5 ms·

“The election of 2016 was the absolute subversion of the idea and practice of legitimate bureaucracy and traditional media and all the Second Wave political sci

“The election of 2016 was the absolute subversion of the idea and practice of legitimate bureaucracy and traditional media and all the Second Wave political science.” Or, widespread Internet use decreased the ability of the traditional gatekeepers of information to manipulate voters.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kadendogthing 8y ago
It ruined the safe guard of using the time tested tool of fact checking and having credible sources of information. And opened the flood gates to bad actors acting on irrational actors. The internet is not some magical haven for information and knowledge. In its current form, it's comparable to information anarchy. It's not tenable.
- keiferski 8y ago
  While you are correct, one could also make the (likewise correct) argument that pre-Internet information was not necessarily always fact-checked and true, but simply the version approved by the authorities. In any case, I think we need a return to some sort of expertise or trusted authority system. Hopefully the internet allows for this to be independent of the political and corporate establishment.
  - someguydave 8y ago
    In general, there seems to be more excitement for crushing ideological enemies on existing platforms rather than cultivating expertise.
    - keiferski 8y ago
      Widespread use of the internet is very, very recent. I'm hopeful that these are just growing pains.
      - 52-6F-62 8y ago
        [For the most part] I think Wikipedia embodies the growing of what you mentioned earlier. It is still affected by bad actors, but has improved substantially from what it was by a growing community of oversight. Not a perfect model, but an interesting one in my opinion.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >It ruined the safe guard of using the time tested tool of fact checking and having credible sources of information The same fact-checking that got Nixon and buried McGovern, or elected Raegan twice, or George Bush of CIA and Iran-Contra fame, or the war mongering Clinton and Bush Jr., or the more-of-the-same Obama?
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    The same fact-checking system that got Nixon impeached, that revealed the Iran contra controversy, and the one that lead to one of the largest protests against a war in American history (the Iraq war protests). You took events that transpired and then placed the blame on the system that allowed us to correct for these events in the first place (or at least attempt to). I'm sorry your criteria for a functioning and healthy media system is one that A) Never makes mistakes B) Can preemptively stop government officials from doing bad things. I'd be interested to see you expound on the statements you made.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      At the time the media was the only way people could hear about those things, just imagine the number of smaller leaks and investigations that came to nothing because they were not reported.
    - tomjen3 8y ago
      The system didn't correct anything. Not one of those presidents went to jail, not one of those who followed them learned anything, and none of the issues were stopped because of it, their had either already happened or are still an ongoing issue.
      - kadendogthing 8y ago
        >(or at least attempt to). Hello thanks for reading.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  "Fact-checking" is itself vulnerable to political bias. Outside of the truly ludicrous (i.e. things like "pizzagate", and all sorts of conspiracy theories in general), I don't think you can call people 'irrational actors' merely for seeking alternative sources of fact-checking and "non-fake" news media. Even the New York Times acknowledges that there is such a thing as an "intellectual dark web", which goes to prove that "information anarchy" is occasionally useful and worthwhile.
krapp 8y ago
>Or, widespread Internet use decreased the ability of the traditional gatekeepers of information to manipulate voters. Or, widespread internet used merely decentralized the means by which voters were manipulated, because voters were trained (in part by those traditional gatekeepers) to reject the mainstream and trust the fringe implicitly, rather than apply critical thinking skills to both.
marmada 8y ago
>Or, widespread Internet use decreased the ability of the traditional gatekeepers of information to manipulate voters. I think the opposite is true. In the 2016 election, we saw people get trapped in information-bubbles. The internet allowed far-right/alt-right information sources such as Breitbart/Infowars to manipulate people and gain a wide audience. Similarly, there has already been substantial evidence that the Russian government used a variety of techniques to spread false information through the internet. To say that the internet decreased the amount of false information in the 2016 election is misleading and false.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  I sure remember my racist Republican family members living in their own bubbles long before the Internet... I remember “liberal” and “conservative” media empires before the web... I remember gerrymanderred 50/50 political races before the web...
  - someguydave 8y ago
    Yes, I think the "bubble" explanation is actually too simple. It's clear that the American people disagree with the powerful bureaucrats who control Washington on various policies. I see Trump's election at least partially as a repudiation of the status quo on a variety of policies which Washington has been busily ignoring for decades.
- maps 8y ago
  > To say that the internet decreased the amount of false information in the 2016 election is misleading and false. That is not what is being said though, the amount of 'false information' increased for sure. The point is that the internet lets NEW actors manipulate minds outside of the standard 'mass media' channels. The 'mass media gatekeepers' did not have full control on the narrative at all times anymore. IOW 2016 made it clear that mass media is not in absolute control. Now consider that these standard channels (tv, papers, etc) are used by everyone as the main means of transmitting messages from not only advertisers but also by interest groups pushing a cause and also government actors pushing an agenda (the 'buildup' to the iraq invasion springs immediately to mind). It should be no shock that everyone involved in these media channels is freaked the fuck out by the 2016 election. There is no longer any mass narrative. I think some actors realized this sooner than the actual media, which appears to have just woken up to it this year.
barrkel 8y ago
Industrial media (second wave technology) generated consensus, or at least promulgated an appearance of consensus that the people could live with and didn't revolt against. Democracy can only function with some kind of consensual consensus. What the third wave is missing (right now at least) is functioning conflict resolution for (re)newly discovered gaps in the consensus, beyond litigation and guns, just as the article says. If we don't figure out a way to resolve conflicts in world views, and come to some kind of consensus on what is, there's a risk laws and force will be used instead. I'd ask people to read articles sympathetically rather than keyword-trigger on their current bugbears, but it's pretty much impossible in political topics.
- ganzuul 8y ago
  It might be possible to mediate between groups who are at odds, but this seems to require a world-class diplomacy at a grassroots level. I too can not see how centralized government can survive without a centralized source of truth. But what to do about it? It should be possible through other means to arrange public services, public works, and other things required for civilization to survive.
  - someguydave 8y ago
    >But what to do about it? Well, we could embrace epistemological humility and demand the reduction in the scope and scale of centralized government?
- someguydave 8y ago
  After a sympathetic reading of your comment, I cannot grasp this apparently contradictory sentence: "Democracy can only function with some kind of consensual consensus." After reading that sentence unsympathetically, I think that you mean that democracy cannot survive without an official priestly class mediating truth for the masses. Is that too cynical?
  - homarp 8y ago
    the way I read "consensual consensus" citizen A thinks roglob is gree citizen B thinks roglob is purp all citizens need to know what roglob is in order to function(live/make money/sleep/whatever) and to a certain extent have the same 'understanding' of roglob So a "consensual consensus" means citizens A and B agree that in order to function(live/...) roglop starts with prue... the rest of the letters will be decided 'later', and that's enough for all citizens to function. (later being not fully specified out) Implications are: A and B have to change the way they live, a bit, based on the "consensus" roglop. And of course, it assumes that A and B accept to be 'a society' and accept that having a single roglop is good. (which, in itself, is another roglop,... it's roglops all the way down)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kadendogthing 8y ago

It ruined the safe guard of using the time tested tool of fact checking and having credible sources of information. And opened the flood gates to bad actors acting on irrational actors. The internet is not some magical haven for information and knowledge. In its current form, it's comparable to information anarchy. It's not tenable.

keiferski 8y ago
While you are correct, one could also make the (likewise correct) argument that pre-Internet information was not necessarily always fact-checked and true, but simply the version approved by the authorities. In any case, I think we need a return to some sort of expertise or trusted authority system. Hopefully the internet allows for this to be independent of the political and corporate establishment.
- someguydave 8y ago
  In general, there seems to be more excitement for crushing ideological enemies on existing platforms rather than cultivating expertise.
  - keiferski 8y ago
    Widespread use of the internet is very, very recent. I'm hopeful that these are just growing pains.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      [For the most part] I think Wikipedia embodies the growing of what you mentioned earlier. It is still affected by bad actors, but has improved substantially from what it was by a growing community of oversight. Not a perfect model, but an interesting one in my opinion.
coldtea 8y ago
>It ruined the safe guard of using the time tested tool of fact checking and having credible sources of information The same fact-checking that got Nixon and buried McGovern, or elected Raegan twice, or George Bush of CIA and Iran-Contra fame, or the war mongering Clinton and Bush Jr., or the more-of-the-same Obama?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  The same fact-checking system that got Nixon impeached, that revealed the Iran contra controversy, and the one that lead to one of the largest protests against a war in American history (the Iraq war protests). You took events that transpired and then placed the blame on the system that allowed us to correct for these events in the first place (or at least attempt to). I'm sorry your criteria for a functioning and healthy media system is one that A) Never makes mistakes B) Can preemptively stop government officials from doing bad things. I'd be interested to see you expound on the statements you made.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    At the time the media was the only way people could hear about those things, just imagine the number of smaller leaks and investigations that came to nothing because they were not reported.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    The system didn't correct anything. Not one of those presidents went to jail, not one of those who followed them learned anything, and none of the issues were stopped because of it, their had either already happened or are still an ongoing issue.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      >(or at least attempt to). Hello thanks for reading.
zozbot123 8y ago
"Fact-checking" is itself vulnerable to political bias. Outside of the truly ludicrous (i.e. things like "pizzagate", and all sorts of conspiracy theories in general), I don't think you can call people 'irrational actors' merely for seeking alternative sources of fact-checking and "non-fake" news media. Even the New York Times acknowledges that there is such a thing as an "intellectual dark web", which goes to prove that "information anarchy" is occasionally useful and worthwhile.

krapp 8y ago

>Or, widespread Internet use decreased the ability of the traditional gatekeepers of information to manipulate voters. Or, widespread internet used merely decentralized the means by which voters were manipulated, because voters were trained (in part by those traditional gatekeepers) to reject the mainstream and trust the fringe implicitly, rather than apply critical thinking skills to both.

marmada 8y ago

>Or, widespread Internet use decreased the ability of the traditional gatekeepers of information to manipulate voters. I think the opposite is true. In the 2016 election, we saw people get trapped in information-bubbles. The internet allowed far-right/alt-right information sources such as Breitbart/Infowars to manipulate people and gain a wide audience. Similarly, there has already been substantial evidence that the Russian government used a variety of techniques to spread false information through the internet. To say that the internet decreased the amount of false information in the 2016 election is misleading and false.

simplecomplex 8y ago
I sure remember my racist Republican family members living in their own bubbles long before the Internet... I remember “liberal” and “conservative” media empires before the web... I remember gerrymanderred 50/50 political races before the web...
- someguydave 8y ago
  Yes, I think the "bubble" explanation is actually too simple. It's clear that the American people disagree with the powerful bureaucrats who control Washington on various policies. I see Trump's election at least partially as a repudiation of the status quo on a variety of policies which Washington has been busily ignoring for decades.
maps 8y ago
> To say that the internet decreased the amount of false information in the 2016 election is misleading and false. That is not what is being said though, the amount of 'false information' increased for sure. The point is that the internet lets NEW actors manipulate minds outside of the standard 'mass media' channels. The 'mass media gatekeepers' did not have full control on the narrative at all times anymore. IOW 2016 made it clear that mass media is not in absolute control. Now consider that these standard channels (tv, papers, etc) are used by everyone as the main means of transmitting messages from not only advertisers but also by interest groups pushing a cause and also government actors pushing an agenda (the 'buildup' to the iraq invasion springs immediately to mind). It should be no shock that everyone involved in these media channels is freaked the fuck out by the 2016 election. There is no longer any mass narrative. I think some actors realized this sooner than the actual media, which appears to have just woken up to it this year.

barrkel 8y ago

Industrial media (second wave technology) generated consensus, or at least promulgated an appearance of consensus that the people could live with and didn't revolt against. Democracy can only function with some kind of consensual consensus. What the third wave is missing (right now at least) is functioning conflict resolution for (re)newly discovered gaps in the consensus, beyond litigation and guns, just as the article says. If we don't figure out a way to resolve conflicts in world views, and come to some kind of consensus on what is, there's a risk laws and force will be used instead. I'd ask people to read articles sympathetically rather than keyword-trigger on their current bugbears, but it's pretty much impossible in political topics.

ganzuul 8y ago
It might be possible to mediate between groups who are at odds, but this seems to require a world-class diplomacy at a grassroots level. I too can not see how centralized government can survive without a centralized source of truth. But what to do about it? It should be possible through other means to arrange public services, public works, and other things required for civilization to survive.
- someguydave 8y ago
  >But what to do about it? Well, we could embrace epistemological humility and demand the reduction in the scope and scale of centralized government?
someguydave 8y ago
After a sympathetic reading of your comment, I cannot grasp this apparently contradictory sentence: "Democracy can only function with some kind of consensual consensus." After reading that sentence unsympathetically, I think that you mean that democracy cannot survive without an official priestly class mediating truth for the masses. Is that too cynical?
- homarp 8y ago
  the way I read "consensual consensus" citizen A thinks roglob is gree citizen B thinks roglob is purp all citizens need to know what roglob is in order to function(live/make money/sleep/whatever) and to a certain extent have the same 'understanding' of roglob So a "consensual consensus" means citizens A and B agree that in order to function(live/...) roglop starts with prue... the rest of the letters will be decided 'later', and that's enough for all citizens to function. (later being not fully specified out) Implications are: A and B have to change the way they live, a bit, based on the "consensus" roglop. And of course, it assumes that A and B accept to be 'a society' and accept that having a single roglop is good. (which, in itself, is another roglop,... it's roglops all the way down)