3 ms·

> voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda Was this ever not the case?

Cumpiler69 2y ago
It was always like that.
Waterluvian 2y ago
This is the fundamental problem with American democracy and democracies all over the world. It only works if the voters are well informed, educated, and generally competent. Otherwise it’s just a manipulation game where someone can lie and lie and lie and be elected president. And at that late stage phase of democracy, who gets to manipulate these people better is who holds power.
- 13415 2y ago
  That shouldn't be a problem, though. All it takes is to make sure that voters are informed, educated, and generally competent. On a side note, the same holds for market economy. Markets only work if consumers are informed, educated, and generally competent.
- GenerocUsername 2y ago
  I assume you are speaking about establishment politicians over the last 40-2000 years, but I suspect you are actually miming talking points about manipulation aimed at 1 very recent election where the established propaganda cycle failed to manipulate enough people and a different brand of manipulation brought in a different set of manipulators. Evidence of your own manipulated belief structures going without serious enough introspection to be held as a competent free agent
  - saxonww 2y ago
    Allegedly, the biggest concern this time around was the economy. Millions of people complaining about inflation and the cost of goods voted for a guy promising to raise tariffs, and a party that historically caters to big business. The same big business that has moved a lot of jobs overseas, and has lobbied to relax restrictions on visas to hire more foreign workers for onshore jobs. To me, this looks a lot like people voting against their own interests. I think that when people vote against their own interests, it's usually because they don't understand what they're voting for, i.e. it's an education issue. And it's not surprising that other people would be perplexed and frustrated by this. But maybe I've just been misled by the wrong propaganda. I guess we'll find out.
  - YZF 2y ago
    Are you trying to argue that (many) democrats and republicans voters in the recent elections were not generally manipulated by their respective sides? I don't think this holds water. Examples could be democrats control over Biden's health messaging or republicans repeating the message that the democrats are stealing the elections or democrat's messaging about if their side loses it's the end of democracy or republicans messaging about immigration, crime etc. Generally engaging at a shallow level with the goal of influencing people's emotions. I don't think this is a 40-2000 years phenomena. It's certainly become a lot worse since Trump ran for president the first time. I remember turning on TV in my hotel room during a visit to the US maybe 8 years ago and switching between CNN and Fox, each of these channels were basically about endless bashing of the opposite side. I wouldn't call the content anything other than brainwashing and propaganda. CNN didn't use to be like that. With social media since every user gets their own view we don't even know what the "hidden hand" is pushing. It's much worse and a lot more dangerous.
    - GenerocUsername 2y ago
      No my point was that both sides are frequently manipulated, but I see comments on the Internet EVERY DAY to the effect of 'the other side is being manipulated', apparently oblivious to their own manipulated opinions. And CNN has ALWAYS been a propaganda wing, they just didn't have a serious competitor during the era when both parties were controlled by the same group. (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama)
- eastbound 2y ago
  Isn’t that the premise of the Enlightenment? That’s everyone will be well educated, or, if they’re not, at least they were the ones in control of their destiny? i.e. “You crazy, translating the bible to the plebs? What happens if stupid people get to choose for themselves?”
hcurtiss 2y ago
Maybe not, but it strikes me as a really dangerous path. If we don't believe the electorate acts from a position of moral authority, but rather are downstream of elite power and influence, then there are other more direct ways of controlling populations. And they tend to be a lot more bloody.
- YZF 2y ago
  It's the path we've been on for a long time and one that is made a lot more dangerous in the era of social media. Today more than ever people live in echo chambers and believe what they want to or what they think they need to so they can conform with their group identity. More than ever a few wealthy people or state actors have direct control over the reality people see without even the pretense of being "unbiased" media or any sort of ethical guidelines which in the past used to semi-exist for the traditional media/news etc. Propaganda's job is to influence those people who think they're acting from a position of moral authority but lack the education, or critical thinking skills, or access to information, to be able to see through the manipulation. I'm not sure what's the answer but I am sure this is not what the proponents of free speech had in mind.
- layer8 2y ago
  The reason the more direct ways are more bloody is why we want to stick with democracy. Democracy is supposed to be based on an exchange of ideas in an open discourse. This is why it’s important to not let any one party have too much control over the discourse. That is also why freedom of speech exists. Somewhat paradoXically, banning a foreign-controlled platform can serve the same purpose as defending freedom of speech.
saxonww 2y ago
Sort of? I think it's definitely the case that the group of voters in 1789 was much smaller and more homogeneous than it is today. I also think the nature of propaganda has changed a little as well. Today, messages can be delivered cheaply to everyone, everywhere, from anywhere, nearly instantaneously. There is far less of a propagation delay, and far less of a natural check on the rate and volume of propaganda.

It was always like that.

This is the fundamental problem with American democracy and democracies all over the world. It only works if the voters are well informed, educated, and generally competent. Otherwise it’s just a manipulation game where someone can lie and lie and lie and be elected president. And at that late stage phase of democracy, who gets to manipulate these people better is who holds power.

13415 2y ago
That shouldn't be a problem, though. All it takes is to make sure that voters are informed, educated, and generally competent. On a side note, the same holds for market economy. Markets only work if consumers are informed, educated, and generally competent.
GenerocUsername 2y ago
I assume you are speaking about establishment politicians over the last 40-2000 years, but I suspect you are actually miming talking points about manipulation aimed at 1 very recent election where the established propaganda cycle failed to manipulate enough people and a different brand of manipulation brought in a different set of manipulators. Evidence of your own manipulated belief structures going without serious enough introspection to be held as a competent free agent
- saxonww 2y ago
  Allegedly, the biggest concern this time around was the economy. Millions of people complaining about inflation and the cost of goods voted for a guy promising to raise tariffs, and a party that historically caters to big business. The same big business that has moved a lot of jobs overseas, and has lobbied to relax restrictions on visas to hire more foreign workers for onshore jobs. To me, this looks a lot like people voting against their own interests. I think that when people vote against their own interests, it's usually because they don't understand what they're voting for, i.e. it's an education issue. And it's not surprising that other people would be perplexed and frustrated by this. But maybe I've just been misled by the wrong propaganda. I guess we'll find out.
- YZF 2y ago
  Are you trying to argue that (many) democrats and republicans voters in the recent elections were not generally manipulated by their respective sides? I don't think this holds water. Examples could be democrats control over Biden's health messaging or republicans repeating the message that the democrats are stealing the elections or democrat's messaging about if their side loses it's the end of democracy or republicans messaging about immigration, crime etc. Generally engaging at a shallow level with the goal of influencing people's emotions. I don't think this is a 40-2000 years phenomena. It's certainly become a lot worse since Trump ran for president the first time. I remember turning on TV in my hotel room during a visit to the US maybe 8 years ago and switching between CNN and Fox, each of these channels were basically about endless bashing of the opposite side. I wouldn't call the content anything other than brainwashing and propaganda. CNN didn't use to be like that. With social media since every user gets their own view we don't even know what the "hidden hand" is pushing. It's much worse and a lot more dangerous.
  - GenerocUsername 2y ago
    No my point was that both sides are frequently manipulated, but I see comments on the Internet EVERY DAY to the effect of 'the other side is being manipulated', apparently oblivious to their own manipulated opinions. And CNN has ALWAYS been a propaganda wing, they just didn't have a serious competitor during the era when both parties were controlled by the same group. (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama)
eastbound 2y ago
Isn’t that the premise of the Enlightenment? That’s everyone will be well educated, or, if they’re not, at least they were the ones in control of their destiny? i.e. “You crazy, translating the bible to the plebs? What happens if stupid people get to choose for themselves?”

hcurtiss 2y ago

Maybe not, but it strikes me as a really dangerous path. If we don't believe the electorate acts from a position of moral authority, but rather are downstream of elite power and influence, then there are other more direct ways of controlling populations. And they tend to be a lot more bloody.

YZF 2y ago
It's the path we've been on for a long time and one that is made a lot more dangerous in the era of social media. Today more than ever people live in echo chambers and believe what they want to or what they think they need to so they can conform with their group identity. More than ever a few wealthy people or state actors have direct control over the reality people see without even the pretense of being "unbiased" media or any sort of ethical guidelines which in the past used to semi-exist for the traditional media/news etc. Propaganda's job is to influence those people who think they're acting from a position of moral authority but lack the education, or critical thinking skills, or access to information, to be able to see through the manipulation. I'm not sure what's the answer but I am sure this is not what the proponents of free speech had in mind.
layer8 2y ago
The reason the more direct ways are more bloody is why we want to stick with democracy. Democracy is supposed to be based on an exchange of ideas in an open discourse. This is why it’s important to not let any one party have too much control over the discourse. That is also why freedom of speech exists. Somewhat paradoXically, banning a foreign-controlled platform can serve the same purpose as defending freedom of speech.

saxonww 2y ago

Sort of? I think it's definitely the case that the group of voters in 1789 was much smaller and more homogeneous than it is today. I also think the nature of propaganda has changed a little as well. Today, messages can be delivered cheaply to everyone, everywhere, from anywhere, nearly instantaneously. There is far less of a propagation delay, and far less of a natural check on the rate and volume of propaganda.