3 ms·
That’s pretty obviously false. I think you mean “anarchic”. Democracy would allow the majority’s idea for “right” dialogue and would censor minority ideas. W
by parasubvert 8y ago
That’s pretty obviously false. I think you mean “anarchic”.
Democracy would allow the majority’s idea for “right” dialogue and would censor minority ideas. Which is what moderation does.
- coldtea 8y ago>That’s pretty obviously false. I think you mean “anarchic” Democratic. The people ("demos") control the dialogue and have equal voice. As in this dictionary definition: (3): relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people - democratic art - democratic education (4): favoring social equality - not snobbish I'm also referring to the original meaning of the word and practice in ancient Athens when it came to deciding, where every participating citizen could be heard [1]. What you describe (suppressing the minority etc) is about lawmaking and decisions (e.g. the democratic , which is not part of the YouTube dialogue. Users don't decide what's to be done. Nobody is surpassed in YouTube comments, minority or not -- they just get downvotes and negative counter-comments, but they can still write and have their comments shown. [1] The innovation was that it was not a king, tyrant, or group of rulers, but the whole citizen community (even if restricted to slaves/women which was the baseline at the time -- not to mention also for 2.5 millennia later) themselves openly debating and voting.