4 ms·

scare quoting """""""""democracies""""""""" is perfectly acceptable when it couldn't be more obvious that those so-called democracies do anything but represent

by vlyan 6d ago

scare quoting """""""""democracies""""""""" is perfectly acceptable when it couldn't be more obvious that those so-called democracies do anything but represent the will of their peoples. do you know anyone who'd voted for having to scan their face to access verboten webseites? to have encryption backdoors in their messengers? to have state-mandated spyware preinstalled on their phones?

armchairhacker 6d ago
They don’t represent the people’s will, but unfortunately many people believe in censorship, so even if they were true direct democracies we may still see some.
- troupo 6d ago
  > if they were true direct democracies we may still see some. I think we would see more.
  - pennomi 6d ago
    With modern technology, we might be in the first era where direct democracy is truly viable. Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation.
    - troupo 6d ago
      > Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation. Counterpoint: see any NIMBY meetings where they shut down any and all proposals and legislations, even the obviously beneficial common sense ones. Rule by mob has rarely been productive.
      - mitxela 6d ago
        The same principle would have also shot down the need for any legislation before building a thing.
      - econ 6d ago
        The normal approach is to compromise across topics. Maybe one should have a finite number of winning votes in a period. Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on. I think that would reduce the sense of urgency where there is non, equalize involvement, foster debate with the barely involved and ofc create a focus on things one wants rather than things one doesn't want. Who knows, maybe one should be able to spend more than one vote per topic.
        troupo 6d ago
        > . Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on. Rule of the thumb: everyone will not 'just' [1] The majority is not a single person that will somehow behave like a rational being that will count their votes and vote only for "things that matter". People view very different things as "things that matter", and the system is easily gamed. Run a few popular, but pointless votes, exhaust available winning votes for the period, then try to pass a meaningful legislation. You will have riots form people who have spent their votes, but still want to vote for something truly important. And that's before we start talking about whether people should directly vote on removing building code regulations for example. Or whether or not measles vaccines should be mandatory. [1] https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone-will-not-just https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone...
        econ 5d ago
        I'm just playing with the puzzle. It's not like I deeply thought about it and this was my conclusion. Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accumulate votes over time. Of course the proposals could repeatedly go against a specific group. Not sure if you could create a unit of accounting for it or have some kind of independent jury examine the gaming. I also wondered if the price could scale with the % victory. Like, if 100% votes A it costs zero votes. 51% would be the most expensive. Maybe give the proposal makers a bunch of tokens, filling a proposal costs x, each vote against it costs y. The core thought is basically, if people are overly attached to something they will get it but will have reduced influence on everything else.
    - ShadowOfThePit 5d ago
      Well, that's already viable in Switzerland. Any proposed law can be forced into a national vote by collecting 50'000 signatures for a Referendum.
zaik 6d ago
Yes, I do know people who voted for the party that pushes things like this in my country.
- nephihaha 6d ago
  In the UK, both of the main parties push internet censorship. As do the third party and the SNP.
snowram 6d ago
Plenty of people are happy to surrender their freedom for a feeling of security.
dartharva 6d ago
...you'd be surprised, plenty of regular people actually want these things to happen. State is God for reliably the majority of the population of the world (seeing as the majority resides in China and South Asia).
ModernMech 6d ago
People don’t vote for it for themselves, they vote for it for others and are surprised when it applies to them just the same.
ShinyLeftPad 6d ago
> do you know anyone who'd voted for having to scan their face to access verboten webseites? to have encryption backdoors in their messengers? to have state-mandated spyware preinstalled on their phones? I know a few. They're called "normal people who don't suffer from crippling tech libertarianism" and there's more of them than of you.
- choo-t 6d ago
  > I know a few. They're called "normal people who don't suffer from crippling tech libertarianism" and there's more of them than of you. They voted for it or you assume they don't mind it existing?
  - ShinyLeftPad 6d ago
    They accept it as a tradeoff. They vote for things like "less crime" or "our children don't access things that are bad for them".
- vlyan 6d ago
  you must have plenty of unambiguous evidence then, given how numerous such goodthinking individuals apparently are. where do these paragons of civil obedience congregate? how do they express their wishes for less freedom and more surveillance?
  - ShinyLeftPad 6d ago
    They're all around you irl. Touch grass and find out. And to your sarcastic remarks about those people being dumb, believe it or not not everyone is willing to forgo every possible evil in the name of personal privacy in remote communication. Such privacy was never a thing until very recently anyway. (In fact as far as most people are concerned it isn't a thing today either, you'd be surprised how many people assume that their messages and calls are spied on anyway)
    - vlyan 6d ago
thomassmith65 5d ago
GWB had a second term. Trump had a second term. I would find it reassuring to believe that democracies don't represent the "will of the people", but I've come to accept that, much of the time, the "the people" and I don't see eye to eye.

by vlyan 6d ago

armchairhacker 6d ago

They don’t represent the people’s will, but unfortunately many people believe in censorship, so even if they were true direct democracies we may still see some.

troupo 6d ago
> if they were true direct democracies we may still see some. I think we would see more.
- pennomi 6d ago
  With modern technology, we might be in the first era where direct democracy is truly viable. Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation.
  - troupo 6d ago
    > Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation. Counterpoint: see any NIMBY meetings where they shut down any and all proposals and legislations, even the obviously beneficial common sense ones. Rule by mob has rarely been productive.
    - mitxela 6d ago
      The same principle would have also shot down the need for any legislation before building a thing.
    - econ 6d ago
      The normal approach is to compromise across topics. Maybe one should have a finite number of winning votes in a period. Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on. I think that would reduce the sense of urgency where there is non, equalize involvement, foster debate with the barely involved and ofc create a focus on things one wants rather than things one doesn't want. Who knows, maybe one should be able to spend more than one vote per topic.
      - troupo 6d ago
        > . Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on. Rule of the thumb: everyone will not 'just' [1] The majority is not a single person that will somehow behave like a rational being that will count their votes and vote only for "things that matter". People view very different things as "things that matter", and the system is easily gamed. Run a few popular, but pointless votes, exhaust available winning votes for the period, then try to pass a meaningful legislation. You will have riots form people who have spent their votes, but still want to vote for something truly important. And that's before we start talking about whether people should directly vote on removing building code regulations for example. Or whether or not measles vaccines should be mandatory. [1] https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone-will-not-just https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone...
        econ 5d ago
        I'm just playing with the puzzle. It's not like I deeply thought about it and this was my conclusion. Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accumulate votes over time. Of course the proposals could repeatedly go against a specific group. Not sure if you could create a unit of accounting for it or have some kind of independent jury examine the gaming. I also wondered if the price could scale with the % victory. Like, if 100% votes A it costs zero votes. 51% would be the most expensive. Maybe give the proposal makers a bunch of tokens, filling a proposal costs x, each vote against it costs y. The core thought is basically, if people are overly attached to something they will get it but will have reduced influence on everything else.
  - ShadowOfThePit 5d ago
    Well, that's already viable in Switzerland. Any proposed law can be forced into a national vote by collecting 50'000 signatures for a Referendum.

zaik 6d ago

Yes, I do know people who voted for the party that pushes things like this in my country.

nephihaha 6d ago
In the UK, both of the main parties push internet censorship. As do the third party and the SNP.

snowram 6d ago

Plenty of people are happy to surrender their freedom for a feeling of security.

dartharva 6d ago

...you'd be surprised, plenty of regular people actually want these things to happen. State is God for reliably the majority of the population of the world (seeing as the majority resides in China and South Asia).

ModernMech 6d ago

People don’t vote for it for themselves, they vote for it for others and are surprised when it applies to them just the same.

ShinyLeftPad 6d ago

> do you know anyone who'd voted for having to scan their face to access verboten webseites? to have encryption backdoors in their messengers? to have state-mandated spyware preinstalled on their phones? I know a few. They're called "normal people who don't suffer from crippling tech libertarianism" and there's more of them than of you.

choo-t 6d ago
> I know a few. They're called "normal people who don't suffer from crippling tech libertarianism" and there's more of them than of you. They voted for it or you assume they don't mind it existing?
- ShinyLeftPad 6d ago
  They accept it as a tradeoff. They vote for things like "less crime" or "our children don't access things that are bad for them".
vlyan 6d ago
you must have plenty of unambiguous evidence then, given how numerous such goodthinking individuals apparently are. where do these paragons of civil obedience congregate? how do they express their wishes for less freedom and more surveillance?
- ShinyLeftPad 6d ago
  They're all around you irl. Touch grass and find out. And to your sarcastic remarks about those people being dumb, believe it or not not everyone is willing to forgo every possible evil in the name of personal privacy in remote communication. Such privacy was never a thing until very recently anyway. (In fact as far as most people are concerned it isn't a thing today either, you'd be surprised how many people assume that their messages and calls are spied on anyway)
  - vlyan 6d ago

thomassmith65 5d ago

GWB had a second term. Trump had a second term. I would find it reassuring to believe that democracies don't represent the "will of the people", but I've come to accept that, much of the time, the "the people" and I don't see eye to eye.