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: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday November 14 2016, @09:19AM
You have an adversarial money backed system. There are other ways to do democracy. Even in the us 100% of the power doesn't sit with those that get 49% of the vote - the power is split between the Supreme Court, both houses, and the president. Some countries are worse, giving 100% of the power to a party with 35% of the vote, but those with a form of proportional representation are forced to work together.
When two wolves and a sheep decide what to have for dinner it's democracy. It's not a good idea though. The masses are easily manipulated by those with power and money, and when that happens you end up with more power for those in charge.
Decisions taken at a wide level are not simple. Protectionism has its benefits, so does a free market. The average person does not have enough time in the day to make an informed decision, so they'll revert to base instinct driven by manipulators.
Representative democracy is a far better system, the people just have to keep their representatives in check. If they can't do that, why give them more power?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday November 14 2016, @11:56AM
When two wolves and a sheep decide what to have for dinner it's democracy. It's not a good idea though
It is for the sheep, because the outcome will be that the stronger wolf will be dinner. If both wolves vote for the sheep, then the sheep is eaten and the stronger wolf eats the weaker the next day. The weaker wolf will die on the second day in this scenario, so it has little incentive to vote in this way. If the sheep and the weaker wolf both vote to eat the stronger wolf, then the sheep lives an extra day and the weaker wolf doesn't get eaten. Even if both wolves are equally strong, then the one that sides with the sheep goes from a 50% chance of surviving to a 100% chance. The end result is that the sheep has the deciding vote. Which, if you view democracy as a tool to protect the weak from abuses by the strong, is probably a good thing.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Funny) by art guerrilla on Monday November 14 2016, @01:00PM
soooo, in this metaphor, we sheeples are just waiting for the weaker wolf to get hungry again ? ? ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @08:05PM
Just to clarify...
Which one is Newt Gingrich?
Which one is 'whiny, sniveling negative cowards'?
Which one is using the 'honeyed words of subversion'?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/10/gingrich-never-trump-republicans-whiny-sniveling-negative-cowards.html [foxnews.com]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday November 14 2016, @01:01PM
That's the rational choice, and that's what a good representative govenrment should choose. People don't vote rationally though - either for the immediate benefit of themselves or for the long term benefit of the whole.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday November 14 2016, @05:03PM
It is for the sheep, because the outcome will be that the stronger wolf will be dinner.
Bull. Identity politics, the core belief of the Democratic Party, says the wolves will bloc vote and the sheep is on the menu because any wolf that doesn't put the interest of wolves first isn't a 'real' wolf.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday November 14 2016, @07:06PM
And also the core belief of conservatives.
I say that as someone who supported Trump. We are all sheep here who disagree with each other, trying to be wolf.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @10:42PM
You do know that wolves are pack animals, right? The stronger wolf gets to eat the best parts of the sheep and then both of them go after the next sheep.