I find myself noticing some confusion while reading this article (and several previous articles along the same line). This seems like "neurotargeting" could be

I find myself noticing some confusion while reading this article (and several previous articles along the same line). This seems like "neurotargeting" could be a danger to a very specific conception of democracy, but not a danger to democracy in the way that people, in my experience, generally use the word. And certainly not a danger to democracy in the way that people such as Edward Bernays would have thought about it. For complete clarity, the way I've generally heard people use the word "democracy" is (roughly) regarding a system of governance where the will of the people is used to decide legitimacy, either by voting directly on laws or by voting on representatives to govern for them. It's not automatically clear that changing the will of the people is actually a danger to that system or makes it any less legitimate (assuming the will of the people itself is what you value). And it seems weird that this would be a danger. Is this just a different definition of democracy (possibly a regional variation?), or is it actually being used in a non-standard way here, because it seems like this would be a much bigger threat to liberalism than democracy (is democracy a short-hand for liberalism in some circles?).