Analysis - Should the Internet be policed and is it even possible?

[HEXUS]

The Wikileaks saga brings many of the questions posed by The Pentagon Papers into the digital era.

Read more.

[cameronlite]

whether an opportunity the looks too good to be true

opportunity *that* looks - paragraph three

There's always going to be crime, and there are always going to be unhappy people. Just because one group of people deems something as 'wrong' doesn't mean everybody agrees. You can never win.

[aidanjt]

Of course it's impossible to implement true democracy on a day-to-day basis

I can't really agree with that TBH. A limited form of direct democracy was possible in ancient Greece. We now have the internet, which makes fully direct democracy very possible. Representatives have proven themselves to be unreliable, indifferent, and easily corrupted. They've outgrown their usefulness.

[Scott B]

I can't really agree with that TBH. A limited form of direct democracy was possible in ancient Greece. We now have the internet, which makes fully direct democracy very possible. Representatives have proven themselves to be unreliable, indifferent, and easily corrupted. They've outgrown their usefulness.

You can't put every decision to the public, and I wonder what proportion of the ancient Greek population had a vote.

[aidanjt]

You can't put every decision to the public

And why not?

and I wonder what proportion of the ancient Greek population had a vote.

I don't know how many precisely, but as far as I understand it, each issue was handled like our present jury trials. A number of random citizens are selected to preside over a given issue. It was the only practical way of doing it, considering the logistical difficulties of information passing at the time.

[Scott B]

And why not?


I don't know how many precisely, but as far as I understand it, each issue was handled like our present jury trials. A number of random citizens are selected to preside over a given issue. It was the only practical way of doing it, considering the logistical difficulties of information passing at the time.

I think you answered your own question.

[aidanjt]

I think you answered your own question.

How so?

[Noxvayl]

"Where will the line be drawn between the interests of the state and of the individual?"

If the government and corporate vested interests have their way there will be no line. Everyone will be enslaved within a web of lies and arbitrary rules, making it easier for them to slap us around.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

[Noxvayl]

I think you answered your own question.

+

How so?

By saying only a selected portion of the population had a say on certain issues.

I do find the idea of direct democracy far more appealing than the current one. But as a model I'd rather have numerous people, selected at random, that have a good understanding of the variables involved in the issue making a decision. You don't have the same people in a position of influence so corruption is mitigated. It also gives you a higher chance of a productive result rather than getting one put through which suits vested interests.

And why not?

You do realise that the entire world believed the earth was flat and that Galileo was banished for saying otherwise. Majority does not equate to being correct or even more accurate. That's why having everyone vote on everything is stupid and counter productive.

[aidanjt]

By saying only a selected portion of the population had a say on certain issues.

I didn't say that's what we should do. I pointed out that Greece was able to run a direct democracy, albeit in a limited form. We now have the means to run a fully direct democracy.

I do find the idea of direct democracy far more appealing than the current one. But as a model I'd rather have numerous people, selected at random, that have a good understanding of the variables involved in the issue making a decision. You don't have the same people in a position of influence so corruption is mitigated. It also gives you a higher chance of a productive result rather than getting one put through which suits vested interests.

I'm not convinced of that. A limited number of people are an easier target for vested interests to coerce. You can't coerce an entire nation. Of course this would need a tightening of libel law to include intentional disinformation, I would even consider such an act treasonous.

You do realise that the entire world believed the earth was flat and that Galileo was banished for saying otherwise. Majority does not equate to being correct or even more accurate. That's why having everyone vote on everything is stupid and counter productive.

And a huge mass of people don't believe the planet is warming, yet the numbers say otherwise. Never the less, if a gun owner wants to blow his own brains out, there's not a great deal we can, or should do about that. Democracy isn't about getting it right all of the time.

[miniyazz]

You can't have the ill-informed masses, myself included, voting on issues which we don't fully understand. The idea is preposterous.

It's bad enough trying to get (hopefully) reasonably well-educated MPs to understand the issues they are voting on, let alone the general public.

[TheAnimus]

Isn't one of the reasons california is in such bad financial situation because in order to raise taxes they have to put it to a vote, and in order to reduce spending they have to put it to a vote?

[Jay]

the best way to do it if you ask me is this...



Very simple, we just need 50% of the population to be day shift internet police and the other 50% to be night time internet police!

[aidanjt]

You can't have the ill-informed masses, myself included, voting on issues which we don't fully understand. The idea is preposterous.

Better ill-informed masses, than corrupt bureaucrats. If the people shoot themselves in the foot, they've nobody to blame but themselves, it will force them to be more responsible, and they'll have much less resistance against repealing bad ideas.

It's bad enough trying to get (hopefully) reasonably well-educated MPs to understand the issues they are voting on, let alone the general public.

That's the part where representative democracy gets it wrong. The assumption that qualifications derive competent decision making is fallacious.

If you keep insulating against stupid, all you'll end up with is massive layers of self-reinforcing stupidity.

[malakai5]

"Where will the line be drawn between the interests of the state and of the individual?"

If the government and corporate vested interests have their way there will be no line.

Therein lies the problem = Government controlled Corporate businesses or vice versa

It is a wonder that we even have the internet as it is KNOWLEDGE. And we all know knowledge is POWER.

Now if they'd have controlled their information properly in the 1st place they would not be in this situation. What shouldn't happen is both Government & Corporate alike then "power flex" their muscles on to the public because of their ineptitude.

But it can also be seen in a more nefarious light. This "sensitive" information has been leaked (in)directly to the affect of bringing about more policing powers concerning the internet & all its' facets that have thus far been allowed to "run free".

[Noxvayl]

Better ill-informed masses, than corrupt bureaucrats. If the people shoot themselves in the foot, they've nobody to blame but themselves, it will force them to be more responsible, and they'll have much less resistance against repealing bad ideas.


That's the part where representative democracy gets it wrong. The assumption that qualifications derive competent decision making is fallacious.

If you keep insulating against stupid, all you'll end up with is massive layers of self-reinforcing stupidity.

Do you not think that ill-informed masses would begin creating massive layers of self-reinforcing stupidity?

The point is to move forward with a plan that actually produces results which are accurate and usefull rather than self perpetuating and detrimental(which the systems put forward and corrently used do).

What we need to accomplish is arriving at answers rather than making them. Whether any population has the patience and resolve to do so is another matter. The idea of doing things wrong until we get it right is going to lead to a colapse one way or another.