Slashdot Mirror
The Net — Democratic Panacea Or Autocratic Tool?
Alex writes "On April 6, 10,000 protesters organized in Moldova against the nation's Communist leadership by utilizing new media like Twitter and Facebook, demonstrating the ever-increasing potential of the Internet as a democratic and liberating tool. But in the current Boston Review, Evgeny Morozov critiques the view that the internet will inevitably democratize autocratic regimes like China, Russia and Iran. He argues that the Net's democratic effects are not inherent, and that autocratic regimes have been successful in controlling electronic media to disseminate their ideology. Will the net ultimately spread American democracy, or just American entertainment?"
Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.
I can't believe it.
You had and have Actors as heads of state, only two parties one can vote for, tolerate torture, infiltrate other countries ...
WTF is democratic about that. Please go away and do not spread ANYTHING in the world, thank you.
The net has the potential to be a near indestructible tool for democracy and free exchange of information if, and only if, full anonymity were possible.
And that is why this aspect of the net is seen as the ultimate danger to authoritarians, and so no effort is to be spared to destroy any attempts at fully anonymous net. And so enter the "save the children" crusaders and witch-hunters, who somehow, strangely, rather then focus on abused children seem to focus on thought crimes which, also incidentally, require wholesale removal of anonymity from the net to "stop" ...
Combine this with efforts at whipping up frothing-at-the-snout frenzy and moral panic amongst the general population and the author of the article is right: the net will slowly but surely become the tool of power holders.
Of course there are all sorts of other excuses (like libel etc) why the net has to become non-anonymous, all of them bogus in light of what is being lost versus what is being gained. But then again that is the point, as the "cost" to the ruling elites everywhere is frightening.
America must get over the ideology of spreading American democracy around the world. While it's wonderful as a system, imposing it on other nations is often counterproductive, and nary worth the American blood and treasure used to achieve it.
Rigged voting machines, lying government, involved in wars all over the globe under false pretense, constant and flagrant erosion of our rights yada yada yada thank god for america.
I thought it was a Corporatocracy, based on the ample evidence that just about everyone in Washington is bought by one corporation or the other with campaign donations and backroom deals.
I know Americans get to vote every now and then, but a substantial portion of the results are suitably processed by unverifiable digital "voting systems" to ensure that the people won't accidentally vote wrong. Not that it matters much as both US parties are essentially the same.
America has just spent the last 5 years torturing people and invading a country against international law with American soldiers massacring its population with impunity. It's a terrible role model for democracy.
Is American the best kind of Democracy we can come up with? I'd at least hope for one where lobbying isn't a full time job, where how much money you doesn't matter when running for office, and where every vote counts. Not one where 51% is just as good as 100% (state level).
We are all God's parents.
You know, the most influential (and richest) industries of the country are controlled by families who had relations with Putin or KGB/army in the 90s. Putin designed his Deputy Prime Minister to become the presidential candidate , Putin left the presidence to become Prime Minister, the former Putin's Prime Minister now is Deputy Prime Minister...
Yes, it sounds like an autocracy.
Ha! You mean the one we can witness in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment?
The Bush administration's rendition (torture) policy, and Obama's approval and continuation of it? The unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens? Attack wars on sovereign nations for oil and political dominance? The notion of the executive branch being untouchable by any law?
Wow, I cerainly hope the net is not about spreading that ideology.
Why is it that the US is a major target of Amnesty International again? What about your warrentless wire-tapping? Exceedingly low voter turn out. Etc, etc, etc.
Seriously, if you want to spread democracy, then the first step would be to actually have one.
You can consider it autocratic. Presidential and parlamentary elections are faked on regular basis, governors are installed from Kremlin (elections were abolished not so long ago), courts are funded from city budgets and judges are installed by the president and the parliament majority, so called "United Russia" has Putin as the leader. So there is no de facto separation of powers, the president and prime minister decide. :-)
Oh, and journalists and bloggers are killed and imprisoned for their opinions. We also have the infamous "282 article" in criminal codex which de facto forbids any criticism of state. So yes, Russia may be considered autocratic if not "Soviet" again
The Printing Press - Democratic Panacea Or Autocratic Tool?
How about disruptive technology and useful tool? How it is used depends on the people, not the technology.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes feel free to spout off any nonsense you feel like.
The US has a long history of third parties springing up, or independents running for election. A recent example example is Ross Perot who won 19% of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. In 2000 it was the votes won by the Green Party (Ralph Nader) that were the difference between Bush or Gore winning.
The fact is that it isn't just two people on the ballot. The number is more usually 10 or so in a presidential election. You are free to vote for any one of them.
And that isn't counting the primary system where Americans vote for and choose who will run for the party in the upcoming elections. How do you think that Obama became president? By winning voters during the primary run. Often dozens of candidates are available to choose from across the various parties.
And at the local level it is even more pronounced. I've had neighbors get fed up with the current local officials, say on the school board and just up and run on their own. And get elected.
Also let's be clear about what democracy really is. I grew up in a town that is run as an Athenian style democracy where voters in the town voted on EVERY issue.
Also let us know when in Europe a person of mixed race like Obama is elected President of a MAJOR state like France or Germany. That is when you;ll know you have a strong, open democratic process.
A gun is also an indestructible tool for democracy... or an indestructible tool for totalitarianism. The American founding fathers used them to (try to) create democracy, but the British of the time also used them to try to prevent it. Tools are, by definition, agnostic to the human "causes" to which they are applied.
Democracy doesn't require the sort of anonymity you're promoting. No one else in human history has ever enjoyed or needed it for the sake of democracy. The founding fathers didn't need it. The American Constitution, contrary to popular misunderstanding, does not enshrine it; it is not a basic "right".
Actually, what is enshrined in our democratic system is quite the reverse: the right to be able to confront one's accuser. That is one of the fundamental tenets of our jurisdprudent system.
You can't have it both ways, but you and other misguided people will no doubt keep trying, for selfish reasons.
Or you could try to understand that Slashdot is a US-centric website and tends to tell it from an American perspective.
Everything on the web doesn't need to be done from a perspective that you find acceptable.