immediately accountable to those that get out and vote. It also provides excellent sourcing of where we get our information from, and the ability to evaluate it, independent of the biases of the traditional media. I know a lot more about my local politicians, my congressman, my senators, and the executive branch activities than I can ever expect or want my local paper, TV News or national media like the NYT or WAPO to bring me. I filter it - not you. I found out a number of things about my congressman that I am going to hammer him on - and I blog and use FB to get my opinions out about things he does and does not do. He voted to repeal the law requiring a label about where my food comes from. That's not left, or right..although both sides will try to use it. He caved to pressure from out of state meat packers, instead of protecting the local beef cattle farmers in his district. The NYT isn't going to tell me that. Neither are my local affiliate stations.
4
The problem with the Internet in the political realm, ultimately, is one of curation and credibility.
The great strength of the medium as regards democracy is that it allows all the chance to express any viewpoint. Of course, the flipside is that the medium allows all the chance to express any viewpoint--there's no filter or initial editorial evaluation. Nobody on the Internet knows if you are an expert on the subject you are discussing, or if, in the words and images of the famous New Yorker cartoon, you're a dog.
The medium can certainly be commended with breaking down barriers, but it should be recognized that barriers can sometimes be used for good purposes, like keeping out the sewage.
The medium is very young, though, and will likely have to go through the same growing pains many others did before a modicum of judgment becomes commonplace. With the quickened pace of events, though, it remains to be seen if this will happen before some worldwide disaster makes the whole thing moot.
The great strength of the medium as regards democracy is that it allows all the chance to express any viewpoint. Of course, the flipside is that the medium allows all the chance to express any viewpoint--there's no filter or initial editorial evaluation. Nobody on the Internet knows if you are an expert on the subject you are discussing, or if, in the words and images of the famous New Yorker cartoon, you're a dog.
The medium can certainly be commended with breaking down barriers, but it should be recognized that barriers can sometimes be used for good purposes, like keeping out the sewage.
The medium is very young, though, and will likely have to go through the same growing pains many others did before a modicum of judgment becomes commonplace. With the quickened pace of events, though, it remains to be seen if this will happen before some worldwide disaster makes the whole thing moot.
1
Wow, is this unbelievably stupid. Can we please make a rule to not have septuagenarians write about the Internet, a phenomenon that almost none of them understand? The internet is the only thing keeping people informed right now and this guy wants to act like the internet is forcing people to retweet crappy memes. People are the problem, not the internet.
Let's go back to the days of 3 national networks where everything is filtered through the prism of the desires of straight, white, old, predominantly Republican men! Edsall would feel right at home!
Let's go back to the days of 3 national networks where everything is filtered through the prism of the desires of straight, white, old, predominantly Republican men! Edsall would feel right at home!
4
This opinion dovetails with Nichols' How America Lost Faith In Expertise in this issue of Foreign Affairs which adds substantially more on what we too generally label populism.
The Democratic Party, in particular, has over invested in the sophisticated slice and dice marketing best used to sell soap. The GOP, on the other hand, tends to sell hate, a strong emotion that can drive people to the polls to vote against their economic self interest. As much of the social media political emergence also peddles hate, it makes sense that there would be a GOP - SM alliance. However, like the conservatives who made Hitler chancellor because they wanted his blue collar backers, they have quickly lost control and made SM ascendant.
Perhaps our best hope is for the Democrats to harness social media to push something other than soap. A possible message: devise new tax tables and let viewers / participants input their current tax information and then display the proposed tax outcome.
Perhaps our best hope is for the Democrats to harness social media to push something other than soap. A possible message: devise new tax tables and let viewers / participants input their current tax information and then display the proposed tax outcome.
2
I for one lost much faith in the free press when they embedded themselves into GWB's idiotic wars and spent three years as the cheerleading squad in chief. If you'd asked me in 2004 what I thought of the US press, "fake infonews" would have been the reaction.
2
Looks like the author wants to go back to the days of Tammany Hall. Sorry, the people have spoken.
4
So much ink spilled to the same progressive whine -- "the internet is too free and we need to regulate it so views we disapprove of are banished."
3
By "Democracy" Edsall means the Modern Liberal establishment.
4
When the article gets in details, what it's saying is that the internet is undermining political parties, not democracy itself. The Constitution does not even mention political parties.
What really undermines democracy? Situations where the Supreme Court "discovers" a new Constitutional right and then strikes down any law that law that "violates" the right, as with Roe vs Wade.
Yes, the role of the internet in magnifying propaganda is a problem, though not an apocolyptic one. One way to combat it is for people to demand straight talk and not euphemisms and code words. And the NY times can set an example by halting use of terms like "undocumented immigrant" (illegal alien), "reproductive rights" (abortion on demand), "identity" (interest group), "transgender women" (males with problems), etc.
What really undermines democracy? Situations where the Supreme Court "discovers" a new Constitutional right and then strikes down any law that law that "violates" the right, as with Roe vs Wade.
Yes, the role of the internet in magnifying propaganda is a problem, though not an apocolyptic one. One way to combat it is for people to demand straight talk and not euphemisms and code words. And the NY times can set an example by halting use of terms like "undocumented immigrant" (illegal alien), "reproductive rights" (abortion on demand), "identity" (interest group), "transgender women" (males with problems), etc.
3
The digital world became nastier. But that is part of a trend, not a major shift in direction. The printing press promoted individual judgment and little things like the Thirty Years War. The propaganda rhyme (now turned “nursery rhyme”) Rock a By-Baby, helped to end the Stuart dynasty.
Too many tell us what the American people want as if we are all unemployed coal miners or steel workers. In MI, OH, WI, and PA, 80,000 votes turned the election on its head. Yet millions more voted for Hillary Clinton than for Trump.
In Europe, experts are confounded by perplexed voters. This too is part of a trend, one predicted as long ago as 1960 when Shattschenider wrote of “The Semi-Sovereign People.” However, any implication that the demos, the people, were ever fully sovereign would be nonsense. One explanation: as the population and global relationships grew, so grew the complexity of governance. It's beyond us ordinary mortals. Experts are needed. Our Congress outsourced economic oversight to the Fed, and budgeting to the Heritage Foundation. Trump has just outsourced military raids to the Sec’y Def, welfare to the Christian Right, the environment to a know-nothing, and diplomacy to a hydrocarbon man.
Politics is about story-telling, and we are still being fed stories of the bad hombres who murdered “our people,” and stole our jobs. The Trump message that resonated is dark, grotesque, and un-American.
Too many tell us what the American people want as if we are all unemployed coal miners or steel workers. In MI, OH, WI, and PA, 80,000 votes turned the election on its head. Yet millions more voted for Hillary Clinton than for Trump.
In Europe, experts are confounded by perplexed voters. This too is part of a trend, one predicted as long ago as 1960 when Shattschenider wrote of “The Semi-Sovereign People.” However, any implication that the demos, the people, were ever fully sovereign would be nonsense. One explanation: as the population and global relationships grew, so grew the complexity of governance. It's beyond us ordinary mortals. Experts are needed. Our Congress outsourced economic oversight to the Fed, and budgeting to the Heritage Foundation. Trump has just outsourced military raids to the Sec’y Def, welfare to the Christian Right, the environment to a know-nothing, and diplomacy to a hydrocarbon man.
Politics is about story-telling, and we are still being fed stories of the bad hombres who murdered “our people,” and stole our jobs. The Trump message that resonated is dark, grotesque, and un-American.
what do yu call it when it is the 'journalists' who spew out the fake news--or the participants of JournoList who give out leftist propoganda--do not trust the media or libs!!
3
"They have disrupted and destroyed institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it." Indeed, we have been freed from left-wing news filters such as the NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. We will no longer see only the news you deem "fit to print."
3
This is how Pravda and the party elite felt during glasnost and the fall of the soviet union .. or the Egyptian and other leaders during the Arab Spring. Yes, the previousl norms and constraints are gone. That is a positive development, an increase in freedom.
1
Mr. Edsall's admonitions are just the latest in a long line of concerned commentaries.
"Is the Internet a wonderful development for democracy? In many ways it certainly is. As a result of the Internet, people can learn far more than they could before, and they can learn it much faster." So begins a 2001 discussion headed by Cass Sunstein: http://bostonreview.net/forum/cass-sunstein-internet-bad-democracy . There are others: http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/int_bad_dem.htm .
If one uses various search constructs regarding potential current and future problems with the net and social media, one gets tens of millions of hits. Many, perhaps most, of those are of little use and constitute a good bit of digital noise. But there are numerous thoughtful commentaries going back quite some time.
Even allowing all the benefits derived from modern communications, to ignore their destructive potential would be a serious mistake. The idea that "one person, one vote" makes for a better world is not a given.
"Is the Internet a wonderful development for democracy? In many ways it certainly is. As a result of the Internet, people can learn far more than they could before, and they can learn it much faster." So begins a 2001 discussion headed by Cass Sunstein: http://bostonreview.net/forum/cass-sunstein-internet-bad-democracy . There are others: http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/int_bad_dem.htm .
If one uses various search constructs regarding potential current and future problems with the net and social media, one gets tens of millions of hits. Many, perhaps most, of those are of little use and constitute a good bit of digital noise. But there are numerous thoughtful commentaries going back quite some time.
Even allowing all the benefits derived from modern communications, to ignore their destructive potential would be a serious mistake. The idea that "one person, one vote" makes for a better world is not a given.
1
So it appears we are headed for mob rule facilitated by the internet. That explains how Donald Trump became president as well as anything.
1
The article reeks of a collective inevitability, passivity and helplessness.
The key question is not "who benefits more" but rather what actions society can take to strengthen democracy.
In retrospect, what is now happening in the internet age WAS inevitable, and the more we discuss and anticipate the next "inevitability" the better.
The key question is not "who benefits more" but rather what actions society can take to strengthen democracy.
In retrospect, what is now happening in the internet age WAS inevitable, and the more we discuss and anticipate the next "inevitability" the better.
Let's get a few things straight.
1. The NY Times' brand has been hurt by the internet. The NYT is downsizing.
2. The internet empowers people who couldn't get past security at the Times' front door.
3. The First Amendment prohibits any law abridging freedom of speech.
4. Human nature is a fallen nature and every man (and woman) is inclined toward evil, serious or less serious, from time to time, so long as he or she lives.
5. If someone suggested a law requiring use of real names when blogging on the internet or here at the Times, that law would be in conflict with the American tradition of publishing one's views anonymously to protect oneself from retribution.
6. None of the experts in this article seem especially insightful and none offers a useful suggestion.
7. I have no useful suggestions. Here is an impractical suggestion: Allow electricity in businesses for four hours per day and in residences for two hours per day. People would be kept very busy just getting by. : )
1. The NY Times' brand has been hurt by the internet. The NYT is downsizing.
2. The internet empowers people who couldn't get past security at the Times' front door.
3. The First Amendment prohibits any law abridging freedom of speech.
4. Human nature is a fallen nature and every man (and woman) is inclined toward evil, serious or less serious, from time to time, so long as he or she lives.
5. If someone suggested a law requiring use of real names when blogging on the internet or here at the Times, that law would be in conflict with the American tradition of publishing one's views anonymously to protect oneself from retribution.
6. None of the experts in this article seem especially insightful and none offers a useful suggestion.
7. I have no useful suggestions. Here is an impractical suggestion: Allow electricity in businesses for four hours per day and in residences for two hours per day. People would be kept very busy just getting by. : )
1
If the mainstream media had not been caught colluding with the Democratic party and Clinton's campaign and Americans had not found that out-and Hillary had won-this writer would be opining how the internet affirms American democracy.
2
This piece omits possibly the most sinister and alarming single facet of internet manipulation. In my opinion, that is the company known as Cambridge Analytica, which was founded by and is funded by a right-wing billionaire named Robert Mercer.
This company uses social media to first target certain people, and then to change and manipulate their thinking over time. It works exclusively for right-wing causes and politicians.
Cambridge Analytica was active in Brexit, and also worked for the Trump campaign.
There is an essential article about Cambridge Analytica and what it does in the Guardian from four or five days ago. The article is terrifying.
This company uses social media to first target certain people, and then to change and manipulate their thinking over time. It works exclusively for right-wing causes and politicians.
Cambridge Analytica was active in Brexit, and also worked for the Trump campaign.
There is an essential article about Cambridge Analytica and what it does in the Guardian from four or five days ago. The article is terrifying.
2
As insightful as you almost always are, you've gotten this backwards, Mr. Edsall. The internet didn't hollow out the parties, it filled them in. For the first time the rank and file's voice could be heard over that of the party bosses.
On the right the Republican bosses couldn't stop an outside candidate who promised, unlike boss-approved Republican candidates, to protect SS and Medicare. And on the left an outside candidate at least forced the boss-approved candidate to modify many of her positions.
In the end what we saw was more an outsider beating an insider than it was a Republican beating a Democrat.
How is that less democratic than all our previous elections pitting one insider against another?
On the right the Republican bosses couldn't stop an outside candidate who promised, unlike boss-approved Republican candidates, to protect SS and Medicare. And on the left an outside candidate at least forced the boss-approved candidate to modify many of her positions.
In the end what we saw was more an outsider beating an insider than it was a Republican beating a Democrat.
How is that less democratic than all our previous elections pitting one insider against another?
3
Perfect! Except the part about Hillary modifying her positions; these were ephemeral.
I think there was more access to the truth than in any previous election and that this allowed two REAL grass-roots candidates. In fact, I think Bernie didn't appeal to youth so much as that he appealed to those who had good access to the facts, in other words, the internet-savvy. Since the internet-savvy tend to be young, the wrong association got made. The Bernie Bros an all that was just a further distraction from the establishment.
I think there was more access to the truth than in any previous election and that this allowed two REAL grass-roots candidates. In fact, I think Bernie didn't appeal to youth so much as that he appealed to those who had good access to the facts, in other words, the internet-savvy. Since the internet-savvy tend to be young, the wrong association got made. The Bernie Bros an all that was just a further distraction from the establishment.
1
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" Mark Twain
From the town gossip, to William Randolph Hearst's "Remember the Maine" thus it has always been.
If anything the Internet has facilitated putting the truth on equal footing with the lies and supports rather than denigrates democracy.
From the town gossip, to William Randolph Hearst's "Remember the Maine" thus it has always been.
If anything the Internet has facilitated putting the truth on equal footing with the lies and supports rather than denigrates democracy.
4
Not really. The money handlers Trading political favours still control the game whether DNC or GOP...alyernatives in this democracy don't exist...no matter the source of noise by the crowd
2
Actually, what the internet has done is striped the main stream media of their power. They are no longer taken seriously by the masses because they have been proven to slant the headlines to the left. Every piece is an opinion piece now, not actual news!!
6
The refusal of the Freedom Caucus to compromise on anything or of Mitch McConnell to allow a vote on Obama's Supreme Court nominee cannot be blamed on the internet (as far as I know); but both suggest a fundamental breakdown in the belief in democracy in favor of a raw assertion of power.
What nonsense. Liberals are just mad that the news is no longer dominated by a few overtly liberal partisan outlets.
Basically, the liberal media has been doing for decades what it accuses Russia of doing now: grooming and augmenting the news in the service of one party. The only difference is that the Russians are not in a position to do so, while our liberal media has been doing it successfully since JFK. The hypocrisy is revolting, but expected. Look at the source.
Basically, the liberal media has been doing for decades what it accuses Russia of doing now: grooming and augmenting the news in the service of one party. The only difference is that the Russians are not in a position to do so, while our liberal media has been doing it successfully since JFK. The hypocrisy is revolting, but expected. Look at the source.
10
Hilliary Clinton was uninspiring. But thought we she has a machine that can grind out victory. We were wrong in so far as she proved incompetent at that too. I believe things will brighten when we find standard bearers who are both inspiring and politically competent
4
As usual, no mention of the documented, routine, secret collaboration of the MSM, including many prominent Times "reporters" with the HRC campaign. The internet spread the truth to your well-deserved distress.
11
Wow, the left is rapidly moving to the anti-free speech party. If they cannot control the speech, then it must be shut down from Berkeley to the NY Times.
11
I would like to attribute; in fact, blame, every almost act socially unacceptable behavior & violence, locally & globally, to Donald Trump.
He is an exemplar of bad behavior due to lack of consistent parenting.
He exhibited this behavior as a child getting expelled from Kew-Forest school & continued bullying behavior as teenager at New York Military Academy.
Later, he used intimidation as a tool in inter-personal relations.
I think this is a "teaching moment" for all of us.
He is an exemplar of bad behavior due to lack of consistent parenting.
He exhibited this behavior as a child getting expelled from Kew-Forest school & continued bullying behavior as teenager at New York Military Academy.
Later, he used intimidation as a tool in inter-personal relations.
I think this is a "teaching moment" for all of us.
1
To the contrary, the internet enhabced democracy. The problem is that democracy has problems. Like Churchill said, democracy is far from perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.
What we are seeing is the madness was of crowds and the tyranny of the majority (of electorates). The internet speaks to the id and gives it a shame free voice. That's not less democracy.
What we are seeing is the madness was of crowds and the tyranny of the majority (of electorates). The internet speaks to the id and gives it a shame free voice. That's not less democracy.
4
Does anyone else find it ironic that as more people voice their opinions and influence it is deemed as non-democratic? Never before in history has direct democracy been technologically easier and yet no one even talks about it. Says a lot about our "democracies"
5
The internet is basically a town hall without walls, a town hall that people still in their bds can attend. That being the case, Mr. Edsall, what did you think would happen when "the people" could overcome their intrinsic laziness, and get involved? I recall the cries of "count every vote" back in the Bush-Gore days, well, you are seeing what "every vote" looks like.
Everyman (and woman) is a bit more conservative, a bit more downscale, a bit less educated then the democratic powers that be might like. Worry over illegals leaves them cold, bureaucratic healthcare annoys them, esoteric ivory tower talk of "gender identity" makes them laugh. The cry for inclusion might well sink the Democratic party as it has been to be replaced with something less elite and more populist, Trumpian if you will.
Everyman (and woman) is a bit more conservative, a bit more downscale, a bit less educated then the democratic powers that be might like. Worry over illegals leaves them cold, bureaucratic healthcare annoys them, esoteric ivory tower talk of "gender identity" makes them laugh. The cry for inclusion might well sink the Democratic party as it has been to be replaced with something less elite and more populist, Trumpian if you will.
3
The US has reached the point where it is a republic/democracy in name only. The internet threatens those who have hijacked the country. These plutocrats, their media, multinationals and credit systems are a little worried because independent media calls them out.
3
This is a long-winded way of yet again declaring the sky to be falling because the wrong candidate won. I know we are supposed to pretend this is unique because that candidate was Trump, but from the hyperbole that was spouted when Mccain and Romney ran, I have no reason to believe this same sentiment wouldn't be on display for any Republican candidate who had won in November.
It's time to get used to the fact that, no matter how many cherry picked polls, or demographics you cite, we are never going to have your version of utopia where the "correct" party wins every election. This is not going to be a one party country no matter how bad you want it to be. There will never be a time where left wing politics get to dominate indefinitely. Sorry.
You can blame the internet, blame the "stupidity" of those fools who refuse to see things the "correct" way, blame fake news, the Russians, The racists and the rain. Yet in the end, you are going to have to accept it.
It's time to get used to the fact that, no matter how many cherry picked polls, or demographics you cite, we are never going to have your version of utopia where the "correct" party wins every election. This is not going to be a one party country no matter how bad you want it to be. There will never be a time where left wing politics get to dominate indefinitely. Sorry.
You can blame the internet, blame the "stupidity" of those fools who refuse to see things the "correct" way, blame fake news, the Russians, The racists and the rain. Yet in the end, you are going to have to accept it.
8
You miss the whole point.
Everyone can have their own feelings, emotions, religious beliefs, etc.
But they can't have their own facts. And they can't violate the Constitution, because then we have a disintegrating country. So I assume you agree with these two statements; If you don't there is not much sense in even talking to each other.
There will always be different "versions of Utopia" and never a "correct" political party. That's the greatness of this country.
But the persons who elected Trump obviously did not think it through and whom do we blame for that? Probably them? If they thought a billionaire with out a clue about national health care, foreign policy, national public education, etc., and who had never shown the slightest interest in helping the working class - should be believed in his promises and elected we have a problem that you need to analyze.
His appointments and first month in office show us his contempt for the working class person, his ignorance about governing, his lack of knowledge and mental curiosity about everything will cause the problems of the millions who elected him to deteriorate further. I do not need to outline those details; just the Trump-Care ideas he is looking at from his party will make Obama-Care look marvelous. It cannot be cheaper, cover more persons, and be "better" with the plans under consideration. It absolutely will be worse and cover fewer persons.
So he will fail. And the country will also until he is gone.
Everyone can have their own feelings, emotions, religious beliefs, etc.
But they can't have their own facts. And they can't violate the Constitution, because then we have a disintegrating country. So I assume you agree with these two statements; If you don't there is not much sense in even talking to each other.
There will always be different "versions of Utopia" and never a "correct" political party. That's the greatness of this country.
But the persons who elected Trump obviously did not think it through and whom do we blame for that? Probably them? If they thought a billionaire with out a clue about national health care, foreign policy, national public education, etc., and who had never shown the slightest interest in helping the working class - should be believed in his promises and elected we have a problem that you need to analyze.
His appointments and first month in office show us his contempt for the working class person, his ignorance about governing, his lack of knowledge and mental curiosity about everything will cause the problems of the millions who elected him to deteriorate further. I do not need to outline those details; just the Trump-Care ideas he is looking at from his party will make Obama-Care look marvelous. It cannot be cheaper, cover more persons, and be "better" with the plans under consideration. It absolutely will be worse and cover fewer persons.
So he will fail. And the country will also until he is gone.
1
Nowadays netizens face two challenges on the Internet - intelligence surveillance that poses a threat to privacy and fake news websites that aim to brainwash and disrupt democracy.
Perhaps the debate that Edward Snowden's leaks in 2013 sparked, undermined trust in governments, allowing mavericks and populists to exploit the discontent to rise to prominence. In 2016 state-sponsored spoilers joined the fray and set up fake news websites seeking to influence the outcomes of Britain's referendum on its EU membership and the US presidential election. Meanwhile it became clear that Russia could have been involved in influencing the election in Trump's favour. It's time for concerned citizens to call for more accountability and transparency to restore trust and confidence in the Internet.
Perhaps the debate that Edward Snowden's leaks in 2013 sparked, undermined trust in governments, allowing mavericks and populists to exploit the discontent to rise to prominence. In 2016 state-sponsored spoilers joined the fray and set up fake news websites seeking to influence the outcomes of Britain's referendum on its EU membership and the US presidential election. Meanwhile it became clear that Russia could have been involved in influencing the election in Trump's favour. It's time for concerned citizens to call for more accountability and transparency to restore trust and confidence in the Internet.
2
It seems to me that the roots of vulnerability are also in us because emotion and identity are in politics because they are in us and, that is OK as long as we keep and develop the mechanisms to determine what the facts are.
If we stick to the facts, we can strengthen our democracy. Even when we have a President with little respect for them.
If we stick to the facts, we can strengthen our democracy. Even when we have a President with little respect for them.
The internet is the most democratic piece of technology ever created by the hand of man, Tom.
2
The Internet has changed our values or is it capitalism that the Internet supports in so many ways and because it provides free flow of information, true or not, that our values have changed? The Internet is not free. It is a conduit for information about you to be captured. Google could run algorithms and who wouldn't be rounded up for saying something that some one in the Trump administration might not view as subversive?
In a one-party authoritarian ruled nation, which is what Trump wants, yes-- the Internet threatens democracy.
In a one-party authoritarian ruled nation, which is what Trump wants, yes-- the Internet threatens democracy.
I'm sure the same thing was said of the printing press.
2
Okay, so this law professor from Stanford is trying to claim that the 60 year old rubes from Farm-on-the-River, Wales who supported Brexit were 7-times more numerous on Twitter than the urban, educated, plugged-in millennials from London were? I thought all the people "in the know" supported globalization and that was the future of the world. Those hicks obviously shouldn't be allowed to have any type of internet, they may overwhelm all the right-thinking people.
Secondly, I thought in 2008, candidate (later President) Obama and his organization were cool, hip and won because they were the ones who were able to use the web and data to get the win. I guess the internet is only good for democracy if it is supporting progressive causes.
Secondly, I thought in 2008, candidate (later President) Obama and his organization were cool, hip and won because they were the ones who were able to use the web and data to get the win. I guess the internet is only good for democracy if it is supporting progressive causes.
5
It's the ease of lying that is killing what little democracy we had---
5
I would agree that ease of lying is killing democracy and the Internet is accelerating that ease but the Internet is also the most powerful tool to counter that lying and with equal ease. With basic and sound analytic research skills, it's ridiculously easy to counter a lot of the lying with actual facts. And if it's not immediately knowable if the lying is in fact lying, the Internet is a powerful tool to conduct research and work together with likeminded people, which only multiplies that power.
So, I'm guardedly optimistic that in time, especially as well-educated and savvy digital natives mature and move into society more fully, things will settle down and a just and ethical digital society will develop, flourish, and perhaps, enhance democracy in the long run. Not that there won't be disruptive outliers always at the edges mucking things up but that's no different in the real world. The key is to keep them at the edges so the rest of us can work together using the technology of the times towards greater understanding and harmony, just as our ancestors did before us.
Just look at history at each point of arrival of disruptive technology. Despite initial chaos and change in the beginning, societies eventually adapted, evolved, and improved, more or less, over the time. And at this crazy point in time, I'm clinging more than ever to those lessons of the long arc of history in a desperate effort to maintain my Space-Age born hope and faith in a better future.
So, I'm guardedly optimistic that in time, especially as well-educated and savvy digital natives mature and move into society more fully, things will settle down and a just and ethical digital society will develop, flourish, and perhaps, enhance democracy in the long run. Not that there won't be disruptive outliers always at the edges mucking things up but that's no different in the real world. The key is to keep them at the edges so the rest of us can work together using the technology of the times towards greater understanding and harmony, just as our ancestors did before us.
Just look at history at each point of arrival of disruptive technology. Despite initial chaos and change in the beginning, societies eventually adapted, evolved, and improved, more or less, over the time. And at this crazy point in time, I'm clinging more than ever to those lessons of the long arc of history in a desperate effort to maintain my Space-Age born hope and faith in a better future.
1
Translation: We the Media can no longer control what the people see or read. So the internet must go.
6
I actually enjoyed the last presidential campaign. It seems it is very acceptable for the left (democrats) to call the opposing party names. Some of the names that were used and still used even today are racists, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, sexists, alt-right and NAZIs.
It also seemed it was acceptable for the left to send their goons in to disrupt DT's rallies. How many times has the left attacked DT supporters? How many times has DT supporters attacked the left's supporters?
The one thing I liked about DT was his fierce rebuttals to the press. He can't let the press paint him into a corner. DT wasn't my first candidate, it was Ted Cruz and Walker.
It also seemed it was acceptable for the left to send their goons in to disrupt DT's rallies. How many times has the left attacked DT supporters? How many times has DT supporters attacked the left's supporters?
The one thing I liked about DT was his fierce rebuttals to the press. He can't let the press paint him into a corner. DT wasn't my first candidate, it was Ted Cruz and Walker.
5
I read this newspaper column from start to finish. Here's my take on the problem: Fewer and fewer voters are willing to read a newspaper column from start to finish.
5
Oh, what a shock!
Progressive Libs clamping down on the free speech of the internet that they can't control.
What's a matter, Libs?
Are ya afraid your theories won't stand up to unfrettered, unfiltered, non-PC, counter arguments.
You should be. Because your arguments can't.
THE TRUTH IS ...
Libs are CONTROL FREAKS
Libs are ANTI-FREE SPEECH
Libs are the real FASCISTS
Progressive Libs clamping down on the free speech of the internet that they can't control.
What's a matter, Libs?
Are ya afraid your theories won't stand up to unfrettered, unfiltered, non-PC, counter arguments.
You should be. Because your arguments can't.
THE TRUTH IS ...
Libs are CONTROL FREAKS
Libs are ANTI-FREE SPEECH
Libs are the real FASCISTS
6
Wow, that ultra-liberal enemy of the people NYT dared to post your comment?
Liberal censorship of right-wing opinion is a myth.
Liberal censorship of right-wing opinion is a myth.
If we accept that America's fascistic and oligarchic tendencies are mainly on the right, one has to question Edsall's thesis that the Internet and social media are responsible. The most powerful media forces on the right are Fox News and talk radio -- not Twitter and Facebook. The balkanization of the electorate and the repetition of "alternative facts" started with Fox News and right-wing talk radio. Trump and his Twitter account merely piggybacked on a trend that was already well established.
5
I would correct you in that America's fascist totalitarian tendencies are and always have originated in the Left. The most recent iteration of this is the public-private cozy relationships that run our government. I will grant you that establishment Left and Right are infested and 2 sides of the same coin. Sad. BTW - the Left also has done a great job balkanizing the Left with propaganda - brilliantly I might add, but, in the end, sensibilities won out. The Left is exhausted and dying. But this is good because a new party will arise that hopefully has shed its latest totalitarian cultural marxist identity rhetoric.
1
A stupendous, thought provoking article. But, let´s not forget that Brexit won by a marginal margin of votes and Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes in an country where elections are typically very close, and was elected only because an outdated system inexplicably still operates.
1
The internet only allows more voices and more speech...these are good things.
A massive and unelected administrative state apparatus has been the biggest threat to freedom for about the last half century.
Trump's challenge of the so called "deep state" may be the best thing about his presidency. The administrative agencies were in dire need of being challenged.
But as always, the best way to enhance and safeguard our freedoms is to limit the power of the state. Limits on power reduce the damage bad actors of any stripe can cause. A return to federalism could resolve many contentious issues by leaving each state free to choose for itself, and the people free to vote with their feet.
A massive and unelected administrative state apparatus has been the biggest threat to freedom for about the last half century.
Trump's challenge of the so called "deep state" may be the best thing about his presidency. The administrative agencies were in dire need of being challenged.
But as always, the best way to enhance and safeguard our freedoms is to limit the power of the state. Limits on power reduce the damage bad actors of any stripe can cause. A return to federalism could resolve many contentious issues by leaving each state free to choose for itself, and the people free to vote with their feet.
3
The parties are "hollowed out"? I don't think so as ubiquitous gerrymandering and lack of electoral fusion in most states are two entrenchment weapons of choice.
What may be hollowed out are the spines of various political leaders and the Yes-men under them. The political party leadership needs three traits that Trump has:
1. some gumption and
2. to learn to speak to people outside the beltway.
3. to stop believing that people outside the beltway behave and operate like people inside the beltway.
Indeed, as a left-of-center independent, this entire electoral season was both infuriating and shocking watching the GOP not have its act together with timid ineffective leadership and less-than-ideal candidates. But Cruz and Trump had those 3 traits and only Cruz came close, but he was more odious than Trump which is why Cruz lost. Meanwhile, Democrat leadership in Congress is timid, weak, and ineffectual, while the DNC and complicit media are narrowly focused on Hillary not realizing that Bernie Sanders was not focused on the coastal base and knew how to talk to everyone who makes less than 6 figures. So, the GOP shouldn't have won this election but the Democrats (and media) threw it away all because they don't get it with regard to regular people and Trump did.
However, the parties are definitely not "hollowed out"; they are as entrenched as ever, but they evolve which is bound to happen when you have weak and unsavvy out-of-touch leadership which both parties have.
What may be hollowed out are the spines of various political leaders and the Yes-men under them. The political party leadership needs three traits that Trump has:
1. some gumption and
2. to learn to speak to people outside the beltway.
3. to stop believing that people outside the beltway behave and operate like people inside the beltway.
Indeed, as a left-of-center independent, this entire electoral season was both infuriating and shocking watching the GOP not have its act together with timid ineffective leadership and less-than-ideal candidates. But Cruz and Trump had those 3 traits and only Cruz came close, but he was more odious than Trump which is why Cruz lost. Meanwhile, Democrat leadership in Congress is timid, weak, and ineffectual, while the DNC and complicit media are narrowly focused on Hillary not realizing that Bernie Sanders was not focused on the coastal base and knew how to talk to everyone who makes less than 6 figures. So, the GOP shouldn't have won this election but the Democrats (and media) threw it away all because they don't get it with regard to regular people and Trump did.
However, the parties are definitely not "hollowed out"; they are as entrenched as ever, but they evolve which is bound to happen when you have weak and unsavvy out-of-touch leadership which both parties have.
1
I had expected the internet to educate the masses. Instead it is miseducating and arousing the uneducated. Fortunately these are fewer than 50% of the electorate so if those capable of education can be aroused democracy may be saved.
4
I disagree Joe. What is happening is the truly educated are looking elsewhere for informed media. We are seeing the shell games more clearly.
The very same things were said about the printing press. We had a little thing called the Reformation as a result. Get ready. There will be a new Reformation in spite of the boot licking types who like kneeling to their masters.
1
I am always astonished by liberals and progressives who want power for the people - but only the right people.
The irony in this editorial and the writer's notions that democracy cannot include all people shows just how crazy the world of the left and the Democrats has become. No wonder Trump - it's the natural reaction to this condescension and attempt at exclusion for everyone not on board with the opinions of the liberal/progressive elite
The irony in this editorial and the writer's notions that democracy cannot include all people shows just how crazy the world of the left and the Democrats has become. No wonder Trump - it's the natural reaction to this condescension and attempt at exclusion for everyone not on board with the opinions of the liberal/progressive elite
1
First, I must have missed the day the NY Times published the proof of the Russian hacking of the Pedestal emails. You really need to run that article again. Second, "Neither (party) could muster the wise elders to steer a more conventional course." I guess all those Sanders supporters were wrong that the Democrat superdelegates and hierarchy worked in concert with the Clinton campaign to steal the election from Bernie. Third, I guess it is now a bad thing the Trump campaign was able to win even though it was outspent by a campaign that raised the most money in history. Fourth, if the public has turned to the internet for alternative views, or more information, perhaps conventional media sources should take a better look in the mirror. The letter the Times publisher and editor sent to subscribers was a waste of time. The reporting attitude hasn't changed a bit since the campaign. If anything, the tone has gotten more shrill.
The resultant collapse in influence of major media institutions has been breathtaking.
The resultant collapse in influence of major media institutions has been breathtaking.
6
It's not the Internet that threatens democracy. It's ignorance. It's very hard to have any sort of discussion with people who do not want to compromise no matter what portion of the political spectrum they live in. Our politicians have seen to that as have the interest groups. In addition, many of us coalesce around one issue because we feel threatened by what is happening with it. Mine is abortion. I believe that every woman has the right to choose when, if, and whether or not she has a child. To me that means free access to abortion up until the end of the second trimester unless, after that, the woman's life endangered. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a Republican. However, that does not mean that I always support the Democrats. The subtleties of that seem to escape most people at the extremes.
In reality we're not all liberal or all conservative. We're mixtures depending upon how we were raised, our life experiences, where we're from, who our friends are, etc. I've known people who are liberal about social issues but very conservative when it comes to raising children. I've known some very religious people who are against abortion but who do understand and support the need to help families in trouble. Nothing is as black and white as politicians try to make it. However, in America, compromise seems to be receding as a way to govern with each successive president. And yes, I do blame the GOP and its minions and sects for this development.
In reality we're not all liberal or all conservative. We're mixtures depending upon how we were raised, our life experiences, where we're from, who our friends are, etc. I've known people who are liberal about social issues but very conservative when it comes to raising children. I've known some very religious people who are against abortion but who do understand and support the need to help families in trouble. Nothing is as black and white as politicians try to make it. However, in America, compromise seems to be receding as a way to govern with each successive president. And yes, I do blame the GOP and its minions and sects for this development.
7
If the established parties had policies that satisfied the public, blathering on the internet would have little impact. The problem is corrupt, self-serving institutions, not the people who call them out.
151
It isn't easy to find adult-level discussion groups on political websites.
I fully agree. In a time when the public feels abandoned by both parties, politicians that closely follow the established norms of politics sound like tools of corruption. Only the corrupt or groomed would agree with a political platform on all of 80 issues. Fake news is a blip on the radar compared to anger at the political system.
2
@Steve - You might try the NY Times comments section. Some of those writing seem to know more about the subject than the NY Times writers, and many highly-educated people disagree with the extreme positions taken in the editorial section.
1
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other such toys of the internet are essentially idiot’s delights designed to give us momentary relief from the harsh and often intractable problems of dealing with the difficulties of our our lives. It is no accident that we now have a Twitter President with a notoriously low attention span who measures his success by internet clicks, popularity ratings and opinion polls. The internet made him, and I suppose in the end it will be the only force powerful enough to bring him down.
6
It seems to me the weakened state of the office of "citizen" is at the core of America's troubles. If citizens want to execute their agency strongly and effectively then access to the information and discussion needed to do so could only help. Citizenship is hard work. It was so before the internet and remains so now.
5
I don't think you can hang the failure of the American political system around only Barrack Obama's neck. But, I am not sure that the internet was a major contributor to our slowly failing system. Donald Trump hit all of the major issues facing our country: the loss of high paying jobs (wage stagnation) caused by low growth rates and the export of manufacturing jobs, a broken immigration system, a deteriorating national security posture, a badly outdated tax code (highest corporate tax rate in the world), and an unwillingness to enforce the rule of law (or change the laws). Hillary's top issues were Trump is a racist, homophobe, neo-nazi and misogynist. The Democrats, Republicans and media all tried to stop Trump using fake stories, but I think the people are smarter than the government and media gives them credit for. So much for trying to protect their phoney-baloney jobs.
8
"For reasons that are both complex and debatable, very many voters have stopped seeing government as a tool for the production of the common good, and have instead turned to politicians (and others) who at least make them feel good. Thus, the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts. That’s where the vulnerability comes in, and its roots are in our politics — not in the internet."
The GOP has always persuaded with the "gut" and not the "head".
The pervasiveness of the internet has allowed them to leverage their message much more effectively than the Democrats, who are always at a disadvantage out of the starting blocks because their messaging requires much more time investment and rational thought by the receiver.
With "fake news", their task becomes even harder, as all facts become suspect.
The Democrats need to find politicians and grass roots surrogates that can effectively compete on this new playing field, which is largely visceral and emotional, not intellectual.
The GOP has always persuaded with the "gut" and not the "head".
The pervasiveness of the internet has allowed them to leverage their message much more effectively than the Democrats, who are always at a disadvantage out of the starting blocks because their messaging requires much more time investment and rational thought by the receiver.
With "fake news", their task becomes even harder, as all facts become suspect.
The Democrats need to find politicians and grass roots surrogates that can effectively compete on this new playing field, which is largely visceral and emotional, not intellectual.
4
Reading this article and attempting to seek an understanding of all its observations leads me back to the conclusion that the one generation that can abort the deterioration in our politics and our institutions of government is the millennial generation
Primarily because they see the problems not from a perspective of "hand wringing and fear but from one of challenge that requires their talents and brains, their better use and understanding of the Internet, their greater commitment to humanitarian ideals, their realistic sense of "power and extreme wealth which they will use for the many in need and not for their own personal and empty aggrandisement."
Primarily because they see the problems not from a perspective of "hand wringing and fear but from one of challenge that requires their talents and brains, their better use and understanding of the Internet, their greater commitment to humanitarian ideals, their realistic sense of "power and extreme wealth which they will use for the many in need and not for their own personal and empty aggrandisement."
4
I take it the 'millennial generation', you refer to is the generation that couldn't be bothered to vote in the recent election, and so handed the presidency to the man least qualified to be president. It's also evidently the generation that can't be bothered to base its conclusions on reasoning and evidence but prefers flatly to assert its self-congratulatory views, not even taking the trouble to express them in complete sentences.
Get over yourselves, millennial generation, get over yourselves and grow up.
Get over yourselves, millennial generation, get over yourselves and grow up.
1
There is a power shift taking place from large, centralized institutions, to individuals.
I think Edsall's perception of "democracy" is confined to an industrial epoch - a definition wherein anything that is different from two-party rule and mass media control of information appears to threaten the democracy he thinks he knows and reveres.
First of all, we do live in a Republic - not a democracy. Second, despite this, democracy has grown in the US due to the expansion of technology, especially the Internet. So, in truth, democracy has expanded and continues to expand in the Internet community and elsewhere. The tool that has led to the rise of greater democracy in our lives is not threatening it.
I also want to point out that "democracy", or democratic ideals of governance, is not the same as speech one dislikes. While there may be no "official" government body to restrict speech (and there should not be), there are community standards set by individuals that get enforced in all kinds of unique and effective ways.
I think Edsall's perception of "democracy" is confined to an industrial epoch - a definition wherein anything that is different from two-party rule and mass media control of information appears to threaten the democracy he thinks he knows and reveres.
First of all, we do live in a Republic - not a democracy. Second, despite this, democracy has grown in the US due to the expansion of technology, especially the Internet. So, in truth, democracy has expanded and continues to expand in the Internet community and elsewhere. The tool that has led to the rise of greater democracy in our lives is not threatening it.
I also want to point out that "democracy", or democratic ideals of governance, is not the same as speech one dislikes. While there may be no "official" government body to restrict speech (and there should not be), there are community standards set by individuals that get enforced in all kinds of unique and effective ways.
8
The power hasn't shifted to voters, rather the power OVER voters has shifted to the Internet manipulators.
1
I guess you would have to define who you think is an "Internet manipulator."
In the context of the opinion piece, Edsall believes that only alternatives to main stream media qualify as such. I would disagree with that assessment.
One would not have to look too hard to see biased / manipulated reporting in WashPo, for example, and a heavy use of negative keywords to describe Trump, factual inaccuracies, and strong subjective interpretations of the truth.
The power is shifting, John. And please note I did not say the process was complete or use the past tense as you did. Ultimately, the people will prevail.
Why? Because credibility is one of the key currencies of today and the future thanks to the Internet.
The demand for personalization is driving greater choice across all aspects of society: food, retail, news, entertainment, education, etc. Technology is eliminating barriers to entry. And credibility fuels growth. Where does that leave the NYT? Or WashPo? Their growing lack of credibility reduces their ability to grow and be competitive.
Bottom line is that people or institutions that fight this third wave are fighting an unstoppable societal force. The question is - do they adapt to the new reality? Or die trying to fight it? Saying the Internet threatens democracy suggests the latter.
In the context of the opinion piece, Edsall believes that only alternatives to main stream media qualify as such. I would disagree with that assessment.
One would not have to look too hard to see biased / manipulated reporting in WashPo, for example, and a heavy use of negative keywords to describe Trump, factual inaccuracies, and strong subjective interpretations of the truth.
The power is shifting, John. And please note I did not say the process was complete or use the past tense as you did. Ultimately, the people will prevail.
Why? Because credibility is one of the key currencies of today and the future thanks to the Internet.
The demand for personalization is driving greater choice across all aspects of society: food, retail, news, entertainment, education, etc. Technology is eliminating barriers to entry. And credibility fuels growth. Where does that leave the NYT? Or WashPo? Their growing lack of credibility reduces their ability to grow and be competitive.
Bottom line is that people or institutions that fight this third wave are fighting an unstoppable societal force. The question is - do they adapt to the new reality? Or die trying to fight it? Saying the Internet threatens democracy suggests the latter.
2
The problems created by the Internet may be real, but they were abetted by the political parties' abandonment of their platforms and the press' addiction with tinsel news.
Donald Trump was no more a Republican than Bernie Sanders was a Democrat. If either had to agree to adhere to a party agenda as a precondition for access to the party's nominating process, they would have been unable to disrupt the process. Alternatively, they would have had to run as third party candidates and get certified in every state.
If the press hadn't chased phony issues like Hillary's email and focused on real policy issues, it would have been more difficult for Trump to hide his policy vacuum.
Donald Trump was no more a Republican than Bernie Sanders was a Democrat. If either had to agree to adhere to a party agenda as a precondition for access to the party's nominating process, they would have been unable to disrupt the process. Alternatively, they would have had to run as third party candidates and get certified in every state.
If the press hadn't chased phony issues like Hillary's email and focused on real policy issues, it would have been more difficult for Trump to hide his policy vacuum.
6
It wasn't a phony issue.
3
The internet a threat to democracy?
I can answer this question only to the degree I can describe accurately my intellectual journey as a writer. Prior to the internet I would describe my American upbringing as very shallow--everything from dinner table conversation to nightly news was on a shallow level. In fact I would describe myself in unformed psychological state--no integration--at best, and at worst perpetually demolished by society in attempting to form a worthwhile view of reality.
All this I came to realize by heavy and deep reading from largely unfrequented used book stores. Now when I want to express my contempt for American public consciousness--democracy--I imagine myself with two fistfuls of books and tossing them in your face. It took deep reading to make myself into a more or less integrated person. Now with the internet I had hoped I could express some of my integrity, operate through internet to bring some much needed comprehension to half formed if not shattered minds, but what has occurred is that I have come up against the forces prior to internet intensified.
On the internet you get all the shallow minds of yesteryear and all the establishment stuff and all of it gets mashed around in a more confused state than ever, but I suspect it is to the benefit of established power, and a person such as myself, just trying to get a grasp of reality, is just more discouraged than ever before in becoming an integrated person. Democracy? No, just demolished men.
I can answer this question only to the degree I can describe accurately my intellectual journey as a writer. Prior to the internet I would describe my American upbringing as very shallow--everything from dinner table conversation to nightly news was on a shallow level. In fact I would describe myself in unformed psychological state--no integration--at best, and at worst perpetually demolished by society in attempting to form a worthwhile view of reality.
All this I came to realize by heavy and deep reading from largely unfrequented used book stores. Now when I want to express my contempt for American public consciousness--democracy--I imagine myself with two fistfuls of books and tossing them in your face. It took deep reading to make myself into a more or less integrated person. Now with the internet I had hoped I could express some of my integrity, operate through internet to bring some much needed comprehension to half formed if not shattered minds, but what has occurred is that I have come up against the forces prior to internet intensified.
On the internet you get all the shallow minds of yesteryear and all the establishment stuff and all of it gets mashed around in a more confused state than ever, but I suspect it is to the benefit of established power, and a person such as myself, just trying to get a grasp of reality, is just more discouraged than ever before in becoming an integrated person. Democracy? No, just demolished men.
1
We are living in the age of permanent ferment and outrage. I guess we will learn to tune out what does not concern us but right now, living in the fire hose of information and opinion feels like spinning through a series of revolving doors that go nowhere
Since anyone can express an opinion, they do. For democracy to survive, we need to give it time. Policies and laws don't get written and implemented in days - and they cannot be fleshed out in the tumult of a daily public gaze. We worried about politicians only at the end of their terms - we did not expect them to rule prime time and news casters dwell on every comment, analyse every turn of phrase and arrive at extreme conclusions day after day.
Democracy needs light and shade. Night and day. Like a plant growing in a nursery, it cannot be subject to constant scrutiny and debate. It needs the space to make compromises and to flower. Unfortunately, we seem to weigh in and spook the people in power at every turn. And they act in ways that spook us.
I think we need to shut down the streams and live in the real world more than the virtual. Democracy needs to be left to its own devices for a while.
Since anyone can express an opinion, they do. For democracy to survive, we need to give it time. Policies and laws don't get written and implemented in days - and they cannot be fleshed out in the tumult of a daily public gaze. We worried about politicians only at the end of their terms - we did not expect them to rule prime time and news casters dwell on every comment, analyse every turn of phrase and arrive at extreme conclusions day after day.
Democracy needs light and shade. Night and day. Like a plant growing in a nursery, it cannot be subject to constant scrutiny and debate. It needs the space to make compromises and to flower. Unfortunately, we seem to weigh in and spook the people in power at every turn. And they act in ways that spook us.
I think we need to shut down the streams and live in the real world more than the virtual. Democracy needs to be left to its own devices for a while.
6
Our founders clearly chose a representative democracy -a republic- rather than a direct democracy, to help limit the impact of uninformed and passion du jour voting. Social media has short circuited this safeguard. The problem is further amplified by the ability to make instant donations, a la' representative Joe Wilson, whose coffers filled overnight after his "You lie!" insult was hurled at President Obama in a State of the Union address. It's difficult to imagine a way out of this mess that doesn't follow chaos and catastrophe, which seem well on the way.
11
Edsall makes two arguments that I want to address.
One big part of Edsall's argument is that political parties have been weakened. Really? How? There is no evidence of that. In fact, while the people are pushing for greatest competition - politics remains a monopoly controlled by two organizations that set ballot access laws, debate rules, etc, all designed to keep alternative voices out of the picture. Those that do emerge, cannot threaten or attack the political media monopoly, or they run the risk of being demeaned and marginalized.
The other theory from Edsall seems to be that democracy is threatened because he thinks political leftism is devalued or that "nefarious influences" are afoot. Of course, these "nefarious influences" are really nothing more than opposing ideas. The problem with most on the political left is that they are delusional, and believe anyone not on their side is "untethered from reality" when in point of fact - ANYONE - who believes in one thing too strongly (on the right or left) falls into THAT category.
What is really at play here? Well, the truth is, third wave societies use technology to move to greater pragmatism, and solutions-based policy-making. It may not be totally apparent now, but this is the truth. What's more, a threat to leftist ideology (or right wing ideology) is not actually a threat to democracy. The Internet's ability to demand transparency and truth will have people wanting more substance, and less good feelings.
One big part of Edsall's argument is that political parties have been weakened. Really? How? There is no evidence of that. In fact, while the people are pushing for greatest competition - politics remains a monopoly controlled by two organizations that set ballot access laws, debate rules, etc, all designed to keep alternative voices out of the picture. Those that do emerge, cannot threaten or attack the political media monopoly, or they run the risk of being demeaned and marginalized.
The other theory from Edsall seems to be that democracy is threatened because he thinks political leftism is devalued or that "nefarious influences" are afoot. Of course, these "nefarious influences" are really nothing more than opposing ideas. The problem with most on the political left is that they are delusional, and believe anyone not on their side is "untethered from reality" when in point of fact - ANYONE - who believes in one thing too strongly (on the right or left) falls into THAT category.
What is really at play here? Well, the truth is, third wave societies use technology to move to greater pragmatism, and solutions-based policy-making. It may not be totally apparent now, but this is the truth. What's more, a threat to leftist ideology (or right wing ideology) is not actually a threat to democracy. The Internet's ability to demand transparency and truth will have people wanting more substance, and less good feelings.
10
The article reminds me of the environmental business. When the problem at hand is conceptual and solutions aren't time dependent, problem solvers are our best and brightest. The proverbial room gets packed with leaders and deep thinkers from academia, law, science, industry, nonprofits, and politics. The CVs of these solution finders are so long and distinguished it's almost frightening. Now if the problem is real and present and time is of the essence, like a pipeline burst or a berm surrounding a coal ash pile fails, man o' man, that room empties out real quick. Frankly, it never gets filled with those concerned firstly about reputation as expert. Especially if the room is a site trailer sitting right beside the problem at hand.
I guess my point is - Trump's team are the problem solvers at this point. Who he picks to sit at the table in the proverbial room may not include those quoted by Edsall, which is probably unfortunate. However, my guess is that Trump's team will cause new problems and apply bad solution to existing ones or just apply bad solutions to made up problems over the next four to eight years. This will give our best thinkers in the sensible center plenty to study in the meantime. Who knows, maybe Obama will run again to clean up yet another republican mess and call back our centrist thinkers once again.
I guess my real point is the internet's a tool. And maybe centrism is a tough sell when there's a sense of urgency being sold, too.
I guess my point is - Trump's team are the problem solvers at this point. Who he picks to sit at the table in the proverbial room may not include those quoted by Edsall, which is probably unfortunate. However, my guess is that Trump's team will cause new problems and apply bad solution to existing ones or just apply bad solutions to made up problems over the next four to eight years. This will give our best thinkers in the sensible center plenty to study in the meantime. Who knows, maybe Obama will run again to clean up yet another republican mess and call back our centrist thinkers once again.
I guess my real point is the internet's a tool. And maybe centrism is a tough sell when there's a sense of urgency being sold, too.
6
First, the main danger to democracy from the internet, is mass surveillance by government and global corporations, who generally share their dossiers on us, and who can target news (Obama made it legal to aim propaganda at Americans) and political advertising at individuals based on personality profiles.
Second, there were political upheavals before the internet. The weakness of the political parties stems from their catering to the wants of giant donors and ignoring what most people need. The Republicans push wars and tax cuts, and the Democrats acquiesce.
It is not the internet's fault that the Democrats rejected their own, young base, to impose Clinton, who is disliked on the left for pushing conservative policy, like fracking.
And global corporate mass media has discredited itself, by replacing investigative reporting with corporate press releases, and reporting on issues with horse race nonsense. Both parties helped mass media to be consolidated under a few global conglomerates, who continuously preach the wonders of "free trade" which impoverished billions to enrich thousands.
The fake "center" has left truth seekers to sort between alternate sourceses, some excellent and some lying, and the lying ones are funded by the global corporations so they can divide and conquer us.
Second, there were political upheavals before the internet. The weakness of the political parties stems from their catering to the wants of giant donors and ignoring what most people need. The Republicans push wars and tax cuts, and the Democrats acquiesce.
It is not the internet's fault that the Democrats rejected their own, young base, to impose Clinton, who is disliked on the left for pushing conservative policy, like fracking.
And global corporate mass media has discredited itself, by replacing investigative reporting with corporate press releases, and reporting on issues with horse race nonsense. Both parties helped mass media to be consolidated under a few global conglomerates, who continuously preach the wonders of "free trade" which impoverished billions to enrich thousands.
The fake "center" has left truth seekers to sort between alternate sourceses, some excellent and some lying, and the lying ones are funded by the global corporations so they can divide and conquer us.
29
The threat to democracy is not the internet. The real threat is wealthy donors. We are marching toward oligarchy to the beat of wealthy donors. They control both political parties and the administrative agencies that are machinery of government. They own and control the traditional media.
The open-access internet is not as easily controlled, but the wealthy donors are making progress on that front. Look for net neutrality to be curtailed soon.
The open-access internet is not as easily controlled, but the wealthy donors are making progress on that front. Look for net neutrality to be curtailed soon.
77
Wealthy donors also support PBS. That does not mean that they control content.
Homo sapiens is an animal like many others, inherently/genetically wired for survival, but also processing reason. Cooperative tribalism was a practical response to abet survival in a harsh and unforgiving world and fear of "others" a natural tendency that could only be quelled by visionary leaders who foresaw a better tomorrow through additional alliances. Unfortunately, the ubiquity and anonymity of the Internet favors communications and stories that play to our primitive fears more readily than to our better angels of reason. Only enlightened education and civic socialization stand a chance of countering this trend.
8
What makes us so ahistorical, I wonder? There is nothing new about the internet. It is merely a return to the forum of the ancient Greeks where the electorate listens to rhetoric.
Indeed, in many ways the actual danger of the net is that it is true democracy. The Greeks clearly demonstrated that democracy simply does not work. Look up Perecles for a prime example. Republics -- which we all too often confuse with democracy -- actually work. That is why the Founders set up this country as a republic.
It is a delicious irony that the toys which we invented are now eating our political institutions and the basis of power for the non-technical chattering classes.
Indeed, in many ways the actual danger of the net is that it is true democracy. The Greeks clearly demonstrated that democracy simply does not work. Look up Perecles for a prime example. Republics -- which we all too often confuse with democracy -- actually work. That is why the Founders set up this country as a republic.
It is a delicious irony that the toys which we invented are now eating our political institutions and the basis of power for the non-technical chattering classes.
8
wjr--It is right wing extremists who are at fault for these attempts to destroy democracy. It always has been. They are selling us down the proverbial river. Those who don't study history are destined to repeat it. The right wing is aware of history, and the fact that, heretofore, these attempts have not succeeded. they intend to be successful this time.
1
Democracy is opposed to mob rule and is expected to be the rule of laws and principles. For example, the separation of Church from State is intended to insure no one religion imposes its will upon everyone.
The Internet has no principles other than those upon advertisers imposed by Twitter, Facebook, or Google, etc. Echo chambers, fake facts, doctored U-Tube videos replace reality and warp minds.
The Internet has no principles other than those upon advertisers imposed by Twitter, Facebook, or Google, etc. Echo chambers, fake facts, doctored U-Tube videos replace reality and warp minds.
1
Along with the increasing failure of the popular vote to reflect the composition of government, and especially since the election of Trump, I've often read comments claiming that this country is a republic, not a democracy, and it's better that way. Is this simply an excuse for the unrepresentative election system?
Blaming the internet for the demise of democracy is like blaming federalism for the rise of the collectivist left.
It's nonsense.
The internet, is just a way to get content in front of people.
That people just believe, without questioning, what they read is the real problem. And the root cause of that is the degradation of our education system, which used to emphasize Socratic reasoning and the scientific method, until the progressives turned it into a propaganda process.
It's nonsense.
The internet, is just a way to get content in front of people.
That people just believe, without questioning, what they read is the real problem. And the root cause of that is the degradation of our education system, which used to emphasize Socratic reasoning and the scientific method, until the progressives turned it into a propaganda process.
36
Yes, propaganda such as science and the belief that there are facts.
Those pesky progressives!
Those pesky progressives!
Education couldn't hurt. But it is the ability of Twitter, Facebook, U-Tube, and fake news sites to provide nonsense with momentum and feed a mob mentality that drowns out all reason and common sense.
1
Which "federalism" do you really mean, Objectivist? The dominant federal government of Washington, Madison and Hamilton, or the state's rights governments of Jefferson of today's so-called "Federalist Society" of lawyers.
Growing pains. The writer's position is tantamount to saying when books were introduced to the common man, that was a bad thing that mislead them. In a way, that is true because the most printed and circulated were religious texts that spead myths that people were encouraged to take as literal, but it also led to much greater good over time. We cannot enter power/political/economic knowledge at the level of the expert's reality, whatever that is, but people are finally engaged and talking and reading about those subjects. I see that as good. We can begin to really confront our own and each others realities and prejudices instead of being too 'polite' or restrained in other ways from speaking up. The disturbing thing that is missing is the reality of the current power brokers in Congress and those that fund them. They are the quietest as they always have been. Working quietly behind the scenes to manipulate and buy their way in. We are catching on though.
24
People are finally reading... oh dear, no. Few of us actually read. Trump supporters, especially those who put him over the top, rarely read anything, not even the bible.
1
“Technology has overtaken one of the basic functions you needed political parties for in the past, communication with voters."
Amen. Twas a time when you wanted to propel a political movement, you needed to print flyers and get loyalists to distribute them on street corners. Forget that. Today's electronic communication is so fast, wide and unfiltered that extremist ideas are waaaaaaay too easy to promote and to take hold.
Amen. Twas a time when you wanted to propel a political movement, you needed to print flyers and get loyalists to distribute them on street corners. Forget that. Today's electronic communication is so fast, wide and unfiltered that extremist ideas are waaaaaaay too easy to promote and to take hold.
3
Political scientists have been talking about the disappearance of parties for 100 years.
They always have been nominating mechanisms. That which made the US undemocratic was the takeover of the Democratic Party by the affluent in Westchester and Marin counties--solid Republican counties who voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan--and Bill, as he admitted, adopting an Eisenhower economic program Elizabeth Warren. a Nixon Republican, switched over and soon became the extreme left of the "left-wing" party without changing her views.
As both of the parties were taken over by the anti-government New Left and Goldwaterite youth of the 1960s and gave the voters no choice on economic issues, they had to compete on emotional issues. And with the spirit of the 1960s.
The Goldwater activist Hillary was the final extreme. Now she is back to Goldwater's McCarthyism and has the Democrats answer the State of the Union with a man older than she is in order to to make herself look young and emphasize to the voter that the Democrats are totally status quo and will oppose all of Trump's change.
It took the Republicans 20 years from 1932 to get back the White House, 2036 seems about right for the Democrats this time.
They always have been nominating mechanisms. That which made the US undemocratic was the takeover of the Democratic Party by the affluent in Westchester and Marin counties--solid Republican counties who voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan--and Bill, as he admitted, adopting an Eisenhower economic program Elizabeth Warren. a Nixon Republican, switched over and soon became the extreme left of the "left-wing" party without changing her views.
As both of the parties were taken over by the anti-government New Left and Goldwaterite youth of the 1960s and gave the voters no choice on economic issues, they had to compete on emotional issues. And with the spirit of the 1960s.
The Goldwater activist Hillary was the final extreme. Now she is back to Goldwater's McCarthyism and has the Democrats answer the State of the Union with a man older than she is in order to to make herself look young and emphasize to the voter that the Democrats are totally status quo and will oppose all of Trump's change.
It took the Republicans 20 years from 1932 to get back the White House, 2036 seems about right for the Democrats this time.
9
Another factor is the anonymity which the internet allows. It is alluded to re those who generate fake news, but goes far beyond that in importance. Hiding behind pseudonyms allow anyone from paid political operatives to ordinary citizens to start rumors or send off "alternative facts" without detection. Such material, once posted is often circulated site to site. Writers with a particular ideological bent often cite a number of other sites as their affirmation that the information is "the truth" thus creating a seemingly deep witness when no actual proof has ever been offered.
143
All registered voters should be educated enough to recognize fake when they see it, & for those times they are unsure, know how to investigate that possibly fake factoid. Those who cannot, found by not being able to pass a simple Civics test, can't register to vote. They will forever more be considered uneducatable. Such would be stamped on their National ID, the only one allowed to be used as ID for registering to vote.
Either we are a country, or a bunch of different fanatical free states, separate countries. Decide to go the free states way, no more Federal money will be forthcoming for anything. No one living in them will be eligible for the National ID, Federal benefits, or protection from other countries or groups, by the Federal Government. All Federally owned properties & supplies will either be destroyed or removed. Including Federal money. If over time these states wish to return they will have to join first as Federally governed territories, with no rights. If they show the ability to behave, each of their citizens will have to pass a test, just like any other immigrant. Then if they are deemed worthy & useful, along with a majority in their territory, they will be allowed back in. Any of their "citizens" which will have no meaning, who do not pass will be rounded up & removed as 'illegals'. Where to? Their problem. No assets will be allowed out of the country, they leave it will be penniless. Same with corporations, they take their workers or they can't leave.
Either we are a country, or a bunch of different fanatical free states, separate countries. Decide to go the free states way, no more Federal money will be forthcoming for anything. No one living in them will be eligible for the National ID, Federal benefits, or protection from other countries or groups, by the Federal Government. All Federally owned properties & supplies will either be destroyed or removed. Including Federal money. If over time these states wish to return they will have to join first as Federally governed territories, with no rights. If they show the ability to behave, each of their citizens will have to pass a test, just like any other immigrant. Then if they are deemed worthy & useful, along with a majority in their territory, they will be allowed back in. Any of their "citizens" which will have no meaning, who do not pass will be rounded up & removed as 'illegals'. Where to? Their problem. No assets will be allowed out of the country, they leave it will be penniless. Same with corporations, they take their workers or they can't leave.
Don't forget about "anonymous sources" used by some of the "great" media giants. Anonymity has been alive and well for thousands of years to hurt and damage, as well as expose.
Ms. Hislop, you are one of the very few commenters who appear to use one's real name. Perhaps the Times should refuse to publish any comments that are not accompanied by the authors' real names. It might expose us to vitriol, but it also might encourage greater clarity in thinking, less emotionalism and a willingness to be identified with one's views.
The WP allows for pseudonyms and gets a great deal of outre comments, but the CBC has stopped publishing comments without attribution and the quality of the results has been improved remarkably.
The WP allows for pseudonyms and gets a great deal of outre comments, but the CBC has stopped publishing comments without attribution and the quality of the results has been improved remarkably.
1
"They are contributing — perhaps irreversibly — to the decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints in American politics."
The decay is not from the internet but from the hearts of men who refuse to acknowledge their creator and live life as pagans, with politicians and the news media leading the charge from their ivory towers located in New York and Washington...
The decay is not from the internet but from the hearts of men who refuse to acknowledge their creator and live life as pagans, with politicians and the news media leading the charge from their ivory towers located in New York and Washington...
9
Don't try to impose Sharia Law on us you radical religious extremist. In the US the constitution says there is no religious test for public office, and we have freedom to practice or not.
It'd you can't come up for a logical argument for a policy, but must resort to religious doctrine, your policy is probably bad.
Decay comes from global corporations who have no morality, or loyalty to anything but profit, and are perfectly happy destroying the lives of millions of it improves their quarterly repeats.
Putting profit above people is the source of moral decay, and if it comes from elites, the elites are the global billionaires who own the mass media and push all of this nonsense we see on TV.
It'd you can't come up for a logical argument for a policy, but must resort to religious doctrine, your policy is probably bad.
Decay comes from global corporations who have no morality, or loyalty to anything but profit, and are perfectly happy destroying the lives of millions of it improves their quarterly repeats.
Putting profit above people is the source of moral decay, and if it comes from elites, the elites are the global billionaires who own the mass media and push all of this nonsense we see on TV.
1
Stop this discrimination against Pagans. We were originally people who lived in the countryside, slow to accept the newest trend in Gods. We are a moral people, driven off our land by the profiteers of Christianity.
1
Mike, you actually mean, people who do not believe exactly as you do. I could declare you & yours pagan, because YOU don't believe exactly as I do. That would have as much truth in it as your pronouncement. This immoral way of living, declaring those you don't like, unfit for life. Bet it includes all the others as your creator Steve Bannon declares. Others = all people of color, or even suspected of having 'different' ethnicities, different orientations, good educations (tell the truth, you think edukashun is evil), disabilities (we should have the "goodness" to report to the euthanasia clinics on our own, not having to be dragged, it would save YOU money). You would happily crucify anyone found having dinner with "harlots", tax collectors (except yours, but, they would be closely watched), & other undesirables (people of color, other ethnicities, orientations, or are educated. Including Him you will declare your Master. Me? I am a Spiritual Christian. I don't believe in male dominated religion (all I have found are). Do you read His words yourself, or does your "pastor" read only the parts of The Book he deems 'right' to you? Ever read the words that in some Bibles are in red? Or are those anathema to you? They are HIS words, you crucify him again, every day you open your mouth, declaring Him "Other". Even those not of His spirituality welcome him into our "Otherness".
1
I've had the thought of late that Steve Bannon may well be the Otto Von Bismarck of our time. It is a matter of perspective as to a good or bad development. The Internet will certainly facilitate Mr. Bannon's agenda.
2
Bismarck was ruthless but intelligent, with an understanding of the limits of his power. Bannon is merely clever; worse, he doesn't have a soul but an infection. People will die because of him.
Bismarck had a consistent, long career, serving his monarch faithfully. He didn't hop like a flea from one warm body to another. Otto brought about the unification of Germany, not its destruction.
2
What is Bannon going to unify? We're already a country, a confederation of states. Your analogy doesn't fit.
Yes, the internet is harmful in regard to spreading lies and fake news. But our democratic institutions are not perfect, and the internet has helped to expose the dishonesty and corruption that has existed in our political parties and among many elected officials in our country since its founding.
54
The cited sources seem to equate democracy with a strong party system in place to drive toward a more conventional message. That is not my definition of democracy. That is just a different form of the "control by the few" the writer is warning against. I'm not sure where we are headed or if it's more or less democratic but where we've been was not a democratic ideal.
32
The Founding Fathers (not perfect but no one is) saw in all the possible futures exactly what we have now. A dictator wanna be who uses hate against "difference" (any difference) as the key to taking over. They gave us the Constitution, which is changeable, but, not easily or fast. They gave us the Declaration of Independence, which is immutable. In it they gave us the right, no the Obligation, to revolt against just such a man & regime. Who is this wanna be? Could actually be 2 or 3. *45, Bannon, & Pense. Whichever is still standing after they fight each other behind the scenes. All three would be a disaster, Pense the least. Though he would have to be watched 24/7/365 as he is in the control of those who wish to rule us as a theocracy. That also must not be allowed to happen. That is why we have the separation of church (any religion) & state. The other 2 just want total control. Bannon to totally destroy us, and *45 to bankrupt us while turning himself into at least a trillionaire. There are many of us who don't want to allow any of them any control. We will go as far as we need to, to destroy them. *45's base is too childlike to be allowed to vote, give them beer and they will do whatever you say. Tell them how wonderful they are, because they have no education, they think you a genius. They should be taken care of, for life, without the ability to procreate, with sorrow & kindness. Allowed to do nothing within society.
It isn't democracy that the internet threatens, it is the institutions of our current two party system. In fact in a true Athenian direct democracy sense the internet has given us more democracy not less. And since the internet isn't going away the question is how will our institutions evolve in the new environment. It does seem that liberal authors like Edsall love democracy until the voters go against their ideas then we have too much of it.
11
While you Athenians celebrate, China eats your picnic.
1
Edsall and his ilk do not "love democracy" -- they love THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, which they believe should be the ONLY party, and utterly rule over us in a totalitarian, one party system such as is already evidence in California.
They want total control, with which they can impose lefty liberal social engineering -- things like gay marriage, unisex toilets, transgender "rights".
Trump upended that apple cart, and now the left is in hysterics, renting their garments and pulling their hair out. It's not pretty. And they are making fools out of themselves on a national stage.
They want total control, with which they can impose lefty liberal social engineering -- things like gay marriage, unisex toilets, transgender "rights".
Trump upended that apple cart, and now the left is in hysterics, renting their garments and pulling their hair out. It's not pretty. And they are making fools out of themselves on a national stage.
Such a long wail of slogans. Trump's promotion of Wall St. is immaterial? Trump's downgrading of diplomacy and his commitment to a 1950s-style arms race is immaterial?
Yeah, and this comment is living proof. Here one is doing just what Mr. Edsall's editorial is citing.
But it becomes so common and promiscuous that the value is reduced.
And we still have the problem of $$ influencing the amount of information/disinformation that is pumped out there.
This is all true and scary, but what it seems to demand, and forecast, is the need for electoral reform in a big way, adjusting to this informative revolution.
You should be able to vote with your smart phone, onto the computer, 24/7.
If we can transfer millions of dollars, buy and pay, with a minimum amount of risk, why won't it work to facilitate Democracy and make our Middle-Class Majority all the stronger?
But it becomes so common and promiscuous that the value is reduced.
And we still have the problem of $$ influencing the amount of information/disinformation that is pumped out there.
This is all true and scary, but what it seems to demand, and forecast, is the need for electoral reform in a big way, adjusting to this informative revolution.
You should be able to vote with your smart phone, onto the computer, 24/7.
If we can transfer millions of dollars, buy and pay, with a minimum amount of risk, why won't it work to facilitate Democracy and make our Middle-Class Majority all the stronger?
3
Because mobs are too easy to sway. Our ancestors knew that from experience, and that's why they created institutions that could slow down the beast within every human and give us time to allow the adults in the room to calm us. Think of the world of the Internet as a return to village life, which was inevitably petty, full of jealousy and mean-spirited gossip, and prone to emotional and violent outbursts. While I may be a social liberal, I do understand the conservative tendency to want to control our emotional beasts. While there were some good things about village life - human contact and the idea of community for self defense - with the Internet we've returned to the mob rule of village life and there's no sheriff in town to restore order.
8
Voting is already to vulnerable to hacking. I want my old voting machine back, with the bigger heavy lever and steel mechanisms that must be adjusted one by one.
4
Ridiculous assumptions. Both sides are to blame, both sides are vulnerable, and both sides tried to take advantage of the available internet system. It's not going away - so how are you going to adjust. It wasn't Breeeitbart or Putin who swung the election. It was a weak, ill-prepared candidate who had nothing new to offer to a nation that is tearing itself apart by increasing divisions that were stoked by Obama himself. A lot of people are sick of it. The internet is here to stay. Although unfiltered, who says the Times and Post are not? Keep it up with these false narratives and continue to suffer at the election box.
40
Outlaw all current parties. Give citizens 2 weeks to unenroll from all of them, then purge anyone who has not. Keeping the list of those who didn't so they may never vote again. If a simple majority in any state refuses to unenroll, take statehood away from that state, making it a Federally administered territory. With no citizens' rights, benefits, or voting, even for state offices. Though taxes would continue as usual. They would be considered the same as illegal immigrants today, if they left their territory.
Then we can rebuild the party system from the center. Radicals would go back to being basically ignored. Though occasionally some idea would filter out, get modified to some extent & moved into the mainstream.
Then we can rebuild the party system from the center. Radicals would go back to being basically ignored. Though occasionally some idea would filter out, get modified to some extent & moved into the mainstream.
The Internet is not exactly "unfiltered". It is often manipulated by vested interests to amplify readers' discontents in a channeled direction. This manipulation is not through salutary means, but by fake news, alternative facts and mostly by creating momentum by the illusion of majority consensus via echo chambers. Real thought and deeper analysis are crowded out.
3
Please enlighten on the divisions Obama created in this country? Are we completely polarized because he created a system where some tax payers have to subsidize the insurance of very poor people? I know SOME Americans are still very upset about it, but I don't see it polarizing the entire nation any more.
Or is it the bailouts of 2009--which probably saved us from a Great Depression--is that how he divided America? Again, some people were against them, yes, but overall is there a great divide in the country over that?
What about the bathroom debate? Again, divisive, but not driving the whole country hopelessly apart.
In reality, Obama's policies were more conservative than any Democrat in a hundred years. So, why do conservatives who always demand that "the other side is just as bad" always need to remind us of how polarizing Obama was.
Who prevented virtually any meaningful legislation from being passed for the last six years? Who is responsible for there being only 8 supreme court justices? Who grid-locked the government to gain political advantage? You should ask Republican Congressmen and Senators why they had to create such bitter resistance to Obama.
But then you might not like the answers.
Or is it the bailouts of 2009--which probably saved us from a Great Depression--is that how he divided America? Again, some people were against them, yes, but overall is there a great divide in the country over that?
What about the bathroom debate? Again, divisive, but not driving the whole country hopelessly apart.
In reality, Obama's policies were more conservative than any Democrat in a hundred years. So, why do conservatives who always demand that "the other side is just as bad" always need to remind us of how polarizing Obama was.
Who prevented virtually any meaningful legislation from being passed for the last six years? Who is responsible for there being only 8 supreme court justices? Who grid-locked the government to gain political advantage? You should ask Republican Congressmen and Senators why they had to create such bitter resistance to Obama.
But then you might not like the answers.
2
Open politics and so called free speech aren't so great when people start getting hurt and worse killed by those the internet has aroused to violence. I for one prefer the back rooms. They had their faults but in the end we didn't end up with a Donald Trump.
4
"......in the end we didn't end up with a Donald Trump".
Hillary would have been much, much worse.
Hillary would have been much, much worse.
The back rooms gave us Hillary, who lost to Trump. Many that waned to vote for Bernie, because they know the crony oligarchs are the source of most corruption, ended up voting for Trump. I talked to aNYC cop who told me he wanted Bernie but voted for Trump just the other day.
The People know in their guts that our system has been hijacked, and they are searching for a solution. Bernie was a traditional New Deal Democrat who was popular with the Midwestern swing voters week rejected Clinton to blow up the system, and who the global corporate mass media ignored until after the election. How convenient.
The People want true democracy and, not fake battles between two parties that pretend to war over everything that might actually help the People, but always manage to cough up enough votes for wars, tax cuts for the rich, military build ups, increased surveillance, exceptions for the constitution, and more and more rights for global corporations, that suck money out of the economy and use it to play the global derivatives market, valued at many times the world economy, and legalized by the Republicans and Bill Clinton
The People know in their guts that our system has been hijacked, and they are searching for a solution. Bernie was a traditional New Deal Democrat who was popular with the Midwestern swing voters week rejected Clinton to blow up the system, and who the global corporate mass media ignored until after the election. How convenient.
The People want true democracy and, not fake battles between two parties that pretend to war over everything that might actually help the People, but always manage to cough up enough votes for wars, tax cuts for the rich, military build ups, increased surveillance, exceptions for the constitution, and more and more rights for global corporations, that suck money out of the economy and use it to play the global derivatives market, valued at many times the world economy, and legalized by the Republicans and Bill Clinton
3
This is why, in 1992 when I ran for the Board of Supervisors, I felt that nothing about the election had any meaning. The democratic election process had already been usurped by outside forces just before the advent of the Internet.
The use of hit pieces and fake news including whispering campaigns were the determinants of the election. My traditional campaigning was a waste of time.
Americans have felt for many years that government and the political process was rigged making the exercise completely futile. Now, the Bannon's have taken over.
Be prepared for an endless stream of Bannon's in the future!
The use of hit pieces and fake news including whispering campaigns were the determinants of the election. My traditional campaigning was a waste of time.
Americans have felt for many years that government and the political process was rigged making the exercise completely futile. Now, the Bannon's have taken over.
Be prepared for an endless stream of Bannon's in the future!
4
If Americans are too whimpy to fight for our country,we don't deserve it.
I am of the belief that it will come down to a war. Nice old fashioned shoot to kill war. Just like during the Civil War, state against state, brother against brother. But, any family who puts one son on one side and another on another to make sure the family is on the "winning" side, will lose everything. As should have happened then. The citizens on the government side, The Citizens' Army will take out the illegal regime in Washington, then on the way home, stop at every repug controlled state government & clean them out too. No current political party, or their members will be allowed the vote, if they do not unenroll within 2 weeks of the announcement. States who fight against us will be downgraded to territories with no Federal benefits, safety, including Federal currency. All Federal property will be destroyed or if possible removed. Their citizens will also lose their citizenship in the country & be considered as *45's base does illegal immigrants. They will not be allowed into the USA, without a very expensive visa, then for only 2 weeks. No inheritances will be allowed into the territories. No retirement benefits will be either. Those who move abroad will still receive them, but, will no longer be considered citizens of the USA. Expats will be exactly that former citizens. The Federal government was too easy at the end of the Civil War. Corporations would have to leave all assets if they leave
I am of the belief that it will come down to a war. Nice old fashioned shoot to kill war. Just like during the Civil War, state against state, brother against brother. But, any family who puts one son on one side and another on another to make sure the family is on the "winning" side, will lose everything. As should have happened then. The citizens on the government side, The Citizens' Army will take out the illegal regime in Washington, then on the way home, stop at every repug controlled state government & clean them out too. No current political party, or their members will be allowed the vote, if they do not unenroll within 2 weeks of the announcement. States who fight against us will be downgraded to territories with no Federal benefits, safety, including Federal currency. All Federal property will be destroyed or if possible removed. Their citizens will also lose their citizenship in the country & be considered as *45's base does illegal immigrants. They will not be allowed into the USA, without a very expensive visa, then for only 2 weeks. No inheritances will be allowed into the territories. No retirement benefits will be either. Those who move abroad will still receive them, but, will no longer be considered citizens of the USA. Expats will be exactly that former citizens. The Federal government was too easy at the end of the Civil War. Corporations would have to leave all assets if they leave
The internet is not a threat to democracy. The process which is going right now, is in that, that power shifts from classical elites to something else. Classical media, was an important part of these old elites. They calmly oversaw for decades as technology takes jobs from poor people, saying that progress is inevitable and losers should die as a law of nature. Great. Now it's their time to die. No one needs you anymore.
11
Trump is a member of, a mouthpiece of, and a tool for that same "classical elite" you somehow think he's defeated. He's spent his life trampling the "losers." And yet he's your answer.
Johnathan, classical elites. Those with gazillions of dollars, often got either in a shady manner, or outright illegal activities. No, you want them even richer. You will join the *45 Army to make them even richer, while everyone else gets poorer.
If you call those with decent educations elites, that makes you uneducatable. Since your place is Germany, I don't know if you are a German, or an American expat. Either way you have no say, as you are not an American citizen. Expats are cowards who moved elsewhere to "keep safe" while still collecting any benefits you have stolen from us. Be that SS, Medicare, or other retirement benefits, they may disappear after we take care of the illegal regime (WH & congress) in DC. Unless you come home, to fight with us. If you don't, no coming home unless you get a stateless visa, then you will have to stay in government dormitories, for you will have to be watched. Probably have a "guide" assigned. The visas will cost 5 years of any payments you get. They will take 6 years to get. So, don't plan quick trips for funerals. Sorry, but, you need extreme vetting, if you fail no refunds. More than other refugees. As you think of yourself as refugees from the US. Since you would be wanting to come back, you wouldn't be trusted, at all. Leave once, no coming back, except for very short periods of time. Taking no assets out with you. You may of course buy anything you want with money you bring IN.
If you call those with decent educations elites, that makes you uneducatable. Since your place is Germany, I don't know if you are a German, or an American expat. Either way you have no say, as you are not an American citizen. Expats are cowards who moved elsewhere to "keep safe" while still collecting any benefits you have stolen from us. Be that SS, Medicare, or other retirement benefits, they may disappear after we take care of the illegal regime (WH & congress) in DC. Unless you come home, to fight with us. If you don't, no coming home unless you get a stateless visa, then you will have to stay in government dormitories, for you will have to be watched. Probably have a "guide" assigned. The visas will cost 5 years of any payments you get. They will take 6 years to get. So, don't plan quick trips for funerals. Sorry, but, you need extreme vetting, if you fail no refunds. More than other refugees. As you think of yourself as refugees from the US. Since you would be wanting to come back, you wouldn't be trusted, at all. Leave once, no coming back, except for very short periods of time. Taking no assets out with you. You may of course buy anything you want with money you bring IN.
The Banana Republicans are interested in power, not democracy.
7
It's Dems who wanted to tried to pass laws requiring the Press to be licensed by the Federal government. Goebbles would have so proud cause that exactly what he did back in 1933 Germany.
2
The internet represents free speech. And thank God there is not a third, demoralizing, wasteful socialistic term in the White House. This is not a one party country yet.
9
If the Press is the Fourth Estate keeping an eye on the the other 3, than the Internet is the Fifth Estate keeping an eye on the Fourth Estate.
1
But you're sure working on that, aren't you, Jan?
2
*45 is working hard to make it a NO party system. He wants it all. All control. No elections, he will pick every member in congress, all yes men, even the women, though they will all be 10's, and forced to, in rotation, spend nights at the WH. No quitting. All wages slashed, no minimum. Everything to be considered to be from him, at his concession. All you will do is work 15 hour days 7 days a week (he isn't a christian, any more than he is a repug). Only holiday will be Military Parade Day. Everyone will be bused to big cities to watch the 20 hour parade, no sitting allowed, no stopping applause. Snacks will be handed out, with small bottles of water, one trip to a porta potty allowed. No disabled allowed to come, no caretakers allowed to stay home. If some die, oops, who cares, they are just a waste anyway. Smiles also required. Eventually he will order all banks to give him every cent the rich have, all their real assets will be turned over to him, they will be put to work like the rest of the "workers". The whole system will collapse (with many millions dead) when he dies as he will leave no successor. His kids will be living in Europe. The war after than will be worse than if we have one now to get rid of him & his fanatics. Telling Pootin that the next thing he tries will be his last as we will have assassins living as Russians in Russia, just waiting. They are there already. One word, given after *45 is ousted & he will be gone. Totally. No body to be found. Ever.
Sounds as though the problem is that democracy has become too democratic and this is not a good thing. I think of call-in radio shows and the disinformation and misinformation and weak thinking that is broadcast through the callers and passive "moderators" who do not challenge the untruths, misunderstandings and ill-informed opinions that are all amplified by this phenomenon.
3
Oh, yes, Rhys, how dare we the people think for ourselves without being spoon feed (Fake) news by the MSM.
Rhys, you're a dinosaur and you don't even know it.
Control Freaks like you are not meant for a world of free speech.
Rhys, you're a dinosaur and you don't even know it.
Control Freaks like you are not meant for a world of free speech.
1
Democracy is supposed to involve the election of responsible parties that can deliberate tough questions on behalf of their constituents - that is not Internet based mob rule.
1
Milo from Breitbart could not be stopped with conventional mores until his recorded words about pedophilia were exposed on the Internet. That exposure stopped him cold because the taboo in the general public about child molestation still exists.
Some thought the video of Trump talking about crotch grabbing would stop him but it did not. That public value has lost its clout and stopping power.
The vacuum left by the Bannon's deconstructing past democratic structures can easily be filled by fascism. Trump announcing that he would be the voice of the unwashed was his grabbing and usurping past influences and democratic structure.
If Trump pursues this to its natural outcome with success, he will become the dominant fascist leader!
Some thought the video of Trump talking about crotch grabbing would stop him but it did not. That public value has lost its clout and stopping power.
The vacuum left by the Bannon's deconstructing past democratic structures can easily be filled by fascism. Trump announcing that he would be the voice of the unwashed was his grabbing and usurping past influences and democratic structure.
If Trump pursues this to its natural outcome with success, he will become the dominant fascist leader!
5
Kittle,
Fascism is ever bigger government wielding undisputed control over the private sector.
QUESTION
Who wants ever bigger Federal Government with undisputed control over the private sector? Obama and the Libs.
Who wants to deconstruct the administrative state, drastically reduce government, drastically reduce regulations and to allow the free market to be free? Trump and Conservatives.
BONUS QUESTIONS
Who created Political Correctness and defines any speech they don't like as Hate Speech which must then be punished and crushed? Obama and Libs.
Who defend Free Speech? Trump and Conservatives.
Who wants to censor the Internet from any speech that does fit their Political Correctness? Obama and Libs.
Who defends a free Internet? Trump and Libs.
Fascism is ever bigger government wielding undisputed control over the private sector.
QUESTION
Who wants ever bigger Federal Government with undisputed control over the private sector? Obama and the Libs.
Who wants to deconstruct the administrative state, drastically reduce government, drastically reduce regulations and to allow the free market to be free? Trump and Conservatives.
BONUS QUESTIONS
Who created Political Correctness and defines any speech they don't like as Hate Speech which must then be punished and crushed? Obama and Libs.
Who defend Free Speech? Trump and Conservatives.
Who wants to censor the Internet from any speech that does fit their Political Correctness? Obama and Libs.
Who defends a free Internet? Trump and Libs.
1
Your points are so ill-informed that they are almost laughable. Since you are seeking confirmation know that your delusion is noted.
2
Or the decent Americans, the 'others", will do as Americans do, fight. All of *45's base will disappear, then he will notice lots of people heading for DC. He will assume it is his missing base. Wrong. It will be the Citizen's Army. Coming for him, all his minions (cabinet, staff, and the cowardly congress; including Ryan, who is a murderer at heart, a perfect evil minion, smirk away, until you hang for 200 million counts of attempted capital murder).
1
The USA is a constitutional representative republic, not a democracy.
20
I think this is wishful thinking. America is an oligarchy. A relatively few buy the government they want (see the work of the Koch brothers and others).
3
That is a distinction important only to people who feel that most of the population is fit only to take the orders of their betters.
2
The questions surrounding technology and its impact on society is an example of the "chicken or the egg" dilemma. Does technology impact society or does society affect technology. The Internet is a great example of this dilemma.
Edsall argues that the Internet has "eroded" the democratic traditions that have governed American politics (especially political parties). But I keep remembering what the Founding Fathers said about democracy being an experiment. Perhaps instead of simply being an corrosive force, the Internet will force America's political institutions to adapt to a rapidly changing world. The Founding Fathers realized that for democracy to survive, it needed to be flexible enough to deal with changes that even they could not have foreseen.
I do agree however that the anonymous nature of the Internet has made it much easier for people to express beliefs that they would never utter in front of a real person. And this lack of civility is a real cause of concern. But as more and more people use the Internet - and as the technology itself matures - I am (still) hopeful that the people writing those obscenities can be shamed into silence or irrelevance.
For ultimately, the fate of a democracy lies not with a particular technology but in the capacity of its citizens to think critically and independently.
Edsall argues that the Internet has "eroded" the democratic traditions that have governed American politics (especially political parties). But I keep remembering what the Founding Fathers said about democracy being an experiment. Perhaps instead of simply being an corrosive force, the Internet will force America's political institutions to adapt to a rapidly changing world. The Founding Fathers realized that for democracy to survive, it needed to be flexible enough to deal with changes that even they could not have foreseen.
I do agree however that the anonymous nature of the Internet has made it much easier for people to express beliefs that they would never utter in front of a real person. And this lack of civility is a real cause of concern. But as more and more people use the Internet - and as the technology itself matures - I am (still) hopeful that the people writing those obscenities can be shamed into silence or irrelevance.
For ultimately, the fate of a democracy lies not with a particular technology but in the capacity of its citizens to think critically and independently.
15
Libs don't want citizens to think critically and independently.
Civility went the way of the dinosaur when males of the bigoted persuasion stopped listening to their mothers. Their mothers could be just as bigoted, but, knew that without manners greasing the wheels of society, society would fail as it is now. The males decided that manners were fake, so must be banished, and they did. So, some younger people thought PC would work, not being so connected to "society". But, it didn't. See, women know that you need to have something to ease the different parts of society, so they don't screech. Now since the bigots have taken over, society is screeching loud. I don't believe the bigots can be shut up again, without pounding them down.
To save this country they must be fought. Their regime in DC needs to be removed, & soon. Congress will not do their job, as they are part and parcel of the problem. So, it is the decent Americans, all the 'Others', who will have to come together and remove those who do not have either the intelligence or decency to rule this country, especially as Americans don't take kind to being "ruled", they want to be governed. So, except for a miracle, there will be war, here. We will do to the fanatics what should have been done to their ancestors the South, at the end of the Civil War. Remove their states from the Union (some are now north), & their populations from our citizenry. Until at least one generation has learned edukashun is not evil. Maybe 2. Controlling their schools will be very important. No drop outs.
To save this country they must be fought. Their regime in DC needs to be removed, & soon. Congress will not do their job, as they are part and parcel of the problem. So, it is the decent Americans, all the 'Others', who will have to come together and remove those who do not have either the intelligence or decency to rule this country, especially as Americans don't take kind to being "ruled", they want to be governed. So, except for a miracle, there will be war, here. We will do to the fanatics what should have been done to their ancestors the South, at the end of the Civil War. Remove their states from the Union (some are now north), & their populations from our citizenry. Until at least one generation has learned edukashun is not evil. Maybe 2. Controlling their schools will be very important. No drop outs.
The sheep seem to be the Trumpsters.
1
The internet a threat to democracy in America?
Prior to the internet there did not seem much democracy in America. Rather over decades what appeared to occur is massive administration, bureaucratic, technological buildup which while seeming to be democratic allowed individual voices on a rather lowbrow, confused and incoherent and therefore harmless to power level but destroyed the right of the exceptional individual to issue a challenge from the outside to institutions in power.
Now with the internet all the administrative buildup prior to internet--the establishment--is worried about losing its control and is claiming democracy is being threatened, and what it is doing is attempting to increase and force ever further the process of vast administrative control over public which keeps public discourse at an increasingly lower yet controlled level while destroying ever more carefully any intelligent outsider challenge to power. Thus we can see today that there is much "individuality", churn of clamoring voices, yet no writers or intellectuals worth speaking of which have not been carefully controlled, born of the system of power.
Essentially, prior to internet, for all supposed freedom, a writer such as myself, not of the establishment, had his right to challenge the darling writers of the system largely prevented, and now rather than having this right I am against even greater forces: Vast establishment internet web surveillance system guaranteeing "freedom, democracy".
Prior to the internet there did not seem much democracy in America. Rather over decades what appeared to occur is massive administration, bureaucratic, technological buildup which while seeming to be democratic allowed individual voices on a rather lowbrow, confused and incoherent and therefore harmless to power level but destroyed the right of the exceptional individual to issue a challenge from the outside to institutions in power.
Now with the internet all the administrative buildup prior to internet--the establishment--is worried about losing its control and is claiming democracy is being threatened, and what it is doing is attempting to increase and force ever further the process of vast administrative control over public which keeps public discourse at an increasingly lower yet controlled level while destroying ever more carefully any intelligent outsider challenge to power. Thus we can see today that there is much "individuality", churn of clamoring voices, yet no writers or intellectuals worth speaking of which have not been carefully controlled, born of the system of power.
Essentially, prior to internet, for all supposed freedom, a writer such as myself, not of the establishment, had his right to challenge the darling writers of the system largely prevented, and now rather than having this right I am against even greater forces: Vast establishment internet web surveillance system guaranteeing "freedom, democracy".
46
Amen, Brother Daniel, amen.
Never, ever give up the fight for freedom.
PS - Isn't it funny how it's our "Liberal" universities that are so fanatical about stomping out free speech on campus.
Never, ever give up the fight for freedom.
PS - Isn't it funny how it's our "Liberal" universities that are so fanatical about stomping out free speech on campus.
3
What you are saying is that the internet has made it easier for an individual not connected to the media establishment to publish his or her ideas that might previously have been ignored. Another perspective on that might be that the internet has made it easier, in fact completely achievable, to publish viewpoints without the impediments of reflection, journalistic standards, peer review and empirical evidence.
5
Daniel12:
I am curious as to your notion of what government would exist without "the establishment." Like the internet, that establishment might be good or bad. Hence the internet allows many to have a voice, whether or not well-reasoned. It does not prevent selfish interests, and arguably facilitates the spread of disinformation and misinformation.
I understand that the internet is not going away, but we had better all hope "the establishment" comes to grips with growing threats, while preserving the core of our first amendment beliefs.
I am curious as to your notion of what government would exist without "the establishment." Like the internet, that establishment might be good or bad. Hence the internet allows many to have a voice, whether or not well-reasoned. It does not prevent selfish interests, and arguably facilitates the spread of disinformation and misinformation.
I understand that the internet is not going away, but we had better all hope "the establishment" comes to grips with growing threats, while preserving the core of our first amendment beliefs.
3
The post-WWII period was kind of anomalous. All of the major powers, except the US had suffered massive destruction. A small number of major newspapers and radio and television networks basically controlled the dissemination of all public affairs information. All of those were one way channels. It could not last.
Look to the invention of the printing press. It destroyed the Catholic church as it was then constituted. It unleashed over a century of horrific civil war in Europe. In the long run, though, those disruptions established freedome of conscience as a basic human right in most of the world.
My hope is that the long run will see a diminishment of government and other institutional power.
Look to the invention of the printing press. It destroyed the Catholic church as it was then constituted. It unleashed over a century of horrific civil war in Europe. In the long run, though, those disruptions established freedome of conscience as a basic human right in most of the world.
My hope is that the long run will see a diminishment of government and other institutional power.
6
When we can again trust neighborhoods to take care of each other, be it with food, shelter, or safety (say during a war), then government can diminish. Until then,we need it, because we won't take care of each other. We stopped that, well, mostly after the Civil War. Though many still did. The Underground Railroad started well before, because slave owners felt they had the right to force those who didn't believe in slavery to return to them human beings. If human beings can be "owned" by others, then watch out. You can be owned, say by ME. I don't know what race you are. Doesn't matter. There could be again,if the bigots have their way, slave stores. Of selling anyone who, say, owes money to a bank. They and their families could be sold into lifetime slavery (including all future generations). It was that way in many parts of Europe for a long time. Could be again. No class was safe from it. Well, not exactly, the rich were, as long as they stayed rich. Lose all your money and you could be sold. Or you could stave it off for yourself by selling your kids. Back then large "crops" of kids were worth something,they worked for you, you could sell them (either into outright slavery or into marriage). The more bigoted you were, the more apt your neighbors were to help you into slavery. So, watch your step. Could happen again. A first for this country, not for a lot of the world.
The title of this column makes the same mistake that has been made many times over. Technological progress, such as the capacity to design and manufacture a horseless carriage, or crack the atom to make a terrifying explosion, or the internet that allows unfiltered and unfettered communication, are all just that - technological progress. They are used by people to either benefit or harm society. Whether they are used to benefit or harm depends on two elements: prevailing laws and institutions as also on the capacity for critical thinking among people. Currently we have failure in at least one of these two elements. Our citizens capacity to critically think and screen information is woefully absent. People are wont to pass along anything that comes into their inbox. The internet merely amplifies our collective inability to think critically.
44
"The Internet merely amplifies our inability to think critically". That seems so. Additionally, it amplifies the ability of Trump to manipulate us using his mastery of Twitter. Of course others with his skills and possibly better organization can do likewise.
We seem to be very susceptible to being misled by Internet propaganda. We have yet to develop the smarts to resist.
We seem to be very susceptible to being misled by Internet propaganda. We have yet to develop the smarts to resist.
1
Those who can't think critically are so handicapped because they were raised to believe any secular edukashun was evil. Taught this by their clergymen, their parents. Both of which have been working for a very long time to destroy public education. The rich will always have access to good schools (all private schools are not good, even secular ones, but the chances are better). The poor lost that right before the Civil War. The Middle Class is about to. Because of the current regime. So, what to do? Clear out the current regime set on destroying the freedoms real Americans deem necessary. Then spend money on schools for all. Public for all 'normal' kids. Those with special problems will still have good special schools for them. Not religious schools (teach religion in after school classes at your place of worship). Separate, as per the Constitution. If you want to teach a brand of atheism, hire a hall, and do it. If a kid doesn't pass his needed classes, he stays back. No social promotion. If kids are raised to be disrespectful, maybe a boarding school is best. Though those must be watched closely, as all teachers do. Flunk senior Civics, you can never vote. One chance. At the beginning all of voting age will have to take the class and pass the closed book test, to register. Pass, get an ID card with pic & name. Only one allowed for registration. No more state elections for national posts (like congress, all elected at large, by the country). We will be a country, finally.
We have had a hybrid regime, with the trappings of democracy while the election process, the media and the scope of permissible debate were controlled. Back when there was segregation, it was outside the scope of permissible debate to talk of ending it. It was outside this scope to question Vietnam, which is why Life and Walter Cronkite created such a shock when they questioned in public. Anticommunism and a dislike of anything socialistic were assumed, and our socialistic institutions had to bear other, misleading names.
The traditional American system has always been able to deal with progressive forces, usually by coopting them, but has had much more trouble dealing with reactionary ones, especially if they bring with them their own religious or secular realities.
The traditional American system has always been able to deal with progressive forces, usually by coopting them, but has had much more trouble dealing with reactionary ones, especially if they bring with them their own religious or secular realities.
10
Realities only among themselves. Which is why it is time for all 50 states to become, finally one country. Just a some states have counties that do nothing (except maybe county jails), the USA should have states. The Founding Fathers had to compromise on that to get as far as they did. That time IS over. People who do not want to be part of US, can leave. The states belong to the country, not the other way around. No more nonsense about states' rights. Those should have gone the way of the dinosaur at the end of the Civil War. The Union was way too kind. States allowed back into the Union, Confederate soldiers got their citizenship back. Nope, states should have become territories administered by a Federal governor. No citizenship. Not for at least 200 years. All schools administered by the Federal government. No moving from the territories to a state. Now those in Red States should be demoted to territories with non citizens, and no help at all from the Federal government. Or Blue States. Since Ryan is a Red Stater, no Red Stater will be eligible for any SS or Medicare, retroactive to the year he was first elected. All of you will get bills to pay for all Federal Benefits you received from then to now.
1
To put it simply, the Internet is the new government. It may be a de facto government but it's still the one everyone looks to.
Bannon recognized this and co-opted the established republican party and replaced it with Trump.
In the future, whoever uses the Internet to their best advantage, including the most affective lying, will control the day, the election, the country, and eventually, the world!
Bannon recognized this and co-opted the established republican party and replaced it with Trump.
In the future, whoever uses the Internet to their best advantage, including the most affective lying, will control the day, the election, the country, and eventually, the world!
4
Most effective lying
OBAMA
If you like your insurance, you can keep it, period.
An obscure video caused Benghazi.
Shovel ready jobs.
Most transparent administration, ever.
Fast and Furious did not happen.
I did not weaponized the IRS.
OBAMA
If you like your insurance, you can keep it, period.
An obscure video caused Benghazi.
Shovel ready jobs.
Most transparent administration, ever.
Fast and Furious did not happen.
I did not weaponized the IRS.
3
Despite the title of Professor Edsall's column, the internet in many ways has expanded the democratic nature of the political process. After all, we no longer have to rely on professional journalists; now anyone can create a blog and serve as a source of information and analysis. Candidates can now interact directly with the electorate, instead of requiring a party as a platform to broadcast their message. This fact enables candidates without establishment backing to challenge for the nomination.
As Edsall's sources maintain, these changes encourage more people to participate in politics, certainly a trend supportive of democracy. The question remains, however, whether a more activist electorate contributes to an improvement in government's ability to serve the community.
The democratization of news sources, unfortunately, as Edsall's experts stress, destroys checks on false and misleading stories. No one's job depends on producing credible articles that can build trust between journalists and readers.
The eclipse of political parties opens the race to free-lance candidates, like Sanders and Trump, but it also encourages demagoguery, as contenders struggle to distinguish their message in a crowded field. Most voters lack the time or the energy to research independently the claims of each candidate.
We opted for representative democracy, because direct democracy, in a large country, promotes chaos not good government.
As Edsall's sources maintain, these changes encourage more people to participate in politics, certainly a trend supportive of democracy. The question remains, however, whether a more activist electorate contributes to an improvement in government's ability to serve the community.
The democratization of news sources, unfortunately, as Edsall's experts stress, destroys checks on false and misleading stories. No one's job depends on producing credible articles that can build trust between journalists and readers.
The eclipse of political parties opens the race to free-lance candidates, like Sanders and Trump, but it also encourages demagoguery, as contenders struggle to distinguish their message in a crowded field. Most voters lack the time or the energy to research independently the claims of each candidate.
We opted for representative democracy, because direct democracy, in a large country, promotes chaos not good government.
105
I really liked your point "The democratization of news sources, unfortunately, as Edsall's experts stress, destroys checks on false and misleading stories. No one's job depends on producing credible articles that can build trust between journalists and readers". All too often there are to point it nicely misleading "news" stories on modern or newer web based media.
The fact that Trump and company whine about no one getting fired from the the NYT or WaPo or CNN is something I find befuddling. If a reporter gets a story wrong because of an incorrect fact is no reason to fire them. But if they intentionally report incorrectly and they are found out they will very likely get fired. It took a story about Milo that made it sound like he approved of pedophilia to get him fired. Not any of the other awful things he wrote or said.
Internet is double edged. Sauce for the goose is sauce the gander.
The fact that Trump and company whine about no one getting fired from the the NYT or WaPo or CNN is something I find befuddling. If a reporter gets a story wrong because of an incorrect fact is no reason to fire them. But if they intentionally report incorrectly and they are found out they will very likely get fired. It took a story about Milo that made it sound like he approved of pedophilia to get him fired. Not any of the other awful things he wrote or said.
Internet is double edged. Sauce for the goose is sauce the gander.
3
So, in essence, now we get to be told things by people with no competence on both sides of the aisle.
How is this good again?
How is this good again?
2
If you are not willing to do your own footwork (easier now with personal computers, than when I started voting) should not get to vote. I'm 65, my Dad told me before I was to vote the first time, that it was my duty to investigate the candidates of all/both parties & decide who I wished to vote for. He was a life long Republican, when it meant something good. He told me then, then again before he died to not enroll with any party ever. That being the nominee of any party (both Sanders & *45 joined parties they weren't bonfire members of). That a freelance candidate (which all should be) were just as easy to find out about as nominees were. Finding lies is easy too. Newsmedia will not just poof. They will continue fact checking. Keep reminding us that lying is wrong & that serial lying should be cause to have anyone's name removed from the ballot, & any write-ins not counted. Now *45 has made a fine art out of it. There should be a harder penalty for that. Maybe hanging, as it is for Treason. See, lying to the citizens of this country IS Treason. Just because you want a whole lot of uneducated, foolish, lazy males to vote for you, doesn't mean you can con them by lying. Or it shouldn't. It will go down in history that these less thans were CONNED by a CON MAN. So, every defendant will know it. Everyone else will watch these people and their decendents because they are too easily conned. Not trustworthy. No more edukashun is evil, allowed.
1
Brave new world with all our technology. Before long we will not need workers. We will not need anything. Robots will take over. All someone will need to do is get the stuff to work properly. And keep it working properly. Big task. We have invented a monster and it is here to stay, for better or worse.
2
There is a sci-fi story about an space explorer coming into a previously unknown planet to find no inhabitants at all but only machines turning out products which just pile up everywhere. The technology had taken over. The way we here live now is a forerunner of our future.
3
The wealthy better realize:
No workers needed, no consumers, except each other & how much can they sell to each other.
They can decide to create a "customer class" paid well above subsistence level to just go buy. Many will get bored and figure out how to gamble with that money instead. Companies will go bankrupt, the rich will get poorer, continuously.
Don't think that this is happening just in this country. There will be no customers from other countries buying our stuff. No they will be paid to buy their stuff. The world will grow apart, not together. Until the subsistence class (formerly the poor) will rebel & that rebellion will grow, until it is world wide. That is when the world will die, as it deserves.
No workers needed, no consumers, except each other & how much can they sell to each other.
They can decide to create a "customer class" paid well above subsistence level to just go buy. Many will get bored and figure out how to gamble with that money instead. Companies will go bankrupt, the rich will get poorer, continuously.
Don't think that this is happening just in this country. There will be no customers from other countries buying our stuff. No they will be paid to buy their stuff. The world will grow apart, not together. Until the subsistence class (formerly the poor) will rebel & that rebellion will grow, until it is world wide. That is when the world will die, as it deserves.
We have descended into a period of political pornography. God help us.
3
Professor Hindman rightly points out what is probably happening in the U.S. Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and now, Nicolas Maduro is a ready made example. There, there are seemingly free elections with the media and permissible debate controlled. The leadership there did not ascend to power the way Trump or another populist/nationalist leader here or in Europe might…through an internet revolution, and oligarch/corporate manipulation, but the net effect is the same.
The public’s new found collective voice vis a vis the internet and social media is the genie let out of the bottle. Our divisions will smolder, then flame up periodically but we will endure until we see our personal levels of comfort disappearing. Then, even the thin veneer of Democracy will be stripped away.
The public’s new found collective voice vis a vis the internet and social media is the genie let out of the bottle. Our divisions will smolder, then flame up periodically but we will endure until we see our personal levels of comfort disappearing. Then, even the thin veneer of Democracy will be stripped away.
4
Sam Greene: “Our politics are vulnerable to nefarious influences — whether of the Kremlin variety or the Breitbart variety — not because our information landscape is open and fluid, but because voters’ perceptions have become untethered from reality.”
Green makes a another valid point when he claims “very many voters have stopped seeing government as a tool for the production of the common good, and have instead turned to politicians (and others) who at least make them feel good.”
In the absence of a state religion, politics has become infused with a fervid religiosity that cannot accept a diversity of opinion — only the preferred dogmas of left or right.
The madness of crowds — on both the right and left, digital or otherwise — has made us deaf and blind to the heartfelt feelings of the other side, erecting an iron curtain across pathways to compromise. Instead, we have moral entrenchment and moral outrage, and these twin pillars of ersatz religious devotion stand in the way of practical problem solving — which used to be the purpose of government.
John Adams long ago warned “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Then and now, we are always on suicide watch because that's just how fragile democracy can be.
Green makes a another valid point when he claims “very many voters have stopped seeing government as a tool for the production of the common good, and have instead turned to politicians (and others) who at least make them feel good.”
In the absence of a state religion, politics has become infused with a fervid religiosity that cannot accept a diversity of opinion — only the preferred dogmas of left or right.
The madness of crowds — on both the right and left, digital or otherwise — has made us deaf and blind to the heartfelt feelings of the other side, erecting an iron curtain across pathways to compromise. Instead, we have moral entrenchment and moral outrage, and these twin pillars of ersatz religious devotion stand in the way of practical problem solving — which used to be the purpose of government.
John Adams long ago warned “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Then and now, we are always on suicide watch because that's just how fragile democracy can be.
109
One wonders whether this columnist is simply naive to the point of numb or whether he is a useful tool in the employ of those that control from the shadows. As if any of the "democracies" live up to their cynical assertions of liberty, free choice or beneficient government. Not much that occurs is an accident or a coincidence where major world happenings, including "elections", are concerned. Wars, ongoing terrorism, economic collapse, escaped (from laboratories, oops!) viral agents, refugee upheavals, worldwide narcotics marketing - these are not organic events in their onset. They are planned with purpose and whatever the fallout from their arrival, they are merely circumstances to be managed toward the ultimate goal - a one-world feudal superstate with much reduced population, a serf-like existence for the masses and elite lifestyles for the masters and their chosen servants in the needed professions, industries and governments. First steps include the erosion of the family unit though impoverishment, the subjugation of the populace through educational ignorance, control of their basic needs and addiction, the pitting of peoples against one another through the sophisticated use of "us v. them" politics, the creation of national and worldwide instability, the foment of insurrections and a general sense of chaos and despair. Sound familiar?
Wake up before dreaming of the past is all there is of it.
Wake up before dreaming of the past is all there is of it.
34
The Internet is also key in exacerbating extremism. The fact that there are so many producers and groups, and there is only so much media that any individual can consume, means that people are gravitating more and more to sites and groups that reflect their own beliefs and prejudices. As a result they are constantly being re-inforced in those beliefs. Their opinions on the 'opposition' are completely framed by what their own groups say about them. Far fewer people are coming in contact with the actual views opposing theirs, just with the caricature of those views promoted by those on their 'own' side.
The result is a widening divide between opposing sides and a complete lack of empathy with alternative viewpoints. This extremely damaging for democracy as it takes it back to a much more tribal approach, where winning new adherents is key because once they are in you 'gang', they generally stay there.
It is the irony of the Internet that as more and more information, opinions and conversation are put up on it, the general population is becoming less well informed.
The result is a widening divide between opposing sides and a complete lack of empathy with alternative viewpoints. This extremely damaging for democracy as it takes it back to a much more tribal approach, where winning new adherents is key because once they are in you 'gang', they generally stay there.
It is the irony of the Internet that as more and more information, opinions and conversation are put up on it, the general population is becoming less well informed.
28
I agree that Democracy is ultimately built around the ability of people to compromise and that the Internet is isolating people from others who don't share their beliefs. But these are challenges that long predate the Internet. For every example of the Internet dividing people there are examples of the Internet connecting people. And within the vast sea of information and misinformation that flows through the Internet lies knowledge that people heretofore could never dream of accessing.
TLDR: Like earlier forms of communication technology, society is struggling over how to unlock the potential of the Internet - while minimizing its many dangers to democracy.
TLDR: Like earlier forms of communication technology, society is struggling over how to unlock the potential of the Internet - while minimizing its many dangers to democracy.
2
Good point. Case in point, just try to learn about "climate change" by looking on Fox "News". One of the biggest issues of our time and little to no real information on the entire network.
3
A platform without a filter giving equal weight to discourse from the most ignorant and sinister among us will produce undoubtedly negative consequences for civilized society.
55
Internet can be viewed as the most efficient tool of the "passion of equality" as Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw it. Democracy, without a passion for measure, perspective, thought, say without an enduring passion for a renewed enlightment, is doomed to dissolve in its own not thought enough long (?) term consequences.
2
Interesting that the quoted expert identifies "loss of social cohesion" as being caused by the internet. All this time I thought the main factor in this obvious phenomenon was the Democrats focus on identity politics. NIce to be told I was wrong. Now I know the party line to use: "No, the loss of social cohesion didn't result because we emphasized the rights of (insert cause of the month). In fact it was your use of the internet that's to blame."
9
Get rid of the electoral college ... problem solved!
2
And alt-right people don't do identity politics, white supremacist politics with several pinches of anti-semitism tossed in? Get outa here!
3
The Internet doesn't threaten "democracy;' it threatens the Powers that Be.
58
Missing from this interesting column...what's the answer? Ban the internet? Regulate the internet? Control the internet? This is only an issue because the wrong candidate won the election last November. Had HRC coasted to victory this editorial would have never been written. Establishment institutions despise the fact that this new technology is going to leave them behind...obliterating their power and influence. This reminds me of a passage in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It noted how horrified the Pope was when he saw the first press in 1440. He is said to have shouted (Paraphrasing)
“This will destroy That. The Book will destroy the Edifice.”
It was ecclesiastic terror before a new force—printing. It was the servant of the dim sanctuary scared and dazzled by the light that streamed from Gutenberg’s press. It was the pulpit and the manuscript, the spoken and the written word quailing before the printed word— It was the cry of the prophet who, gazing into the future, sees intelligence sapping the foundations of faith, opinion dethroning belief, the world shaking off the yoke of the Establishment. It signified that one great power was to supplant another great power. The Printing-Press would destroy the Church. “The citadel falling”..............
Yes it it did...did it not? But humanity in the end was better for it. And now Social Media is destroying a different Church...The Fifth Estate...forever?????All I can say is.... they has it coming.
“This will destroy That. The Book will destroy the Edifice.”
It was ecclesiastic terror before a new force—printing. It was the servant of the dim sanctuary scared and dazzled by the light that streamed from Gutenberg’s press. It was the pulpit and the manuscript, the spoken and the written word quailing before the printed word— It was the cry of the prophet who, gazing into the future, sees intelligence sapping the foundations of faith, opinion dethroning belief, the world shaking off the yoke of the Establishment. It signified that one great power was to supplant another great power. The Printing-Press would destroy the Church. “The citadel falling”..............
Yes it it did...did it not? But humanity in the end was better for it. And now Social Media is destroying a different Church...The Fifth Estate...forever?????All I can say is.... they has it coming.
35
BobSmith: what you say here, and it is very insightful.
Had Hillary WON, as widely predicated (and nowhere more than HERE)...the internet would be praised as "saving Democracy" and "bringing people together".
I remember when Howard Dean was widely praised for his early adoption of social media and "new ways of courting voters". We all know how THAT turned out (yaHOOOO!).
Had Hillary WON, as widely predicated (and nowhere more than HERE)...the internet would be praised as "saving Democracy" and "bringing people together".
I remember when Howard Dean was widely praised for his early adoption of social media and "new ways of courting voters". We all know how THAT turned out (yaHOOOO!).
1
It's campaign finance that needs reform in the internet age. The big money corporations have taken over the parties, legally, as normal politics, with the S Court's blessing of big money as protected 1st amendment free speech. Policy making and news is promoting these positions and the internet, and social media can spread their manipulative lies faster than ever.
A NYT page 1 article, “Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving” said that “fewer than 400 families spend almost half the money raised for 2016—an unprecedented concentration of donors.” That's who is calling the shots that affect the citizen majority.
We can't control the web but we should be able to control who pays for elections and what they get from it.
The parties and candidates need billions to run for office. Where do they get it and what positions must they take to attract that money? The election's financial sponsors can always switch to a more cooperative candidate. This is what this column should include, but doesn't? Why? Is campaign finance reform a forbidden topic?
A NYT page 1 article, “Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving” said that “fewer than 400 families spend almost half the money raised for 2016—an unprecedented concentration of donors.” That's who is calling the shots that affect the citizen majority.
We can't control the web but we should be able to control who pays for elections and what they get from it.
The parties and candidates need billions to run for office. Where do they get it and what positions must they take to attract that money? The election's financial sponsors can always switch to a more cooperative candidate. This is what this column should include, but doesn't? Why? Is campaign finance reform a forbidden topic?
28
What's scarier yet is when Big Money controls the collection and use of Big Data, as Robert Mercer seems to have done.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart...
People think data is pretty benign, if they think of it all, but from your rewards card that magically brings you coupons on items you routinely use, to learning how you vote and think, we may have already lost the ability to know how we're being led.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart...
People think data is pretty benign, if they think of it all, but from your rewards card that magically brings you coupons on items you routinely use, to learning how you vote and think, we may have already lost the ability to know how we're being led.
2
"...the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts."
I'm beginning to see how Stephen Bannon grabbed off a slice of the Internet's fringe community, rootless and searching, and force-fed it to his candidate who, at the time, appeared to be floundering at around 40% and trailing Hillary Clinton by between three and seven percentage points. It's also clear that the vulgar-vulva-grabber-in-chief could never have come up with this on his own.
If this great but frightening column is correct, the genii is out of the bottle, never to return. The rough parallel I see here is that, once upon a time, organized crime owned a monopoly on pornography. The internet rendered paid sex obsolete. No longer did patrons of adult book stores have to slink and slither in and out of these storefronts surreptitiously. All those in this market had to do was sit down at their PC's or Mac's at home and, anonymously, surf to their heart's content. So it is with politics, mainstream and fringe.
The internet allows people to hide behind their hate or their lust or any aberrant behavior without being either publicly outed or legally prosecuted; unless, of course, kiddie porn was involved. The old back-room politics has been replaced by the computer chip; what once required thought and effort and dirty money (politics) now requires silence and space and anonymity.
We're now forever hostage to others' fantasies, particularly those quite untethered to accountable reality.
I'm beginning to see how Stephen Bannon grabbed off a slice of the Internet's fringe community, rootless and searching, and force-fed it to his candidate who, at the time, appeared to be floundering at around 40% and trailing Hillary Clinton by between three and seven percentage points. It's also clear that the vulgar-vulva-grabber-in-chief could never have come up with this on his own.
If this great but frightening column is correct, the genii is out of the bottle, never to return. The rough parallel I see here is that, once upon a time, organized crime owned a monopoly on pornography. The internet rendered paid sex obsolete. No longer did patrons of adult book stores have to slink and slither in and out of these storefronts surreptitiously. All those in this market had to do was sit down at their PC's or Mac's at home and, anonymously, surf to their heart's content. So it is with politics, mainstream and fringe.
The internet allows people to hide behind their hate or their lust or any aberrant behavior without being either publicly outed or legally prosecuted; unless, of course, kiddie porn was involved. The old back-room politics has been replaced by the computer chip; what once required thought and effort and dirty money (politics) now requires silence and space and anonymity.
We're now forever hostage to others' fantasies, particularly those quite untethered to accountable reality.
286
But wasn't it always so? Wasn't Hitler's rise from homeless person to the leader of Germany about emotion and identity also? The interne has only amplified the forces that feed these processes. The technology is new, but the role of emotion and identity in place of fact and reason has always been with us.
9
Excellent comment. You are so spot on.
1
Anything Steve Bannon has done recently Fox News has been doing for years, just at a milder (and more lucrative) pitch. Just think how normalized Fox News has now become, simply by persisting.
5
Let me get this out of the way. I read the headline and then did an eye roll.
I would strongly submit that the internet is a key component FOR Democracy. It offers the potential for freedom for the entire globe through education and contact.
Now having said that, to me at least, the greatest threat to Democracy is a country devoid of a truly free and independent press.
What we have now is a few big conglomerates that control the media\press and blend the two together in pursuit of profit. The bottom line dictates the story when the story should be all that matters.
I believe the American people still own the airwaves, correct ?
It's high time to get back to what it used to be; which was the news rooms being completely separate from the entertainment divisions and being a lost leader. ( not necessarily making money )
Our Democracy depends on it.
I would strongly submit that the internet is a key component FOR Democracy. It offers the potential for freedom for the entire globe through education and contact.
Now having said that, to me at least, the greatest threat to Democracy is a country devoid of a truly free and independent press.
What we have now is a few big conglomerates that control the media\press and blend the two together in pursuit of profit. The bottom line dictates the story when the story should be all that matters.
I believe the American people still own the airwaves, correct ?
It's high time to get back to what it used to be; which was the news rooms being completely separate from the entertainment divisions and being a lost leader. ( not necessarily making money )
Our Democracy depends on it.
232
People who believe that nature has a personality cannot tell what is fake from what is real.
2
You may have missed one of the main points, which is that social media is fast supplanting a "truly free and independent press." In the past, professional journalists with professional standards were our source of information. Now for many, the Internet, void of any standards, has become the main, if not the only, source of information, which is a dangerous development, as the events of 2016 show clearly.
6
Well then all those progressive Earth mother loving types that make up much of the leftist movement who agree with the leftist agenda and voted for Hillary who are absolutely convinced that the Russians cheated certainly can't be trusted in their judgment. that is according to you?
Is the Times trying to outdo itself with increasing repulsive photos of Trump's hostile or conniving face? What's the point? We readers are here to read ideas, not to see meaningless, unnecessary illustrations. We know what he looks like. I don't know what effect this photo supposed to have, but does the Times think it attracts or repels readers?
Is the Times just manipulating us, like so many internet sites do? Who is the Times competing with, by overdoing these daily visuals? Please Times, give us a break. Set a better standard.
Is the Times just manipulating us, like so many internet sites do? Who is the Times competing with, by overdoing these daily visuals? Please Times, give us a break. Set a better standard.
19
The numbness of so many Americans to the most in your face con artist on Earth utterly boggles me. Trump is an open book inside of 5 minutes.
6
If Americans seem numb to you, they are numb with 60 years of progressive AntiAmericanism if the main stream press. They have become numb to the lies and to the undermining of moral values that the mainstream media have been doing over the decades. They don't believe anything that comes from the media anymore but they love the notion of direct communications via twitter and fast reaction communications web feeds directly from Trump and from their representatives. Is Trump a crook?...maybe...but real Americans know that Hillary is also a crook. The media and the progressives chose sides as to the crook they preferred...the rest of America chose the other crook. The media should have stayed neutral but they didn't and made themselves an enemy of "the rest of those so called numb Americans as you put it"! If the Russians meddled, good...now Americans know exactly how you media and progressive types have been attempting to Rick Roll the American public!
2
With Trump, what dare one believe? His face? His words? His deeds? All unsavory.
Suppose our democracy had democracy... People in our democracy have always had various forms of partisan advertising, deceptive and false advertising to deal with in the claims of political campaigns. Valuing truth and sorting it out is now more challenging because the claims aren't filtered by broadcast and print media outlets, but can be put out to the public by anyone with the cheap equipment and connections to do it. Someone could claim that school buses carried protestors from out of state, for example, and some would believe it because there was a picture of a parking lot full of buses. We have had truth in advertising laws in effect for some time, so that when we see a commercial ad, we usually assume that its claims are factual. Most likely, people in the past had more experience rejecting false advertising and weren't so ready to fall for false political claims. Carl Sagan wrote in The Demon-Haunted World of various false science claims and titled a chapter "The Fine Art Of Baloney Detection." This is for sure needed in politics too. Education could include more elementary logic and critical thinking, and news organizations could do better at debunking false claims for the public instead of uncritically spreading them.
9
Even the claim that the US is a democracy is an outright lie. It is an endless scheme of cheating people of equal representation and equal protection of law.
4
Read Seymour Hersh's book, The Dark Side of Camelot. John F. Kennedy was nothing like what he seemed to the average American voter, nor was Richard Nixon. To argue that the news media of old presented a more truthful or transparent version of reality is a bit of a stretch.
10
Being able to tell ham from baloney makes me think it's time to make a semester in critical discourse, required at least the high school level.
4
Unfortunately, the internet has indeed laid waste to post-WWII norms of all kinds, including political and social, which will be exploited by those with the means and inclination.
Fortunately, the U.S. can look at its history with the press/tabloids, and see that a ribald, unfettered press is no stranger to our daily lives.
What helps brings us to this political juncture is the pervasive feeling that D.C. is out of touch/unresponsive to the average citizen; we frequently forget the U.S. is the 3rd most populous country on earth, with a citizenry that has basically doubled since 1955 - just a little over 60 years ago.
The solution to this issue of feeling government is too remote/controlled by special interests, is increasing the size of the House of Representatives, to match the clearly expressed ' intent of the Founders ':
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-rep...
which G. Washington considered of such import that he held up things on the last day of the Constitutional Convention to enlarge the House by another 33% to make sure people and their local representatives were not remote from each other.
This concept is antithetical to both our major political parties, but the GOPers' sacrosanct ' intent of the Founders ' is historically clear, and should be championed by Democrats, replacing the current artificial limitations on the size of our House of Representatives - the People's House.
Fortunately, the U.S. can look at its history with the press/tabloids, and see that a ribald, unfettered press is no stranger to our daily lives.
What helps brings us to this political juncture is the pervasive feeling that D.C. is out of touch/unresponsive to the average citizen; we frequently forget the U.S. is the 3rd most populous country on earth, with a citizenry that has basically doubled since 1955 - just a little over 60 years ago.
The solution to this issue of feeling government is too remote/controlled by special interests, is increasing the size of the House of Representatives, to match the clearly expressed ' intent of the Founders ':
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-rep...
which G. Washington considered of such import that he held up things on the last day of the Constitutional Convention to enlarge the House by another 33% to make sure people and their local representatives were not remote from each other.
This concept is antithetical to both our major political parties, but the GOPers' sacrosanct ' intent of the Founders ' is historically clear, and should be championed by Democrats, replacing the current artificial limitations on the size of our House of Representatives - the People's House.
9
The US Congress doesn't even answer to the people. It is populated by state governments.
1
The U.S. is too big to govern from Washington - Republicans are right about that, but they aren't looking for a solution to the problem - they just use the argument to beat us into allowing the rich to pay less in taxes.
If someone were to be really interested in restructuring our many layers of government, local, state and national, which would probably be a good idea, they might form regions to encompass states, which are just the relics of colonialism, and eliminate some of the layers, e.g. counties, and then redistribute power rationally so it is closer to the people. But it would take people of uncommon good will, intelligence and moral character to achieve this, something that does not appear to be in great supply among our political elite today.
If someone were to be really interested in restructuring our many layers of government, local, state and national, which would probably be a good idea, they might form regions to encompass states, which are just the relics of colonialism, and eliminate some of the layers, e.g. counties, and then redistribute power rationally so it is closer to the people. But it would take people of uncommon good will, intelligence and moral character to achieve this, something that does not appear to be in great supply among our political elite today.
2
"Democracy is lamb and two wolves voting on what to have for lunch."
We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, big difference!
We have equal representation for each state via the House, Senate and through the Electoral College in our elections. Therefore the author SHOULD GET OVER IT, as the Internet has given power back to the people to influence an election and rightfully so... As they put Donald J. Trump in office of President of this nation several months ago "against all odds". Therefore, the FAKE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, corrupt Super PACs and special interest groups/mega liberal billionaires with deep pockets can all GO POUND SAND, this is our nation, WE THE PEOPLE. We are taking back our birthright and our inheritance, through the power, connectivity and the influence of the Internet!