Tynan's Anger

Anyone who’s been on the Internet long enough has had this point rammed down their throats. But the problem with this argument is that it blindly assumes that democracy is, in fact, the best option. In reality, we’ve had thousands of years of discourse to debate what’s the best political system, and by no means is the approval of democracy as universal as it is in contemporary America. Whether they know it or not, Internet advocates are positing the same assumptions that have driven the Bush administration’s foreign policy: that implentation of democracy in any form is the best system, that we should applaud those who see that way, and lambast those whose don’t.

I’m sure that comparing the defense of the Internet to Bush will infuriate many new media evangelists. Of course, there are fundamental differences between democracy in Iraq and democracy on the Internet. In Iraq, democracy was thrust upon the country without any input from its citizens. Internet democracy, however, grew organically out of its circumstances. Though somewhat similar to the theory in Iraq, the Internet probably has more in common with Athenian democracy. As much as we admire Greek intellect, however, there were major groups of society excluded from the democratic system in Athens. The same applies to the Internet. While Athenian democracy disenfranchised slaves, women, immigrants, and non-property owners, the Internet also underrepresents females (certainly Hillary supporters), as well as the elderly, ultra-poor, and computer illiterates.

The more pressing concern, however, is one of the deeper flaws of direct democracy: In a pure democratic system, the majority of opinion can be easily swayed by radical or dangerous thinkers with hidden agendas. The internet masses can be just as easily swayed, just as violent and—paradoxically—more resistant to new ideas. The fury directed by Ron Paul supporters at Paul’s opponents on the Internet was the same fury that killed Socrates and the Salem witch trial victims. The founding fathers knew about this danger, which is why them aimed to set up a republic where the people were represented by elites rather than by a direct democracy. They recognized the inevitability of the stronger-willed people ruling with brutal power (they had just overthrown a king), so they set up a system of checks and balances to prevent a stronger power from dominating the political system entirely.

A direct democracy, conversely, has no checks and balances, and leads to stronger personalities dominating and manipulating a government while claiming to be the voice of the people. The most extreme example, Godwin’s Law (or Reductio Ad Hitlerum) be damned, is the rise to power of Hitler out of the democratic government of Weimar Germany. He saw a crumbling economic system and took advantage of people’s fears and weaknesses. He did this while still claiming to be a populist and maintain democracy. If you were a blond-haired, blue-eyed German, your life improved immediately after Hitler rose to power. I don’t think I need to explain what happened next.

More recently, you can look to the Bush-Rove machine exploiting the rural and Southern regions of the country’s hatred of elites in townhouses in the Northeast. They have focused on big government taking your tax money, while still spending exorbitantly and embracing massive corruption. They got a pass for that by exploiting the weakness of a political system that has grown extremely more democratic since the founding fathers defined the system of government. Needless to say, no one’s happy about that now.

The Internet, meanwhile, use a similar tone of being the voice of the people. Little do they know that they are still being dominated by a handful of people. The longtail theory has been debunked again and again and again. Does that mean Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg are evil dictators? Maybe not, but what would you say if I had replaced Jobs and Zuckerberg with Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch?

This is not to say that the Internet is doomed to fascism, nor that Internet democracy is inherently a bad thing. What I am saying is that before you go extolling the wonders of the democratic values of the Internet, recognize that there are major flaws to Internet democracy and any democracy, some of which can be really dangerous. The Internet is exceedingly easy to manipulate. That may even been the Internet’s greatest strength. But it’s also the Internet’s greatest liability.

One Response to “The Dark Side of Internet Dumb-ocracy”

1. Pat
   February 10th, 2009 @ 12:46 am

   I think you should know. I’ve taken your post and written the first section of an even longer and more meandering rebuttal. And you can’t be mad because I linked to your post! ha!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website

Comments

Anti-Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree