Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#61

Post by kortilla »

htag wrote: post #51
sidlls wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

The argument that people aren't to be trusted with a more direct democracy always falls flat to me. The alternative is power concentrated to a few people which introduces a risk for developing a ruling class, an aristocracy, or plutocracy. Arguing against direct democracy feels elitist, like only certain people should be trusted with actual power. The truth is half of the population is dumber than the average, but th…

I don’t want direct democracy deciding specific environmental regulations. Some things need to be done by appointed experts.

Yes it’s “elitist”, but it’s the equivalent of expecting someone qualified to perform a heart surgery rather than a rando off the street.

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#62

Post by [deleted] »

htag wrote: post #51
sidlls wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

The argument that people aren't to be trusted with a more direct democracy always falls flat to me. The alternative is power concentrated to a few people which introduces a risk for developing a ruling class, an aristocracy, or plutocracy. Arguing against direct democracy feels elitist, like only certain people should be trusted with actual power. The truth is half of the population is dumber than the average, but th…

[deleted]

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#63

Post by mostlysentient »

sph wrote: post #2

First it was Russia meddling with elections (Trump, Brexit), now it's a team led by an ex Israeli special forces guy — which reminds me a bit of the NSO Group story. You know what is terrifying? That upon learning about Russia having a major hand in Western election, nothing concrete was done. In Britain we learned the whole Brexit movement was paid for, and manipulated by Russian money (and it was arguably a crucial…

[dead]

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#64

Post by fomine3 »

uncletammy wrote: post #56
sidlls wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

> Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me. If you evaluate it on a longer timeline, people achieve a greater political intelligence because of increased voter participation and a quicker policy feedback loop. Yeah, collectively, humans are still idiots. That being…

> If you evaluate it on a longer timeline, people achieve a greater political intelligence because of increased voter participation and a quicker policy feedback loop.

Similar idealism was expected before everyone use Internet. Internet would make everyone smart. Now we can see current awful situation.

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#65

Post by seer »

sidlls wrote: post #45
ianai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better article than this. The sad thing is we’re probably trivially close to the tech needed for direct democracy, but the powers that be use tech to confuse and supplant democratic institutions and propose their authoritarian rule.

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

I mean we don’t really have to imagine - we can analyze how direct democracies perform in real life.

They apparently do have their own problems and pressures that need to be balanced, but that’s why we don’t just say everyone can decide anything, but with some rules and regulations I really think it can work … I mean it seems to *be* working - just analyze Switzerland.

There is still a need for an Environmental Protection Agency, an Anti Corruption agency, a Police etc, but it seems much closer to the ideal of what a democratic society should look like than what I can see in my own country.

I’ve always thought why not try that out, sure there would be some blunders, but it would be made by us, ourselves, so we can always revisit, fix and learn.

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#66

Post by basementcat »

whatshisface wrote: post #29
ianai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point is, whatever option is agreeable wouldn’t require the kind of build out to get us here-wiring up the internet, researching and scaling smartphone tech, etc. direct democracy seems like a pretty obvious max for logistical problems to governance and modern tech would make it possible. So anything below it possible too.

They have direct democracy in Switzerland and they don't need the internet for that.

Many states in the USA have had ballot propositions for over one hundred years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_...

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#67

Post by eastbound »

sidlls wrote: post #45
ianai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better article than this. The sad thing is we’re probably trivially close to the tech needed for direct democracy, but the powers that be use tech to confuse and supplant democratic institutions and propose their authoritarian rule.

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

> people in aggregate just aren't that bright

The premise of Humanism is that people should decide for their own future.

It also means we won’t hide the bible in Latin and we’ll translate it in current languages; In other words we’ll educate people. If you don’t trust people, that means school is failing, but remember that we’ve invented democracy in the 1700 across the world, when schools weren’t briliant either. And it was a much better system than anything else. And it outran any other system ever.

Maybe you are not in favour of democracy. Many people support despotism because they think [place any way to choose leaders] will be better.

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#68

Post by seer »

AtomicOrbital wrote: post #42

Nation state government model is obsolete... each person needs to be self governed ... no passport needed... each person must be free to live and work anywhere globally... people must be free to choose who/what they align with... full anonymous... notion of zero trust from information theory to guide all transactions... currency also obsolete... until this full global cutover comes noone is fully actualized ... non h…

Yeah sure, tell that to all the obsolete nation states living on the border of Russia.

Who is gonna protect you if the next village town or city decides your individual property is somehow theirs and they have the means and will to enforce it?

As much as you can prep to defend yourself against attacks bh other individuals, nobody around you is bannaed from forming a band/group/nation. And if they are banned, who is going to enforce it?

In the end it all comes down to the ability to direct violence, the society with the bigger stick wins in the end, and nations and systems of governance that can produce smaller sticks are just eventually snuffed from existence, no matter how bright egalitarian and fair they are to their participants … just look at Armenia, Georgia, Cechnia and Ukraine.

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#69

Post by vintermann »

htag wrote: post #51
sidlls wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

The argument that people aren't to be trusted with a more direct democracy always falls flat to me. The alternative is power concentrated to a few people which introduces a risk for developing a ruling class, an aristocracy, or plutocracy. Arguing against direct democracy feels elitist, like only certain people should be trusted with actual power. The truth is half of the population is dumber than the average, but th…

Smart and dumb is the wrong way to think about it. The important thing is that people want different things, there are real conflicts of interest.

And moreover, we can't trust each other fully. We can try to aspire to it, but none of us can honestly say we just want what's best for everyone.

Just because someone is smarter than you by some measure, doesn't mean you're better off letting them rule you.

Re: A hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

#70

Post by vintermann »

kortilla wrote: post #61
htag wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that people aren't to be trusted with a more direct democracy always falls flat to me. The alternative is power concentrated to a few people which introduces a risk for developing a ruling class, an aristocracy, or plutocracy. Arguing against direct democracy feels elitist, like only certain people should be trusted with actual power. The truth is half of the population is dumber than the average, but th…

I don’t want direct democracy deciding specific environmental regulations. Some things need to be done by appointed experts. Yes it’s “elitist”, but it’s the equivalent of expecting someone qualified to perform a heart surgery rather than a rando off the street.

A "direct" democracy should be perfectly capable of calling in expert opinion, if they decide that a question isn't really political. But which questions are political, is itself a political question.

(You do need the random lottery version of DD, sortition, rather than the everyone gets to vote on everything type).

Post reply on HN