RT is not an endorsement
August 9, 2016 2:02 PM   Subscribe

Are internet populists ruining democracy for the rest of us? by Vyacheslav W. Polonski, Network scientist, University of Oxford
posted by infini (21 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
The internet has rewired civil society, propelling collective action into a radically new dimension. Democracy is now not only exercised at the ballot box, but lived and experienced online on a day-to-day basis. While this may have positive implications for political participation, it’s also causing problems for leaders. They have been elected through time-honoured democratic systems, but now find themselves vulnerable to the whim of the baying internet mob.

Annnnnd close tab. Anyone who leads off by lamenting the vulnerability of politicians to popular discourse, and simultaneously lamenting the ostensible passing-away of electoral systems with nothing offered to recommend their quality but the phony ennoblement of "tradition," seems unlikely to have a strong grasp of what democracy is for in the first place.
posted by clockzero at 2:28 PM on August 9, 2016 [27 favorites]


Instead of creating a digitally-mediated agora which encourages broad discussion, the internet has increased ideological segregation. It filters dissent out of our feeds and grants a disproportionate amount of clout to the most extreme opinions due to their greater visibility and accelerated viral cycles.

This is why US presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have come to play such a huge role in the US election. They represent extreme political views, where other candidates had more moderate agendas.
None of this seems to correspond to what is actually happening, though, at least in the US? The right and the left online are constantly linking to one another's articles going "look at this asshole!" and there's a huge harassment problem on social media because the physical walls of ideological separation have been torn down and replaced by yelling at each other in comment sections and on Twitter and Facebook. People are continuing sticking to one other's kinds ideologically, sure, but I don't know of a time when there was more and freer information (but also more and freer complete-bullshit) available for anyone who wants it, regardless of their ideological stance.
posted by griphus at 2:37 PM on August 9, 2016 [13 favorites]


Let us by all means possible bring back the use of candidates speaking from the rear car of a train as it pulls into small towns across the nation...things were much better then.
posted by Postroad at 2:55 PM on August 9, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yes. The populist movements are because if the internet and not the forty plus years of stagnating wages, ever increasing wealth inequality and the race to the bottom management techniques
posted by mayonnaises at 3:00 PM on August 9, 2016 [35 favorites]


I thought this article had a good point at the center, but was argued incredibly poorly.

The flipside of the autocracy is a dictator; the flipside of democracy is the mob. Internet mobs can and do act like real mobs: falling prey to biased or incorrect information, agitating for immediate change rather than pausing for discussion and reflection, and then ending with counterproductive (and sometimes outright oppressive) results.

They have been elected through time-honoured democratic systems, but now find themselves vulnerable to the whim of the baying internet mob.

Yeah, he is sounding pretty snotty right here, but he's got a point. We have representative democracy because it's a hell of a lot easier to rely on 100 people to come to a nuanced agreement over a complex problem than 100,000. We choose (or should choose) our politicians not only for their interest in serving the desires of their constituents, but also for their ability to synthesize those desires with available facts and analyses to come up with a good solution. If they're not given the space and time to engage in debate and compromise, then you end up with someone whose decisions are shallow, erratic, and wholly dependent on wherever the whims of the mob are pushing them that week. Prior to the Internet it wasn't quite so easy to get these mobs whipped up, but these days you can go from zero to CRISIS!!!1 in less than 24 hours.

The right and the left online are constantly linking to one another's articles going "look at this asshole!" and there's a huge harassment problem on social media because the physical walls of ideological separation have been torn down and replaced by yelling at each other in comment sections and on Twitter and Facebook.

Except the articles by one party that the other party links to are generally whatever is most extreme and enraging, thus driving people further apart. Your ideological bubble is reinforced by bringing in the clickbait trash, because it underlines how terrible and evil your opponents are.

I don't know of a time when there was more and freer information (but also more and freer complete-bullshit) available for anyone who wants it, regardless of their ideological stance.

Sure, but the problem is that people aren't seeking out information that counters their ideological viewpoint. They gravitate to whatever agrees with what they're already thinking. Free information is of no use if you don't bother to access it.

The populist movements are because if the internet and not the forty plus years of stagnating wages, ever increasing wealth inequality and the race to the bottom management techniques

One of the things I didn't like about this article was the lack of distinction between the current rise of populism and the tools that facilitate it. Populism is driven by political and social conditions; the Internet enables the rapid spread of its ideological extremes.
posted by Anonymous at 3:06 PM on August 9, 2016


Similarly, the internet was used to organise the Euromaidan protests that caused long-lasting political turmoil in Ukraine.

Ugh. You know how I know your thinkpiece on the effect of the internet on politics is lazy? You claim that a protest was "organized on the internet" and is thus a product of the internet.

Through my job I have been very lucky to meet and talk with people involved in organizing all sorts of movements that were "organized on the internet" (Occupy, Gezi Park, Black Lives Matter) and these people always, always roll their eyes at the notion that they are/were "internet-based." Social media is a communications tool. Back in the day, did reporters write hot takes on how the telephone was creating protests?
posted by lunasol at 3:10 PM on August 9, 2016 [22 favorites]


Let us by all means possible bring back the use of candidates speaking from the rear car of a train as it pulls into small towns across the nation...things were much better then.

Possibly peak Postroad.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:37 PM on August 9, 2016 [5 favorites]


Deray and his specific segment of BLM are proving that "the internet" can be expertly harnessed to create a very cogent set of incrementalist policy changes and fuel the rise of a traditional political leader who will probably (imo) eventually be elected to a traditional political office eventually.

Representative Democracy has been under attack by unearned cynicism (from both sides) and voter suppression/gerrymandering (Rs) since the mid 70s. The violence is certainly reaching an apex, but if anything it seems MORE likely now that very smart and wise and funny and kind people might connect in fellowship toward a common goal and be a powerful force for legislative change.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:47 PM on August 9, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seems like "populism" is the new "neoliberalism."
posted by Gerald Bostock at 5:21 PM on August 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wanted to believe him, but Polonski failed to sell me on his thesis. The only example he gives of genuine harm is the politician Emily Thornberry being forced to resign because of a single Tweet. (And that's an argument that politicians should stay away from Twitter more than anything else.) The rest of it, BreExit, even the rise of Trump, are examples of much wider democratic processes and can't be solely explained by the Internet. To me his thesis reads more like "too much democracy is bad" than a serious argument that the 'net damages democracy, or that democratic institutions need to evolve to keep up with technology. Both of those things may or may not be true, but his article doesn't prove it.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:35 PM on August 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


I saw an article about how changing technology in media was correlated with increased populism throughout our democratic history.

But I'd rather write a bit here about how both Hillary and Trump are Reptilians and that I saw it in an article you HAVE to read...
posted by glaucon at 5:53 PM on August 9, 2016


Wait.

Bernie Sanders is extreme?
posted by klanawa at 6:15 PM on August 9, 2016 [13 favorites]


Oh klanawa, I think I love you.

No, no everybody, it's still OK to think I'M extreme...
posted by evilDoug at 6:36 PM on August 9, 2016


Internet mobs can and do act like real mobs:

right except for the death (actual death!) & property destruction which, you know, edge cases, but not really a regular feature
posted by listen, lady at 6:46 PM on August 9, 2016


seems they let anyone rep Oxford nowadays. can i write a paper on how oxford is creating all horrible analysis?
posted by eustatic at 7:21 PM on August 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


right except for the death (actual death!) & property destruction which, you know, edge cases, but not really a regular feature

I've spent a lot of time over the past few years reading about women who have said things about culture or even just acted in movies who have ended up having to entirely change their lives in order to feel safe and who still don't feel safe because they continue to be pursued by internet mobs intent on destroying them.

I mean, there's been no ACTUAL death yet, but what am I witnessing through this reporting if it's not internet mobs acting like real mobs?
posted by hippybear at 7:34 PM on August 9, 2016 [8 favorites]


...however, all major campaigns for social change have had their own media. The Chartists had the Northern Star, the Suffragettes had their own self-titled newspaper, the Bolsheviks had Pravda, Gandhi founded Harijan to help build his anti-colonial struggle while Solidarity in Poland had Robotnik and the Algerians had the unofficial Voice of Fighting Algeria during their anti-colonial struggle in the 1950s.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:02 PM on August 9, 2016 [2 favorites]


right except for the death (actual death!) & property destruction which, you know, edge cases, but not really a regular feature

Like hippybear said, I don't know of actual deaths, but death threats? Getting people fired? SWATting? Forcing targets to constantly monitor addresses, phone numbers, public exposure? Stalking? Getting bricks thrown through your window or your home tagged? I'm gonna guess that at this point if Anita Sarkeesian had to choose between having her car set on fire once and being left alone forever, or years and years more of being the target of trolls and online mobs, then she'd probably prefer to torch the car.
posted by Anonymous at 9:22 PM on August 9, 2016


However, our current political institutions are incapable of handling the dynamism and diversity of citizen opinions. They are susceptible to emotional bursts and intimidated by the power of internet users.
I think there's probably a good argument along these lines--that our leaders & institutions are reacting poorly to the new technology--but it's not made in this piece. I'd be really curious to read a good argument and see my reaction.

The level of detail in the piece for me at least boils down to saying that when representatives in representative democracies get energetic feedback they can sometimes make bad decisions.

[re: ideological segregation] None of this seems to correspond to what is actually happening, though, at least in the US? The right and the left online are constantly linking to one another's articles going "look at this asshole!"

I'm more with the article on this point than with this. Linking to bad arguments so me and mytribe mates can mock is the opposite of giving me accurate information about what's going on with the other side--sure, it's literally true that someone said it but I end up ill informed about the main dialogue of the other side.

To cherry pick for the MeFi crowd: I have had people on other boards explaining with great confidence what feminists are like who have clearly never been exposed to feminism except through the links of anti-feminists, but have spent a lot of time "learning" about feminism that way, and it's a bizarre thing with no relation to real thought.
posted by mark k at 9:38 PM on August 9, 2016 [9 favorites]


this reminds me: does anyone know how to set Facebook to never show Politics of any sort, ever again

I very deliberately include stuff that applauds my own team for being better than the other team in this collection of what I never want to see again

I just want to go back to the innocent days of complaining about all of the cat pictures
posted by DoctorFedora at 12:56 AM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, I saw the more clickbaity headline The biggest threat to democracy? Your social media feed by the World Economic Forum blog (Davos) first, and thanked the gods of the interwebz for Metafilter's continued existence. Which reminds me, I need to send in some money.
posted by infini at 3:53 AM on August 10, 2016


« Older Why Teach Business to Artists?   |   The Flying University of Poland Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments