"In order to 'save' democracy, we need to undermine democracy!"

A quote from a friend that truly describes what you're about to read.

Comments

[theshippinggods]

Yeah, that's about right. You don't need to cheat if you can legally get more people to vote, and enable them to do so in ways that were not available in the past. I dunno about saving democracy, because Trump did win without question in 2016, but eh, hyperbole. This election wasn't about anything but a little over half the country having some serious buyer's remorse.

[AndwhatIseeisme]

This kind of shadow cabal working behind the scenes to influence elections is pretty much what I assume happens every election, so I'm really more surprised to see it being reported on than I am that it happened.

[rikusorasephiroth]

Your American politics makes no sense to me.

[theshippinggods]

5448093
It doesn't make sense to us either. The only thing more mind-boggling is money.

[mapu]

Elections are shams, and manipulated in so many ways, voting is waste of time.

[Horse-With-No-Name]

The most important takeaway from Quinn’s research, however, was that engaging with toxic content only made it worse. “When you get attacked, the instinct is to push back, call it out, say, ‘This isn’t true,'” Quinn says. “But the more engagement something gets, the more the platforms boost it. The algorithm reads that as, ‘Oh, this is popular; people want more of it.'”

The solution, she concluded, was to pressure platforms to enforce their rules, both by removing content or accounts that spread disinformation and by more aggressively policing it in the first place. “The platforms have policies against certain types of malign behavior, but they haven’t been enforcing them,” she says.

Very interesting; we all knew the social media algorithms are fucked, but this demonstrates how fucked. Basically the democrats had no other choice but to try to ban content, and then people on the right who didn't necessarily know they were spreading lies thought they were being singled out and censored.

Basically the algorithm can't tell who's telling the truth and who's lying, so it tries to treat them fairly. Instead it should treat them like a parent dealing with two kids who were fighting: punish both, or ideally understand what the truth is and act accordingly, but that one's much harder for an algorithm to know. In this way, hopefuly less toxic things which still attract people's attention will float to the top.

[theshippinggods]

5448109
Nailed it. All it takes is 1 lie and several thousand people to believe it and pass it on as truth, and then we have alternative facts.

[SCP Pinkamena]

"in order to save democracy we need to undermine democracy" is the same energy as a summary of a Greta Thunberg speech: "In order to stop future suffering, we must suffer right now"

[Horse-With-No-Name]

It's funny that depending which side of the political spectrum you're on, you can interpret this post as a jab at either the left or the right.

[Steel Resolve]

5448121
Well, it's also the same energy as "if you want to retire, you need to save something while you're young."

[Wild Zontars]

On the bright side, once you accept that "Democracy^TM" is fake, you can start to make some actual progress. What did the peasants do when they had a retarded king? I mean, sure, you could try to revolt, but that just leads to mass death and misery. Better to insulate yourself as much as possible from whatever stupid shit the king does, and otherwise ignore him until he dies of old age or the consequences of his own stupidity.

Donald Trump was the perfect modern President, because politics is just as fake and staged as the "reality" shows and WWF programs he used to guest star in. Sure, it can be fun, especially when your guy is winning, but it isn't real life. They're back to pretending it's real again while on camera, but winking and nodding at the smarter fans and critics after hours (as seen in the TIME article). If the show isn't fun anymore, work on making it so that you can ignore it until it goes away. At the rate we're going, the circus known as US Federal Politics will get itself cancelled in a few decades. Its ratings are already in the toilet.

[Jake The Army Guy]

Why did you link the Archive? Did they take it down?

[rikusorasephiroth]

5448095
Hmm.
At least in my country it's compulsory that all individuals over the age of 18 must vote (with some exceptions [hospital, prison, aged care facilities, etc]).
Failure to vote means hefty fines.

[Wild Zontars]

5448146
1. Deny them advertising revenue

2. They regularly edit inconvenient details out when somebody points out "you shouldn't have put that in writing".

[Jake The Army Guy]

5448149

Ah, gotcha.

[Wydril]

5448113

Nailed it. All it takes is 1 lie and several thousand people to believe it and pass it on as truth, and then we have alternative facts.

Like people calling the rally on January 6th "a violent insurrection". We can see that lie being passed on in real time in the same breath as saying, "inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests". And, well, just about anything repeated as a left-wing talking point, really.
5448149
It's interesting how the article tries to position this story. It states that many self-avowed communists, who believe in seizing the means of production and who thereby see giant corporations as their mortal enemies, were happy to help giant corporations take more power and direct control over their lives. Even in this fantasy-land scenario, it paints leftists as shortsighted, ideologically-bankrupt lemmings. Yet the takeaway for those actually reading past the click-bait title is, "Yeah! We're the good guys and we stopped Hitler 2.0!" I appreciate how 'journalists' forced into writing these things by their editors manage to slip in these tongue-in-cheek critiques that the subjects of the articles miss, even while inventing a fallacy to silence people's doubts about this election.

[Baineblade]

5448147
That's... Not a good thing. That's not a free vote. Forcing your citizenry to vote or have a fine levied against you means you do not live in a free society. The FREEDOM to vote is probably the second most sacred freedom Americans enjoy right after the right to speak freely.

[WIL_I_ZIN]

5448086
"People may have been wrong when they worked together to undermine an election. But it was for a good cause!"

You sound like a demogauge who would justify any action to reach a goal. You need some serious self reflection dude. Grow up.

[theshippinggods]

5448196
Elections are undermined constantly. 2016 was severely undermined by foreign interests on social media, just as a for instance. Do you really expect me to be shocked to hear there was a little coordination involved in getting 81 million people to vote? Why should this in particular dismay me?

Also, for a good cause? No. A good cause would be electing a saint or something. Biden is no saint.

[theshippinggods]

5448190
Nah, January 6th was a protest in which a bunch of nutjobs broke into a government building to take their opinions directly to Congress's faces. A violent insurrection did take place there, but that wasn't what most people came for. I recall seeing at least one video of a man in a MAGA hat yelling at police to call for backup because the people who had broken inside were out for blood. He clearly wasn't down with what was happening.

[Shkura]

5448197
And another good example of "Nailed it. All it takes is 1 lie and several thousand people to believe it and pass it on as truth, and then we have alternative facts." because the facts to support this claim was and are still missing.

[theshippinggods]

5448233
Excellent! Question everything. Blind belief is exactly how unsupported rumors become facts!

[MLG Hard]

The title sounds like left-wing accelerationism.

[Wild Zontars]

"OK, we fortified democracy and are introducing common sense gun control. What next?"

"We update the Bible for $CurrentYear. Worked for the Chinese."

[marcelojj]

Wow. They don´t even try to dissimulate it anymore.

[thatotherotherguy]

Yeah, democracy truly dies when the population isn’t dis informed and has the means to vote.

[LightGust]

Say it with me: politicians don’t give a single shit about you. Right, left, red, blue, donkey, elephant, doesn’t matter. They will continue finding ways to keep us poor and subservient while they enjoy the finest luxuries in life. That’s how it always has been. They’ll leave us fighting over the crumbs of the crumbs of the scraps that very barely trickles down from their ivory towers while they gorge themselves.

[ponygrad]

I'll admit to being lazy and stopping 1/2 of the way through the article. How was democracy undermined?

[theshippinggods]

5448444
A bunch of corporations and people worked together to increase voting numbers by various means, some of which were legally dubious and might have not ever gotten done in a year without a plague, not because they are illegal, but because some states just don't make it very easy for people to vote usually. Then they used propaganda and fought disinformation campaigns. Basically, an election happened, and the left was a little more ruthless and a little more competent than usual.

[theshippinggods]

5448272
This is the best way to think. I'd go further and say don't trust anyone holding office. Power corrupts anyone.

[Officer Hotpants]

Ah yes. Much like how you "save" a dog from getting hit while wandering into traffic by sawing off its legs. Not that this is anything new; this general idea has been the way of things for decades. It's just this is the first time they've been so open about it.

5448195
Not to mention that it means people end up having to vote on matters that they don't understand or care about. Unless the only compulsory vote is the vote for the nation's new leader.

[theshippinggods]

5448578
Your analogy is not very apt. Nothing the left did prevented the right from voting. It's more like they armed a platoon of tortoises with helicopter packs so they could compete with the hares, and the tortoises won by over 7 million votes.

[Wydril]

5448578
Indeed. This came up in conversation between Cryosite and Electric Grace, where the faulty premise that "Food is good, so eating as much food as possible is best!" was used to describe the "More voters is better!" approach that the Democratic Party pushed. By removing even the slightest barrier to action, not requiring voters to be informed on the issue but not even requiring them to ask for a mail-in ballot, they appealed to a completely disinterested and apathetic group of people who made decisions for the shallowest and most convenient of reasons.

An easy example would be peoples' Steam libraries. Thanks to various metrics, Valve was able to determine that upwards of 25% of purchases over the years were never played. The titles were bought simply because they were on sale, but actually playing them wasn't worth the customers' time. Cue mailing out millions of unsolicited ballots, many of them sent to people who already voted, people who had moved, etc. No barrier to action meant people with no interest whatsoever in the issues or the candidates cast a vote that they never would have of their own volition. That certainly did not "strengthen" democracy.

And before the usual false litany of "voter suppression" gets dragged out, simply googling "mail-in ballot" and your state will get you to the site to request one. But the Democratic Party believes even that is too much a barrier of action for its supporters (and pretending, of course, that there were any legitimate reasons for them to do this).

[Wydril]

5448198

A violent insurrection did take place there

i.ibb.co/SdLy0L7/1307559450525.jpg
For God's sake, educate yourself and stop spewing this bullshit. Don't try to use words you don't understand.

[Officer Hotpants]

5448801
It's funny you mention the Steam thing. I just came back here after my most recent "play something from your 'unplayed' library category, you stupid asshole" session. I don't have too many in there but when there's crazy shit like 95% off sales crossing over with discounted bundles you end up picking up a fair amount of library filler anyway.

It's always funny to look at global achievement stats and see an achievement that says "start the game" sitting at only 45%.

[Wydril]

5448810
It's a haunting moment when you look at your library and realize the truth: "I'm going to die before I can play through all of my backlog."

[Officer Hotpants]

5448813
Or "I'm going to die before I have a PC capable of playing that".

[theshippinggods]

5448802

For God's sake, educate yourself

Oh my! Are you questioning my education? Because I assure you, as a public school graduate, it was thoroughly useless. But I managed to emerge from it able to reason for myself.

they’ll attempt to distract you by assaulting your character

Do be careful, Wydril, you're sounding like a leftist.

[TittySparkles]

5448236
The more I watch everything unfold, the more I wonder if acceleration is the only option remaining.

[Horse-With-No-Name]

5448827
The best option is developing post scarcity technology and yeeting the heck off this planet to the moon so the politicians and corporate oligarchs/finance thieves can implode without hurting the rest of us. Check out the Alternative Propulsion Engineering Conference btw. I mentioned various tech the corporate oligarchy didn't want you knowing about but which I couldn't post here; well it's up permanently there now. We'll be getting a guy on Tim Pool to talk about it soon.

[Horse-With-No-Name]

5448505
Indeed it's just as I said: what the conservatives call the deep state, we call the corporate oligarchy.

And as I keep saying, people shouldn't trust concentrated power structures, whether corporations or governments. Hating one but trusting the other is dumb. We all saw through the facade with wallstreetbets I would hope.

Also kudos for speaking your mind despite all the downvoters who read this article as a confession by the deep state and probably also believe in Qanon.

To those people, it's not that: it's much worse. The people who wrote this piece genuinely believe their story will be received well because they are entirely out of touch with what's going on with the common man. The system worked for them so they don't even realize anything is wrong. They are frogs in slowly boiling water. And so is Biden and everyone around him: he genuinely thinks what he's doing will bring the country back together. Elon might fear artificial intelligence, but I fear genuine stupidity.

[Huk]

... huh, interesting...

I read the damn thing from top to bottom and... I don't know what to think. One thing for sure, each side will use that article as validation for their claims:

• the left will say, 'See?! Here is the proof that Trump wanted to rig the election! Thank god these brave people stopped him!'
• the right will say, 'See?! Here is the proof that left, big tech, and others worked behind the scenes and rigged the election! It was a setup. Trump was right all along!'

But in the eyes of the law, what these people did was probably 100% legal, so... however people want to see it, it really doesn't matter at this point. Biden won, Trump lost, and that's that - it's done. Now, Joe will either turn out to be a great president and implement the reforms he supported during the campaign (especially since - if I understand correctly - Dems have everything and can push everything they want). OR... reforms won't follow, and in four years, people will be pissed off again.

Nothing but to wait and see...

5448109
5448113

The fact that social media algorithms are messed up and adding to the polarization was never a secret. However, what's the alternative exactly? For somebody in a corporation or worse, the government (Ministry of Truth, perhaps?) to arbitrarily DECIDE what is real and what is false, and ban everything else as 'misinformation'?

The only way I see it working is to present both sides of the argument without any bias and let people decide what to think. But I doubt big tech would want that...

[Horse-With-No-Name]

5448877
I explained an alternative in my post:

What do you do when you've got two kids who were fighting and now they're telling different stories? Punish both. Turn the car around or take away the candy. Or in the case of social media, deplatform all negativity instead of trying to choose which side is right. Because none of it is productive right now. and picking sides just drives the other side more extreme because it looks like hypocrisy to them. This goes both ways; liberal or conservative.

No it's not ideal, but the one who was the bad actor gets that negative feedback, and at least you can't be biased in your procedure because the treatment is the same for all and you're demonstrably not trying to pick a side. The other analogy would be breaking up a bar fight instead of ganging up on one of them. Just get them apart and worry about sorting out how it happened afterwards.

Or you could take the collapsitarian route and cheer them on I guess? Depends whether you care if our society survives the next decade. I just hope it stays together long enough so we open source off-grid living technologies or figure out gravity control and get off this planet.

[MLG Hard]

5448827
Senpai noticed me.

[Wydril]

5448821
Hah, too right!
5448877
That would require people consciously working against their own interests though, and that's too large of a temptation to expect everyone to be able to ignore. I discussed this a bit with BarroBroadcaster, using the exact words "Ministry of Truth" as you did. It basically came down to the US would need a 'Department of Facts' to serve as a fourth branch of government, with that much scope and power, to be able to deal with all the misinformation and half-truths and outright lies that get created in real-time. The initial telling of the lie is when it does the most damage, so without being able to get to that lie right as it happens, it wouldn't be effective.

It would almost immediately become politicized and hold all the power that Big Tech is grabbing for itself while having the protection of being legitimate. It would be tyrannical - the actual kind, not the kind the left bandies about willy-nilly.

[Huk]

5448879

OK, but how would that work in practice? Do you mean something like that:

• Proud Boys organizing a protest using Twitter => BAN such activity not allowed here! Antifa doing the same => BAN! BLM doing the same => BAN!
• Someone on the right calls to storm the capitol OR suggesting it's a good thing because 'election stolen!' => BAN! Someone on the left doing the same because 'can't let fascist rule!' => BAN!
• Person A calls B a fascist => BAN! Person B calls A a leftie => BAN!

If that's what you mean, then that could work. But I see two problems (if that's NOT what you meant, then skip the below and please show me an example of your vision, because I'm interested):

1. Social media platforms have already shown they're biased towards banning only one side and not the other. Kenosha is probably one of the best examples here. When the shooting happened, Facebook immediately sided with the mob calling it a 'mass murder' and started removing accounts of anyone showing support for Kyle. Simultaneously, people who attacked him were praised by the media as heroes, and Facebook had no trouble with them. They did that, despite the recording showing how he's running away and fires only after cornered and attacked. And that's just the tip of an iceberg.

The only way that would work is if governments stepped in and forced social media platforms to act without bias. It MAY happen in Europe, but in the States? Somehow I doubt it.

2. The second problem is that it works only in cases when two sides are at each other throats, and they're other instances where people demand action. For example, I see many people saying stuff like 'We need to ban people for saying scary misinformation about COVID vaccines! People reading their posts are getting scared and will not vaccinate, and that is a threat to the whole society!' OK, but what is a 'scary misinformation about the vaccine' exactly?

• someone saying that vaccines are made from embryos of dead features - OK, this is clearly BS that can be easily debunked
• but... if someone points out that ordinarily, it takes 5-10 years to develop a vaccine vs. 10 months in COVID? Is that a case of scary misinformation or a valid concern?
• or if someone points out that big pharma sells the vaccines with a 'we're not liable for side effects,' clause? Is that a case of scary misinformation, or a valid concern?

Who will decide which people have valid concerns and which should be silenced? Or should we give social media power to just silence whoever they want in the name of 'greater good'? Judging by the comments I read, many people would go for the latter - I don't have to tell anyone its implications... This is a huge issue.

I totally agree with you that we need to do something about the cesspool called social media, but... how exactly, I'm not sure.

5448966

That's how I see it too. I think the problem we have is that in cases of most serious issues, we hear that only a single 'right' (or 'true') solution exists. If you're against it, then you're misinformed at best or a filthy liar spreading misinformation at worst. In reality, the more complicated the problem is, the more possible solutions it usually has - every one with its own pros and cons.

In the past, we could discuss it freely and pick the best after all concerns were heard and addressed. Now, it seems that thanks to the internet and especially social media, too many people think that the world is going to hell and acts guided by emotions screaming, 'We need to do... 'SOMETHING' RIGHT NOW! And hope for the best...' Then the ideas like 'defund the police!' get through. But since it generates clicks, Big Tech is all for it. The more controversy, the better for them.

I think that the only way to stop this shit is to take power from Big Tech by establishing laws saying that once your platform gains enough popularity, you MUST let in people with different views, whether you like it or not. You can (even should) remove posts calling for violence, but you have to stay neutral - any attempt to side with one side (as in Facebook and Kenosha shooting) should be punishable by hefty fines (a million USD or more) applied daily until you fix your mistakes.

Most importantly, the algorithms themselves should be modified to promote more diverse views on both sides, instead of the current 'more right for right-wing, and more left for left-wing' approach. This only generates echo chambers on both sides and radicalizing people.

The same should apply to companies selling universal devices like smartphones. They should not be allowed to ban apps from their store due to how users use them. Nor should they be the only ones having a say on what is and is not allowed - not if it violates the right to free speech.

IMHO, something like that would be a good start and a good compromise. If you want to run a small, dedicated social media platform, you can do it however you like. But if that platform grows too much and starts to influence the lives of people who don't use it, it should be regulated.

It's hardly a perfect solution, but if I have to choose between Big Tech (where I have zero control) and government (where I have at least some saying who is elected), I chose the government.

[Horse-With-No-Name]

5449077
Yep your first idea was right: Just ban all things with aggressive language no matter what the context until people chill down again and hopefully come back to reality, whether on the extreme left or the extreme right. Then one side can't blame social media of being biased, and instead of the aggressive stuff being promoted by the algorithm for causing more social media engagement, it gets put in the timeout corner as you would with two kids who are fighting. Any camp counselor knows this works. And a side effect would be in the meantime, productive discourse would bubble up to the top and get a chance to reach a wide audience for once.

Don't even bother trying to sort out the BS from the truth: you just won't convince everyone of any of that even if it seems obvious to you. But I think everyone across the board would agree to the above because truth and agendas don't factor into it. Besides perhaps the ideal of healing this country, which I hope the majority still agrees on, but who knows?

[Huk]

5449139

I would say the idea is sound, not just for the time being but also in general. You use aggressive language? You're an ass towards others? You promote aggression? Off you go! However, I fear that - as always - the devil would be in the details. I can already see people saying, 'What? But calling someone a Nazi/Fascist/racist is not aggression! It's just a fact!' ...

Judging by what we've seen so far, I don't see that happening in a neutral way without governments of the world holding a giant whip to lash the asses of Facebook, Twitter, and others. And that in itself can lead to its own problems.

With all that said... Yeah, I think this would be a step in the right direction.

[...] But I think everyone across the board would agree to the above because truth and agendas don't factor into it.

I can't say I share your optimism here... Then again, I'm a doomer, so maybe that's that . Jokes aside, I fear that many people on both sides would be against it because it would take away the power to stir the pot they currently have.

Still, as long as both sides would be treated equally, I would support such an idea.

[theshippinggods]

5449077

I think that the only way to stop this shit is to take power from Big Tech by establishing laws saying that once your platform gains enough popularity, you MUST let in people with different views, whether you like it or not.

Would never work. Do remember these companies have lobbyists, and they'd be donating as heavily as the NRA does to avoid changes to the status quo. You'll never see democrats voting for it because that status quo favors them, and since it takes 60 votes to get anything of significance done, that's a problem.

[Huk]

5449169

True, I doubt it would fly in the States. But... you forget that there is an entire world outside the USA. Suppose the EU passes such a law and establishes a board that ordinary banned people could appeal to. In that case, the companies will have two options: move out of the EU market and lose billions, OR follow our law. Something tells me they will choose the latter .

Once that happens, you'll have outcry in the States that Facebook/Twitter/whatever discriminates against some Americans, and then the shitshow will start. I would really like to see Twitter's defense here that won't piss people off.

Of course, if something like that happens, they could pull out, but... you know, when we implemented GDPR, there were threats, they were cries, but eventually, Big Tech bit the bullet and shut up because they really like green . I know that our Prime minister is already planning to touch on the subject during the next EU Parliament meeting.

And the irony? If something like that passes, it will be because they banned Trump Even though European politicians mostly hated him, by banning him, Twitter and Facebook proved what kind of power they really hold and that they're willing to use it. European politicians didn't like that at all.