Live data from Hacker News

Who needs democracy when you have data?

technologyreview.com

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#51
post #23

An interesting perspective. I would like to understand more in depth the history in China of how influence has been gained and how ordinary people were able to affect the local politics. In the English/Germanic tradition, we might have a parley-ment, or a town hall, or a Thing. I wonder what the comparable system in China was? Does anyone have some in depth knowledge here? (happy to rtfm if one is available)

All governments need some method of contact with the governed to assert their legitimacy. It's telling that in North Europe we had parliaments - places to speak your mind - because speaking your mind was how we did that. Oratory was, and is, seen as a necessary quality in a good governor, since at least ancient Greece and certainly since the days of Rome.

In China, on the other hand, there is no major oratory tradition. The way Chinese government contacted the people was by being everywhere and nowhere - omnipresent, through the imperial civil service, and yet unseen. If you wanted to gain influence in the government, you took the imperial examination, became a bureaucrat, rose through the Nine Ranks, and hopefully, by the time you reached the top, you had enough governing experience to see merit in the old way of doing things.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#52
A more apt story would be "Who needs democracy when you have economic growth". It's strange how the exceptional economic circumstances of China are glossed over in such social analyses.

China has had average 10% growth rates for 3 decades, it's economy has grown by a factor of 40 since 1988. It's hard to explain just how powerful this positive economic shock has been. The Chinese people have seen, during their recent lifetimes, the country transitioning from abject poverty into a world superpower in the medium income range. Their quality of life and paychecks have grown every year and the political leadership is addicted to this growth, it's how they stay in power and easily quench all discontent.

As soon as this incredible growth cycle is exhausted we will start to see the first chinks in the armor of the Party State, we will see the public demand democracy and official accountability. Look for example to Hong Kong, where the growth has been much slower (they already had a high level of development) and the dissenting voices are multiplying. And that's exactly what will happen in the rest of China in the next 10-20 years; growth becomes much harder once you have picked the low hanging fruits and you get closer to the advanced countries.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#53
post #42
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? Can you really establish a rational need for democracy, or are you just running on cultural reflex? If you take this question as me saying we shouldn't have democracy, maybe it's reflex. It's an interesting question. Democracy isn't an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. What is that end (or those ends)? How else can those ends be achieved?

A rational need for democracy for you would be so that I don't govern you according to my wishes. A rational need for democracy for me would be that you don't govern me according to your wishes. A rational need for democracy for the uyghurs would be that Xi Jumping doesn't govern them according to his wishes. I've always understood this to be what is meant by democracy is the worst form of governance, apart from all…

But ... we currently (in the US) have a direct example of the rulers in power governing the populace in a way which is "not according to the wishes" of roughly half the population. (I think this is a direct result of our 2 party system, as compared to Britain's multiple parties, but I've no idea how to fix it.)

Any time you vote on the losing side of an election (whether it's for who to elect, or approve a tax, or legalize (or ban) certain acts, you end up being governed by _every one else's_ wishes. On the bright side, at least in a democracy I mostly have the trust that such changes CAN happen, over time, if enough people come to believe similarly as I do about things.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#54
I remember watching an anime, around 3 or so years ago, called "psychopass". It was about a dystopian country that was governed by technology.

The system would decide what would be the best position for somebody in the government if they desired to go there. It'd also monitor people and evaluate in real time their psyche. People who were predisposed to psychopathic and/or sociopathic behaviour were flagged and monitored. The police would use guns that tranquilized flagged people and disintegrated people deemed public danger.

This article painted China as a predecessor of the country presented in the anime.

As for the ranking / credit system. I don't believe that such an idea is feasible, as it resembles elo. We know from online games such as League of Legends that elo is not an appropriate metric as it's often governed by multiple variables out of the individual player's control. While in the 'long run' it evens out, it often creates the illusion that a player stuck because of their environment and not themselves, which while may be true in a few cases, in most cases is false.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#55
post #39

Democracy is good because it basically allows for a peaceful revolution if a populace is dissatisfied with its government. Democracy is bad because the government risks enduring endless bickering and nothing getting done. Etc, etc. I don't know what the right answer is anymore.

More to the point, democracy is good if and only if it allows for peaceful transitions of government.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#56
There is nothing in the world right now that I fear more than the creep of Chinese surveillance/authoritarian practices into the rest of the world's society. They are a rapidly growing superpower, and while I hold no fantasies of U.S. supremacy, this specific trend in the use of digital technology terrifies me.

There won't be a war, by the way. I honestly think we're past the point as a species where superpowers duke it out in such a literal fashion. It's just bad for business. (Military might today is usually directed from superpowers to third-world countries, but that's a topic for another day).

China's influence and dominance will happen through the private sector, ironically. They have their own versions of Google and Facebook: Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent. These are the tech giants through which the Chinese government gets most of its data on citizens. They are even more ubiquitous than ours - people do everything from getting loans to scheduling medical appointments through them - and they've begun trying to break into the western markets. Tencent in particular has been investing billions in everything from Blizzard to Tesla. At the same time, Google, Facebook, and Apple are also trying to break into the Chinese market. Those companies have already compromised their values for the sake of that opportunity by blocking VPN apps on app stores, censoring content, etc. For now those policy adjustments only apply in China itself, but once it becomes an established (and massive) market - they have four times the population of the U.S. - do you really think the companies would stand up against pressure from the Chinese government to apply those policies elsewhere?

Between the spread of the companies it effectively owns, and the deals being made with the rest of the world's most powerful tech companies, China will soon wield more influence than the U.S. I don't think it'll be long before surveillance-states are the norm.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#57
post #44
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? Can you really establish a rational need for democracy, or are you just running on cultural reflex? If you take this question as me saying we shouldn't have democracy, maybe it's reflex. It's an interesting question. Democracy isn't an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. What is that end (or those ends)? How else can those ends be achieved?

Those with an intellectual and/or engineering bent (myself included) often make the mistake of assuming people can be purely rational. If people were purely rational, you might be able to make a case for this type of benevolent authoritarianism. But every human is always flawed, power corrupts, etc. Despite all its problems, some form of democracy is the only (known) way to truly hold those in charge accountable when…

I think you could achieve it with a slightly less intense qualifier than "purely rational", actually- if people were more in tune with coordination problems and more willing to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of cooperation, democracy could work. This has implications all over the place- like someone deciding not to throw a tantrum at an airport counter because they didn't understand what "standby" tickets are, or someone deciding not to commit financial fraud because it makes the system a little more unfair and wasteful (instead of not committing financial fraud because they're worried about getting caught).

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#58
post #51
post #23

An interesting perspective. I would like to understand more in depth the history in China of how influence has been gained and how ordinary people were able to affect the local politics. In the English/Germanic tradition, we might have a parley-ment, or a town hall, or a Thing. I wonder what the comparable system in China was? Does anyone have some in depth knowledge here? (happy to rtfm if one is available)

All governments need some method of contact with the governed to assert their legitimacy. It's telling that in North Europe we had parliaments - places to speak your mind - because speaking your mind was how we did that. Oratory was, and is, seen as a necessary quality in a good governor, since at least ancient Greece and certainly since the days of Rome. In China, on the other hand, there is no major oratory traditi…

> If you wanted to gain influence in the government, you took the imperial examination, became a bureaucrat, rose through the Nine Ranks, and hopefully, by the time you reached the top, you had enough governing experience to see merit in the old way of doing things.

Yes but this was a huge source of instability for the Qing regime. Arguably, the Qing's failure to adapt to the modern world came in part from a cabal of bureaucrats that opposed reforms.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#59
post #57
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those with an intellectual and/or engineering bent (myself included) often make the mistake of assuming people can be purely rational. If people were purely rational, you might be able to make a case for this type of benevolent authoritarianism. But every human is always flawed, power corrupts, etc. Despite all its problems, some form of democracy is the only (known) way to truly hold those in charge accountable when…

I think you could achieve it with a slightly less intense qualifier than "purely rational", actually- if people were more in tune with coordination problems and more willing to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of cooperation, democracy could work. This has implications all over the place- like someone deciding not to throw a tantrum at an airport counter because they didn't understand what "standby" tickets are, o…

"more willing to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of cooperation"

The problem is that a lack of checks and balances means a single bad egg is all it takes. It doesn't just take some people being good people - or even most - it takes everyone being a good person to make that work. Humans as a species just aren't like that.

Re: Who needs democracy when you have data?

#60
post #56

There is nothing in the world right now that I fear more than the creep of Chinese surveillance/authoritarian practices into the rest of the world's society. They are a rapidly growing superpower, and while I hold no fantasies of U.S. supremacy, this specific trend in the use of digital technology terrifies me. There won't be a war, by the way. I honestly think we're past the point as a species where superpowers duke…

> I honestly think we're past the point as a species where superpowers duke it out in such a literal fashion. It's just bad for business.

It's bad for business until it's not. Isolationist economic policies will over time make war more likely.

> Between the spread of the companies it effectively owns, and the deals being made with the rest of the world's most powerful tech companies, China will soon wield more influence than the U.S. I don't think it'll be long before surveillance-states are the norm.

I'm not sure about China wielding more influence than the U.S. That sort of thing is really hard to predict accurately, especially from the perspective of someone who isn't a world leader privy to all available information.

I do agree that surveillance states will be the norm, though, at least everywhere that doesn't currently have a democracy functioning well enough to prevent it.

Post reply on HN