And interestingly no one seemed to care when it took "tens of thousands" to deceive everyone. Only once that power is handed to all of us does it suddenly becom

And interestingly no one seemed to care when it took "tens of thousands" to deceive everyone. Only once that power is handed to all of us does it suddenly become unethical. We could never trust anything we learned except to the extent we trust the person who conveyed the facts to us. The misplaced trust in state and/or corporate media made things kind of work, but that doesn't make it right or ethical. Now that it is obvious that in addition to our benevolent oligarchs, that evil hacker kid your cousin told you about might be feeding you untruths, it doesn't work anymore. Media is pointless, elections are pointless. You can still trust people you see with your eyes on a regular basis to observe the ethics of their behavior. Until they start hacking our eyes, but we have a bit I think? I think this is one more supporting datapoint for a hierarchical representative democracy where people only have to select from people they know well. Dunbar's number makes the math hard, but if most people know 100 people well, that puts elected positions at 1% at the first tier, .01 for the next. Each tier gets to know those they work with, well, electing one to the next level who must be backfilled locally. Not sure how to bootstrap the system.