3 ms·
Is it a threat to democracy if citizens gather facts from foreign actors when their domestic government attempts to suppress those facts? On a general level, no
by iamnothere 6d ago
Is it a threat to democracy if citizens gather facts from foreign actors when their domestic government attempts to suppress those facts? On a general level, not speaking to this situation in particular. Just curious.
- the_gipsy 6d agoWeird way to frame this argument as a question. The domestic government holding a monopoly on information is a threat, and foreign information can be a relief, yes. Foreign misinformation is also a threat, and domestic government shutting it out can also be a relief. So you have to ask yourself, where are we? Is Spain (or any European country that is not currently bootlicking, for that matter) a dictatorship that needs Freedom messages in a bottle from the USA, or is the USA directly subverting their democracies with espionage? Why did the USA give millions to Morocco earlier this summer? Why did the Dept. of Homeland (so espionage) produce decade old evidence of corruption in a former administration that would be linked to the current one, at this precise time? Just asking questions here.
- iamnothere 6d agoAll nations are under pressure to hide information from their citizens, whether it’s for covering up political scandals or suppressing political opposition. If you give them the tools, they will eventually use them. So you can’t give them the tools. The democratic way to fight misinformation is with public trust, a well educated population, and by publishing true information to counter misinformation. Anything less treats citizens as children who can’t be trusted to form their own opinions.
- the_gipsy 6d agoBeautiful on paper, in practice you surrender national security to foreign actors. I agree on the philosophical part, letting our governments act opaquely under the veil of national security, inevitably leads them to turn on their citizens. But total transparency will be exploited by foreign powers (likely with domestic cooperation), until those that once defended it are removed from power.
- iamnothere 6d agoWho decides what is allowed to be covered up? Surely not the public, if your goal is to hide those same “dangerous” things from the public. Historically, this kind of control has always been a favored tool of the corrupt. If you build an apparatus of censorship, it will be used to harm the public.
- the_gipsy 6d agoYes. But if you give up all intel, then you have no intel at all, and soon this model of government will be undermined by the foreign actors. There is a gray line somewhere between surveillance state and revealing all intel, which can serve national security and also diplomacy.
- iamnothere 5d agoTraditionally military, diplomacy, and intelligence are the three areas where it may be okay to keep some things hidden. The problem is that this typically ends up shifting corruption towards these sectors, which ends up hollowing out national security. Things like overclassification are a serious problem.
- MentalM 5d ago> Beautiful on paper, in practice you surrender national security to foreign actors. > But total transparency will be exploited by foreign powers (likely with domestic cooperation), until those that once defended it are removed from power. You know, democracy obviously has its downsides. Should we abolish democracy because of that?
- mitxela 5d agoWe already have. These foreign misinformation actors we're talking about have already convinced a majority of the voting population that democracy is bad, and they have voted to end democracy, and now democracy is in the process of ending. This could have been prevented by blocking foreign misinformation.