Democracy and Free Speech - Train Thoughts

Democracy is a lovely idea - the egalitarian principle that everyone should have a vote, worth the same amount as the next person, regardless of their station, wealth or influence, is simple, was revolutionary and has shaped our ideas of how the world should work.

Of course, that’s not quite how democracy actually works for the most part. We vote in increments, electing local representatives to make decisions on our behalf. Those decisions get made, balancing out what they think we’d want with what they think we would want if we had the time or the attention to spare. Also, what we *should* want, if we took into account the interests of minority groups and equality. (A purely popular vote might not, for example, privilege accessibility ramps over... I don’t know... free parking).

The problem with democracy in the age of social media is that increasingly sophisticated corporations have the capacity to hone personalised advertising strategies incredibly precisely. We live in more and more refined bubbles of opinion, increasingly certain that our feelings on morally right outcomes are shared, rational and irrefutably reasonable. Why wouldn’t we believe that? We’re not actually capable of working intellectually with data that’s not available to us.

Our idea of the world is an inherited one. We can only use the words we have. We can build new ideas, but really only in reference to the ideas around us - even contrarian ideas are built on a framework. A fully and purely independent thinker would speak total nonsense. Without common reference points to build analogies and shared understanding, there’s no communication.

So. We are asked to make moral decisions, to hold our opinions within frameworks created by the information to which we have access. But the information to which we have access is increasingly controlled, refined, catered to our tastes.

The *purpose* of the filters on social media and news websites is to make sure we use those platforms as much as possible. Of course it is. They’re businesses. They exist to return profits to their shareholders. Even where idealistically driven, they must maintain sufficient cash flow to remain in operation.

The *function* of the drive to remain in business is that the information we’re given; the worlds of ideas in which we live; the information on which we base our decisions, is malleable by money.

The popular vote, always vulnerable to corporate money, can now be altered at the whim of an algorithm. Increasingly, our democracy is subject to matrix level input feeds that tell us what to fear, what should be our primary concern, what our enemies think and want and feel and need to be prevented from doing. (Particularly if we don’t talk to our enemies)

We’re particularly bad as a species at assessing risks from statistical data. We believe in stories - it’s why you’re more afraid of your child being kidnapped or attacked by a stranger than we are of being assaulted by a trusted friend. We believe the problems we hear about more are bigger problems.*

And now, what we hear about is shaped by algorithms, what we talk about is shaped by our desire to be part of the discourse. We get positive feedback for contributing to whatever topical bonanza sweeps through our feed, and we feel ideological alliances form over those discussions by virtue of our contribution.

What does that mean for our democracy, as these algorithms become more and more refined? As the public vote is shaped by information that is more and more shaped by private interests? I don’t know. All I know is that both culture and counter-culture are equally vulnerable. You can see it in your opposition. You might not see it so much in the mirror (but you know your face is back to front, right?)

Right wing and social justice concerns, news, spin, organisation, argument, access and implementation are both coming out of the the same vending machine. Coca Cola also sells bottled water, and reusable glass bottles if you’re worried about plastic bottles.

It’s opportunists taking advantage of circumstances we’ve fertilised. It’s people being people. It’s entropy through capitalism, democracy, freedom of choice shaping restriction of information. Restriction of information leading to polarisation. Conspiracy theories would be more reassuring.

What’s the solution? Talk to strangers at the bus stop, maybe. Have tea with someone you disagree with?

I’m open to suggestion.


A
Xxx




* People are “cognitive misers” - the limits of our brainpower mean we process threats selectively, mainly along lines of availability and representativeness (see this interesting paper on threat assessment in international relations https://www.jstor.org/stable/3790955)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.jstor.org/stable/3790955).