As a reminder: algorithmic disinformation is a thing.
Russia and others have hacked Facebook in a subtle way: by spreading misinformation, which they have a long experience doing, and targeting a platform that optimized to spread dubious (at best) content for clicks and ad targeting.
In other words, they are piggyback riding the shittiest socnet on the planet to spread hate and attack target countries.
The triumph of this was, of course, the election of a certain Donald J. Trump and Brexit.
@ParadeGrotesque
while it's clear that russia does this, it should also be clear that the western governments also do this. everyone tries to fuck with the minds of the populace. this isn't even a new development, it's just new methods. every government has it's minitrue.
i too think that trump & brexit were a close call, it's the result of people being pissed about politics for a long time. the algorithmic campaigns were just the tiny thing required to have the opinion swing in those directions.
a point which is unsettling for me about the "russian disinformation is to blame" idea is that it disputes that common people can reason and decide for themselves. if you turn it the other way round it means that they are too dumb anyway and should just trust our narrative. this isn't the view on humans i like to have.
i know that the spooks designing those operations are very good with psychology, but this can't be the reason to declare large swaths of the own population as dumb people who must be saved.
"disinformation" (i really hate that word, btw) is only powerful as people are dissatisfied already. if hyper-capitalism wouldn't have destroyed large paths of psychological & financial security already, those campaigns wouldn't work.
@velartrill not much time right now, but i think there just is no alternative to everyone making up his own opinion. everything else has the same dangers (leadership going mad), while if people can decide for themselves there at least is the possibility of not being fucked with.
@velartrill regarding leaders/followers, you can get to the conclusion that you _want_ someone to be in control because you think it's in your best interest. that is perfectly fine.
i don't think that a representative democracy like we currently have in most western states is a good model, i don't think having an uncontrolled-leader state is a good one. both are unfit for countries as big as ours. nobody can rule over several million of people, it's just mind bogging bullshit to assume that it will work without throwing random groups under the bus.
i think what could work is smaller countries with direct democracy. _really_ let the people decide, not some suits who are more often than not controlled by someones money.
maybe we are just too many people for everything not resulting in dystopia?
the fallacy people get into here is that it's possible to have a state where the power of leadership is "controlled." again, look at the US -- designed from the ground up around "checks and balances" that were supposed to keep the leadership in check, hardcoded into the consitution itself by people who were sick of monarchy and absolutely ideologically dead-set against ever taking the chance that kings might one day reign in their new nation, and yet those restraints all just melted away to let the president rule by fiat as soon as the powers that be decided that was in their best interest, and america has become a monster far worse than any european monarchy ever was. consitutional and legal restraints are largely meaningless against bad actors who get their hands on the levers of power, while good-faith actors are only hampered by them (consider how easily biden has ruled by diktat after blatantly stealing the election, while trump (okay, i'm stretching "good-faith" a bit here) couldn't get anything done whatsoever except for whoring us out to israel despite his genuine electoral mandate and being the supposed Most Powerful Man in the Free World®). it is, again, a model that benefits only the worst, scummiest politicians and hamstrings the nobleminded ones who want to lead their people rather than just exploit them.
these complex "democratic" systems (i reiterate: it is acknowledged by sociologists that no known society in human history, with the possible singular exception of, as usual, the Pirahã, has been anything but de facto oligarchic, at least not without collapsing rapidly into anarchy or civil war), also diffuse responsibility and make it vastly harder to root out entrenched systems of exploitation and corruption. a much better model is china's old "mandate of heaven" -- one man is sovereign so long as he holds the coveted mandate of heaven, and once heaven turns against him (i.e. he starts getting uppity or screws the pooch one time too many), well, he's just one guy and everyone knows where he lives, so you just up and march to the capital with your pitchforks and torches and chop off his head _pour encourager les autres_, and everyone knows full well you have the blessing of the Celestial Emperor in doing so. compare that to going up against the Deep State in the US, or the late Soviet _nomenklatura_. in the US now we don't even have any clue who's even in charge; everyone knows the president is a puppet but nobody has any damn idea who's pulling his strings.
tl;dr the evil leaders will get everything they want either way, may as well let the good ones play by the same rules and give them a chance to properly clean house and get the country on a better footing.
> i think what could work is smaller countries with direct democracy
smaller countries yes for sure, but direct democracy is the most terrifying political model possible short of "rule by sadistic AI god," and not even that far from it frankly. direct democracy is direct rule by the Last Man. no, better nero than the mob. the mob cannot lead, categorically (remember Occupy?), and will not ever make good decisions, but a despot at least is less likely to starve the entire country out of pure bloody-minded stupidity or allow it to collapse into civil war and utter barbarity. http://www.amerika.org/texts/crowdism/
> maybe we are just too many people for everything not resulting in dystopia?
not remotely, there are much larger countries that work just fine and maintain cohesion and patriotism among much more diverse populations than ours. but the system wants us demoralized so it encourages us to believe this. "there is no alternative," Thatcher claimed. claptrap and folderol