[mbrumlow]

> Those algorithmic biases have demonstrable behavioral consequences.

The algos optimize for engagement, which can roughly translate into the people drive the algos, as they would stop watching or visiting or commenting, if it was not something they wanted to engage in.

So in some ways, is this not democracy to the max?

I wonder if articles like these don’t like the outcomes, or the reflection of society that the algos create. And thus attack them, because they would rather curate and limit conversation and expressions on the internet they don’t like or agree with.

[amelius]

The danger to democracy has always been uninformed voters.

Now it is mis-informed voters.

[mbrumlow]

Maybe those who participate in democracy should have to demonstrate some level educations on the topics they vote on?

Because if you are right it’s a loosing battle. The masses will always be under informed, and under educated. And the only way to inform and educate them would result very undemocratic society.

[AnimalMuppet]

And who is going to determine which voters are sufficiently educated on the topics to be allowed to vote? Do you not see how that could become problematic, in the wrong hands?

Would you trust that power in Trump's hands? If so, would you have trusted it in Biden's?

"Keep it from getting into the wrong hands, forever" is not a workable plan. The correct plan is "the government doesn't get that power".

[awesome_dude]

> Maybe those who participate in democracy should have to demonstrate some level educations on the topics they vote on?

This has been raised for decades, if not centuries.

The problem is that what is or isn't considered an educated view is /heavily/ dependent on... the political bent of the person(s) articulating the view, and the person(s) making the determination.

What's worse is that "fringe" views can often lead us to something that has previously been overlooked.

Finally - Australia has 100% compulsory voting - everyone must vote in elections, else receive a fine. That's intended to be sure that everyone is involved in providing their opinion on how the political body that's being voted on is an accurate reflection of the people being governed. What it doesn't do is force people to care, and a phenomena known as a "Donkey vote" occurs.

You can force people to attend classes educating them on civics, but you cannot force them to absorb, or even care, because, for a lot of people, politics is so repulsive - all they see is people squabbling about abstract ideas that the voters have next to no understanding how, or even if, it will affect them.

[mohamedkoubaa]

Educated is not the same axis as informed

[mbrumlow]

Correct, the word “and” is a coordinating conjunction. It joins two parallel adjectives. They’re related, but they’re not the same axis.

[Joker_vD]

Voters have always been misinformed, only the degree varied. And most of them decide to believe the things they want to believe anyhow.

[LAC-Tech]

Democracy is government of the uninformed, by the uninformed, for the uninformed.

Populism is inherent in the whole set up and always has been.

[lukas221]

the tragedy of allowing stupid people to vote.

pick one:

- stupid people vote without understanding what they vote for

- stupid people don't vote, but it's not a democracy anymore

[phendrenad2]

Can you give an example of a time when the biggest issue was one that people were uninformed about, not mis-informed? Because it seems to me that misinformation has been with us since ancient times, and has always dominated over simple uninformed behavior. Not a neat little quip though.

[amelius]

Well, the populist approach is to exploit that people are uninformed about most of the important topics and then induce fear with just one tiny topic. If people were better informed, they would see that the tiny topic didn't matter in the greater scheme.

[Joker_vD]

This is such a brilliantly self-defying argument, I am honestly impressed. "If people were better informed, they wouldn't care". People are uninformed/misinformed because they care enough to listen to what they're being told, but not enough to actually go and check if things they're being told are accurate. And again, most people prefer to believe things that align with their world-view and self-interest.

[amelius]

> "If people were better informed, they wouldn't care"

That is not what I said. They might still care, but the point is that the elections should not be hijacked by one topic (this is not in the interest of those voters, but since they are uninformed, what do they know?) I hope that clears it up.

[iamnothere]

What if the people decide that the one topic is the only thing they care about at the moment? Do you dissolve the voting public and elect a new one?

Many people seem to want democracy, but only if the public votes in the way that is acceptable to them. That’s not democracy! That’s rubber stamp technocracy!

[phendrenad2]

Ah, that makes sense. Today, people are pulled in a million different directions by targeted misinformation, trying to rally them to be unwilling soldiers for some malignant cause. Before, when people were primarily uninformed, only one malefactor could pull on them at once. Thank you for the clarification. I guess things have improved then, since people can't really devote themselves fully to any noxious cause, and have to time-share.

[userbinator]

"mis-informed" meaning "not sanctioned by the Ministry of Truth"

[lokar]

There is truth

[userbinator]

...and it's what people have seen in real life with their own eyes, not what the government wants them to see. The Internet has made the former far more accessible to the population.

[lokar]

Not everything that is true and important can be directly observed and understood by everyone. Expertise is impotent.

[iamnothere]

> Expertise is impotent.

Couldn’t have said it better myself

[phendrenad2]

Speaking of eyes, I can hardly believe mine when I see HN downvote posts like this. We all trust the government now, or something? Absolutely wild.

[bluefirebrand]

> The algos optimize for engagement

That's what we're told, anyways

It isn't too unreasonable to think about that there might be an invisible thumb on the scales for any of these algorithms

[lokar]

In the case of X, obviously. For Google and meta, I doubt it.

[phendrenad2]

When people say "democracy" these days they really mean something closer to "technocracy". (Often they mean technocracy, laundered through democracy)

[zhoBEENG]

I think your supposition is correct. I think there is a common hypocrisy to the person craving democracy while showing revulsion at revealed preference. Many otherwise smart people can't seem to look at society without averting their eyes.

Edit: Grammar.

[lokar]

Facts and reasoned debate come before democracy.

[zhoBEENG]

Certainly they do, but only until democracy forces the hemlock down their throat.

[failbuffer]

You're ignoring shaping effects though. Nobody prefers living in a deeply divided society. Instead, filter bubbles help bad actors (including foreign adversaries, disgruntled losers, political opportunist, and garden-variety edgelords) accelerate fractionalization. Moreover, social media deliberately elevates incendiary content because outage drives engagement.

These social media sites could be designed for consensus-building and we would see very different outcomes for society.

It's not hypocritical to want the democracy that works instead of the one that self-disintegrates.

[zhoBEENG]

I'm not sure I understand. How do you square "nobody prefers living in a deeply divided society" with "outrage drives engagement"? This is the hypocrisy I was describing. Aren't people, including you and I, choosing this willingly, every day? What is more democratic than that?

And having to listen to disgruntled losers, political opportunists, and garden-variety edgelords is democracy in practice. I do agree with you that foreign adversaries are a huge issue with democracy, with regard to the internet specifically.

[bit-anarchist]

At the same time, I think you are ignoring how diverse people really are. There's no consensus to be had when dealing with mutual exclusives, no matter what method is chosen.

Perhaps the solution is to lean further into fractionalization, but in a peaceful and constructive way. That might mean the destruction of democracy, but I think this just points to democracy not being a good inclusive system to begin with.

[eapressoandcats]

Democracy is a tricky thing. It’s not as simple as “whatever the majority of people wants, goes”, and has always been recognized as such.

Classical liberalism requires certain rights and protections to every member of society in ways they could be perceived as “anti democratic” if for example a minority group is widely hated.

Generally speaking all of this requires some level of rules and forbearance, and a political “playing field” where disputes can be ironed out.

Part of what is required for this to work is a shared epistemology. This has historically been provided by journalist and academic elites, but it the thing that is being eroded by social media.

The problem is now everyone can choose their own reality, but that reality may just be completely not true. This was a well known phenomenon on the right but it’s happening a lot more on the left as well, with it being taken as a fact that everyone in the US is poor and struggling even though that is not true at all.

The net effect of this is that “charismatic” reactionary parties that are detached from reality perform better, because memeing wins elections better than doing things for constituents. The link was always a bit tenuous but now it’s completely broken and we’re seeing the rise of anti intellectual parties everywhere.