[iamnothere]

This is the norm throughout history and will continue to be the norm in democracies with free speech. You should read more about partisan papers in the time of yellow journalism, or town hall meetings before the radio era.

People are often obnoxious, irrational, absurd, and they may even flat out lie. Shocking! Advocating for this mess to be kept from view is advocating for further obscuring the reality of the situation.

I grew up in a time when the TV only presented a polished, curated, “civilized” view of the world. It’s why most Americans didn’t know anything about US interventions in Latin America, about the effects of offshoring and trade liberalization, and about the false justifications for the Iraq War. (Yet even in the late 20th century, conspiracy talk was rampant—it’s not a new phenomenon nor was it created by the internet.)

[AuthAuth]

People can talk and be as crazy as they want. I just dont like when those talks have the same reach as the polished curated view of the world. Its better to have your government control facts about an on going conflict than what we have today.

[iamnothere]

> Its better to have your government control facts about an on going conflict than what we have today.

This is how you get atrocities and coverups, strategic losses that don’t result in corrective action, and endless graft. Eventually this leads to major military losses. Some degree of wartime censorship is inevitable to conceal information from the enemy, but anything beyond that creates serious problems in a democracy.

[AuthAuth]

You get atrocities and coverups regardless. My logic is that a cohesive nation working towards common goals is better than a nation of crabs in a bucket constantly undermining each other and distorting reality.

Ideally you should trust your government. In a healthy democracy the government can create a barrier to entry for the media and then be hands off only intervening when necessary. This isnt a bad thing at all in my opinion.

I prefer this to having 0 barrier to enter the media and allowing anyone to give their opinion.

[iamnothere]

You live in a fantasy. Democracy exists as a system precisely because you cannot trust governments made up of human beings. If trust were not an issue, monarchy or dictatorship would be more efficient and effective.

There is no such thing as a nation consistently working towards common goals, except in a totalitarian system. At best you can get a few years of alignment in wartime, but even then you often need to brutally repress dissent to maintain that alignment. In peacetime, different people have divergent goals, and unless you are on a civilizational upswing (like the US in the mid-20th century or contemporary China) then discontented voters will multiply, and they need to have a real say in the direction of the country. Thinking you can gaslight people into consistently voting against their interests without consequences is hubris.

This whole “managed democracy” business that Europe is moving towards will end in fire.

[tguvot]

if you had to pick one, do you prefer polished, curated, “civilized” view of the world from that times, or todays onslaught of lies, disinformation and conspiracies ?

[Mountain_Skies]

Which one do you think is democracy?

[tguvot]

neither. given that democracy is form of government and not preference for (mis)information distribution

[iamnothere]

Clearly today’s onslaught of lies, disinformation, and conspiracies. A lot of good information comes along with all the bad.

Before we had the internet, many things were done with my tax dollars that I had zero insight into. These days, even though I can’t do anything about it, at least I’m aware of the parade of horrors around the world. In some cases I can even make informed decisions based on that information.

I’d rather have fellow voters making decisions based on an abundance of information, some of which is bad, than a carefully crafted set of information that’s designed to steer voters toward a limited set of outcomes.