If a charter places an obligation on the moderators, only those same moderators can enforce it. This is by design, in order to protect the administrators of the servers on which the software runs and their bosses who own those servers. Feudalism, once again, is a practical outgrowth of underlying conditions.
its capitalism! panopticon! the watcher is also survellied! the watcher cannot have any access to empathy to the prisoners !
self-moderation
foucault
These are basic features of so much institutional life in democratic societies, at least before it all went online. There, for most of us, effective voice is mostly absent.
this lens is interesting. the history of militant unions has proved that unionizing can be a practice that is done within a capitalist setting, with its roots in a socialist/communist frame. i dont quite see the connection to democracy, unless it is a union that wishes to replace the boss, but keep the business model the same. which, unfortuanetly, is more common within capitalist empire.
form unions among users or to require that moderators have to follow rules like everyone else.
unions are not "voices that demand change." unions are a collective baragining power. the ability to exercise a collective will over the ruling class (the boss). if it not a noive, it is an action.
Effective voice, meanwhile, is the voice that the peasants lack under feudalism, the instrumental power to change something, whether the nobles like it or not.
no. if we are referencing blm: there were these guises of change. such as "the police will be reformed!" or "there are new products you can buy at target to support the cause!" or "blackout tuesday" when in reality: police are now being funded more (pre-trump) and are cotinuing to get away unscathed in the court of law.this is the problem mwith believing in liberal dmeocracy and it's instituions whole heartedly. not to say that these instituions do not hold any value or merit within society but any reform made by the "voices" of people will inevitably be rolled over. because democracy seems to be in a love affair with authoritarianism.
users can speak out and affirm each other into virality.
or a secret third thing: speaking into the void
ocial media have facilitated a golden age of complaint against every imaginable authority, from corporations and politicians and teachers to the overworked volunteers trying to moderate posts from a thousand strangers.
yes but some are not like the others
The button to leave is always there, but actually using it might incur personal or professional costs.
sure- but what about the choice to stay? thin: canary mission
Dark patterns might sneak a monthly subscription into what users assume is a one-time donation or encourage sharing excessive personal information or make simple acts like unsubscribing unreasonably hard.
surveillance
Administrators may feel rhetorical or social pressure to respect the values of community members in how they exert their otherwise absolute authority.
sure, but this paints it to be sincere: it's not. its just so people can continue to offer their data, engagement/ money etc... a millionaire doesnt care: the anti-thesis: youre trying to do revolutonary work on a site that is owned by the ruling class, in which does not wish to have such revolution: clash of class interests
An expectation typically associated with democracy, for instance, is that those subject to an authority have the capacity to transfer the authority to someone else. Even this, in our online lives, is a rarity. The mechanisms necessary for many basic democratic processes are missing under the regime of implicit feudalism.
ya: its capitalism. call it late stage capitalims, call it techno-capitalism, call it modern day feudalism, call it whatever you want. it is the same. if there is a profit driven society, then all means of production will follow suit. tech giants are the owners of the means of production
Democratic erosion coincides with shortage of democratic practice when social life migrates online.
this seems a bit determinisitc though. we are only really getting into the ideas of "free speech" online, social life is indeed online, but is it not so much more of a reflection of "reality?" does online life not make it real? we are seeing precidents being set in regards to online speech and privacy, corporations will be bailed out, and the people will suffer.
Those interfaces come to us not by their own accord but through the deployments of capital and power that orchestrate their design.
true
“share the tools to govern collectively.
means of production?
There is no more notorious error in the study of media technologies than determinism—interpreting some device as single-handedly steering social outcomes and thereby denying the role of people in shaping their own cultures and power structures.
tru
because of the tools and the economies that reinforce them.
again- causation v correlation. the economies and tools are the issure. if the tools are owned by the ruling vlass, as are the economies, what does this have to do with the conduct of people online? are we really talking about "UNDEMOCRATIC" ideas, or is this peace policing? are all supposed to hold hands and sing in a circle? is this an issue of liberals v leftists? i wish there were clearer examples to articulate where this is going / what he is talking about
If nation-state democracy is rotting, then we might allow ourselves to imagine its erosion not solely as a loss.
yes. nation states have committed som of the worst atrocities in history. however, the erosion of democracy in these states is not due it it being ineffective. if it was, the optimism would be helpful. it is due to rising fascism. and a nation state goes hand and hand with fascism. this is the consistent realitiy within democratic nations. they seemingly work for a while, but once the flesh and muscles are removed, the skeleton of a monster is always revealed.
he toured the United States in 1831.
ermmmm.... alexis hated the french revolution because it was trying to radically restructure society. the american rev. strictly codified what was going on in the american colonies, to makw themselves equal to the englishman. time and time again these thinkers we constantly reference prove we actually prefer capitalism over "democracy"
autocratic
ruler with absolute powerm
have not translated into lasting democratic blocs that have shifted power in meaningful ways.
yes, and we can critique modern revolution for a number of days. but once again, against state appartus, it is clear that governments will stifile repression and rebellion always.
. Civil wars with their roots in those protests—in Libya, Syria, and Yemen—are still smoldering.
these countries have faced much more (interventionisms) ------- a direct cause of civil war
eschewed
to abstain from
unaccountable polities, resulting from experiences of arbitrary rule enforcement, a lack of due process, and an absence of sensitivity to context.9
this i can see
Scholars and journalists have argued that social networks have worsened polarization, provided mouthpieces for authoritarians, enabled violent extremists to organize, and undermined trust in institutions.8
correlation does not equal causation. were also conflating a lot of different things here. its giving media panic?
It also bears other dangers, threatening a self-reinforcing spiral of authoritarianism, economic exploitation, and environmental destruction, especially as leaders seem to regard protecting ecological and social health as an unacceptable constraint on their mandates to achieve national greatness.
ok- capitalism has been economically exploiting and enivronmentally destroying. all while under the guise of democracy
intrinsic good, to be sure.
and this is bad. once again- if we cannot concretely define democracy, yet only call to examples of it- how it is an "intrinsic good"= an absolute good with no room for critique and change? if it is absolute, how can we ever expect for this "furthering of democracy" as a horizon? change means to make something different. we cannot make something different if we are unwilling to make democracy, and our attitudes towards it, different in our minds. if its not working in the material work, it will be no different on the ground.
polyphony
combining parts to create a harmony
participants
what of those who do not participate? do they not deserve this power? see! this is the exercising of ones will upon another.
a longing for power
this must be contextual. if we cannot define democracy- can we define power? if power is understood as the ability to exercise ones will upon another- this is antithetical. we cannot collectively hold "power" if we wish for a democracy. we cannot all exercise our will upon another.
Likewise, I claim no fixed definition for democracy.
and this is a problem. democracy has become the new maga- a unintelligeable and inapplicable, idea, a fantasy, with no clear and cut distinctive principles, actions, morals, etc. it is a rallying idea in which no one truly knows what it is, yet we all wish to champion it.
cognates
connections
s there democracy in the wild?
if democracy is understood as representation from elected officials- no! historically, roles have always been divided- but no role was seen as higher or above. it is a network- communtiies of true collaboration.
But, as above, the more-than-human world envelops it all, providing the stage and the stakes: a planet waiting to see whether we can govern our way out of self-destruction, deciding whether to maintain the conditions necessary for human civilization.
ok- this is extremely western. the american military is responisble for the majority of pollution of the earth. it is not the "planet" watching us, but its people!
It is not enough to merely defend existing governmental institutions; healthy democracy depends on enabling creative new forms of self-governance, especially on networks.
i do not agree- implying defense of current instiutions have been effective: they are not. if we are to find new forms of self-governance- we must move away from these outdated forms of enlightenment (birth of the idea of consent of the govern blah blah)- these ideas are coming out of a very volitile environment in which monarchies exist, religious turmoil- if we are to be so "evoled" and "modernized" we must also understand this. really what is a healthy democracy? we've seen effective ones (in the sense that profit is able to boom) but all struggle has been radical- any wins "for" democracy came from a very contesting of it
quotidian
occuring everyday