SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the twitter-is-known-for-being-a-place-of-kindness-and-intelligence dept.
El Reg reports in a story that at least some people seem to think so.
Twitter trolls are undermining what political analysts had predicted would be a new form of responsive democracy.
Far from being an opportunity to engage directly with voters, researchers found that the more politicians tried to actively interact with their constituents, the more abuse they faced.
The eggheads, based in Europe and the US, analyzed just under 800,000 tweets from over 650 politicians based in Germany, Greece, Spain and the UK and found that the percentage of "impolite" tweets directed at them went from 8 per cent when they did nothing to an extraordinary 40 per cent when they actively tried to engage with voters.
If that wasn't depressing enough, the paper notes that the level of abuse increases almost exactly proportionally to how engaging people's messages are. The more they asked to hear people's views, the more those views were insulting.
"Most politicians who post anything quickly become subject to constant personal abuse," the paper, published in the Journal of Communication, notes.
Such is the level of unpleasantness and vehemence that most politicians simply give up and use their Twitter accounts to simply broadcast messages rather than seek input or discussion. Something that, ironically, has led to them being criticized for ignoring voters and not being sufficiently open or engaging.
My take: The egg heads may be right on this, however there is nothing inherently undemocratic in people publishing libelous and slanderous crap about politicians. It's been happening in American democracy for at least as long as the republic has been in existence. Some of the things said about Thomas Jefferson when he was running for president were worse than what we were subjected to during this election cycle.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Monday November 14 2016, @09:00AM
Realistically, an elected representative reflects no one's views but his own. There may be some waffling to ensure a government pension at the end of it, but if it was truly the will of the people, there would be some assurances that campaign promises are kept.
A direct voting system is just mob rule by any other name, not to mention there will still be some elites who sets the narrative, writes the bills, and directs what the people vote for.
Nope, I think the ancient Greeks had it right the first time with selecting people at random to hold office. Every political decision is a zero sum game where anyone can hold power. That puts us all on equal footing, and in a perverse way keeps society from debasing itself too much lest the group you torment today holds power tomorrow.
As far as Twitter harassment of politicians, it's a bloody shame that politicians are treated the same as any other person online. By god, you should show some respect and mind your betters.
The last bit of public outreach online was the petition thingy under Obama, where is was pretty freakin clear that a sizable group had marijuana legalization on the mind.
And what was done?
It got poo-pooed until people decided to up-end the White House and take matters in their own hands.
That is exactly why political outreach online is mocked.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @12:35PM
I think this election has shown, more than anything, that people will do what people want to do. The elites whom you state will 'set the narrative and direct people on what to vote for' spared no expense in trying to force Hillary into office. The entire media was against her. They even managed to get social media to work against him. Every sort of ostensibly "proper" outlet was telling the people to choose A and instead they chose B.
There are simple efforts you can take to try to minimize tyranny of the majority, though I have to say first of all that I'd much prefer a tyranny of the majority than a tyranny of 530 people over 300,000,000 people. For instance you can set a mandatory minimum of 70% instead of 50% to pass legislation, and perhaps 90% to codify a permanent law and 60% to revoke a permanent law. Legislation could also automatically expire. And as the corollary to 70% to pass a piece of legislation, a vote of 30% would be sufficient to nullify a piece of legislation. Essentially the idea is to have a society where only a very basic number of ubiquitously agreed upon laws are law. Everything else is lawful by default.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Monday November 14 2016, @02:57PM
The real travesty in the media coverage of the election was less them trying to goad people into voting for candidate A or candidate B, but the entire dialogue being dominated by character depictions, which while amusing doesn't really set a course of action except through blind faith that either candidate will do the right thing, what ever that thing happens to be.
And that is the power of the elites, that they can effectively silence any other voices by keeping them from the debates, and never have to answer to any other concerns. I mean how many bills were signed in the past 8 years, and how many of them dealt with anything substantive?
I would actually be leery of most legislation that has broad support as it tends to be simplistic responses to complex problems. War in the Middle East has garnered the most support in recent history, and you can see how well that turned out.
The tyranny of the majority isn't only in forcing others to their will, but in setting the agenda in the first place.
300,000 ruling over 530 may seem like realpolitik, except that 530 isn't bound to a specific group or ideas, and shifts depending upon circumstance. And the best protection isn't fawning upon the mercy of the majority, but to have a place at the table to make your case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @05:25PM
I think this election has shown, more than anything, that people will do what people want to do.
It's a shame they don't seem to want to end the corrupt two-party system, then.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @01:23PM
I think the ancient Greeks had it right the first time with selecting people at random to hold office. Every political decision is a zero sum game where anyone can hold power.
Politics is NOT a zero-sum game! It's ridicules to believe that someone has to lose for there to be a winner.
As far as Twitter harassment of politicians, it's a bloody shame that politicians are treated the same as any other person online.
If you are trying to be sarcastic, then you are completely wrong, again. Politicians are not treated as "any other person online". They are targeted by those that wish to interfere. You don't think nationalists in other nations would not like to interfere??
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Monday November 14 2016, @08:38PM
I love you academics :)
We never had a representative democracy in the first place. It never actually happened, but was heavily marketed as if it had. Then some fluff was put into place to make people FEEL as if they had control.
Think of like this, and this is a real example. Cross walks and the 'press to walk' buttons. In very many cases these are vestigial buttons deliberately left to allow people to FEEL as they are in control, while software has completely taken over all traffic functions city wide. Studies were done that showed when people felt in control, although they actually had none, they felt less stressed, or the cross walking experience was regarded as more positive.
That's our government. We have Senators and Congressmen, and we get to vote as if it means any difference whatsoever. We go into the voting booths to press our buttons under the rampant and persistent delusion that it can change the conditions of the working class. Regardless of who wins, those aforementioned ratios in the TFS are tragically and hilariously wrong. It serves to create a game in which there is a winner and loser, pull all the hoi polloi into this game, and then give each side a scapegoat for the unending and unrelenting fucking of the American people from the very first second of our farcically free republic.
It's not one Senator to 3 million people, but one Senator to perhaps 500 lobbyists which represent the interests of probably less than 50 actual people. Twitter is just the crossing walk buttons, and people seem to intuit this. When faced with the actual ability to personally engage with a politician..... shock and surprise.... they fire their heart upon these politicians as if their chests were cannons.
Representative democracy is NOT becoming dated. We're simply realizing that the game was, and is, fundamentally broken. It would be a mistake to think that the idea itself was what was broken, when the implementation was never genuine from the start. Unlike cross walk buttons which did have a purpose, and that was to serve the pedestrians, government's purpose from the very beginning was to serve specific people and their own interests well beyond that of the people at large.
The American people are the most abused, and stupid, people on the entire planet. We had our wealth stolen from us from the beginning, and it has been slowly siphoned off by the robber barons of old that simply evolved into the psychotically avaricious groupings of parasites that exist today.
Nothing is ever gained in American politics towards the good of Americans except that in which we, the working class of America, fought hard and died for in massive strikes to finally obtain under threat of fire and destruction of their ways and their institutions. We didn't receive the 8 hour day as a positive effect of proper government and representatives expressing compassion, empathy, and the morality that we like to believe is ours. We were literally called terrorists, Communists, insurrectionists, and every other evil label in the book, we were shot in the backs, we were killed in front of lamenting mothers and children that were often killed themselves in the strife.
Where were the Senators then? Where were our Congressmen? That's right! They were at lavish parties hosted by a handful of the richest robber baron families. The militias were simply told to fire upon their own, because they selfishly demanded the wages promised to them before the war. The bonus marchers marched upon Washington begging for the ear of the Senators, Congressmen, and their President. They were fed a diet of lead from rifles fired by their brothers in arms. Fast forward nearly 200 years and nothing has changed. The level of corruption has reached staggering levels, and inequality now sits at well over 90%. Just like the bonus marchers of old, we have National Guardsmen that were promised reasonable amounts of money to quite possibly give their lives in the Middle East. Now government is grinding their faces into the ground under its boot heels, and more Americans may be shot and killed by their brothers in arms. This is something taught to them by the very government oppressing them, stand up for yourselves and fight for your freedoms! Our soldiers then march upon Washington, unarmed, seeking redress for their grievances only to receive none except the final redress from life itself, which is death.
I would say it is a high time we give ourselves a representative democracy. That would be something new, and I'm all for it. The American people could finally be represented, our interests would come first, and the parasites would be excised from our great republic with extreme prejudice.
** My words
I think we all know the facts, we all know the abuses. Our founding fathers laid our path out for us in print with no uncertain words.
Our republic has failed us, and it is no longer treasonous to discuss how we build a new one together. Quite likely with a few Western states succeeding from the union that never served them.
Who wants a representative democracy in the US for the first time?