The advance of democracy by the internet, post020

Plato (Socrates) and many others have written about the terror of democracy. If I were to summarize 1000s of years of writing into a single sentence, "Democracy is mob rule."

In the language of Plato, for a long time the US, and other republics, were governed by an aristocratic philosopher king, in the form of a written constitution. The big advantage of this form of government is that the minority view, which sometimes holds truths unspoken by the majority, is protected by the governing constitution.

Back in the old days, when I was a student in the 1990s, the internet promised to bolster democracy. I didn't think much about it at the time. I didn't really believe it, but was hopeful that something would strengthen the voice of the average person.

Looking at the world we live in now, I believe the prophecy to be true. Democracy has been strengthened by the internet, and we indeed see the power of democracy.

In many regards I find this situation frightening. The group that shouts the loudest seems to wield the most power. There is an erosion of civil protections. Mobs don't sit and discuss the balance of rights; mobs act without recourse. There are tons of examples of these online mobs, ranging from #metoo, to #mgtow. Even the Star Wars fandom has become unruly with the aggressive backlash against the recent Star Wars movies. The ultimate example is the rise and success of populist politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The supporters of both have been invigorated and supported through internet news sources.

Back to Plato...

Plato claims that the chaos of democracy will run its course and a society returns to order through the rise of a tyrant. The tyrant envisioned is the worst type of leader, one that truly enjoys the use of force to maintain order.

Is this going to happen? I hope not, but I can see how things could turn that way if we continue the path we are on.

What are the implications?

I can't speak for everyone, but I find myself distrusting the content on the internet alternative media as much as I distrust the content provided by the main stream media. There is plenty of reasons to distrust the MSM, and I'm not going to rehash that here. Regarding the new media, I should say that I don't distrust the content, but I am highly suspicious of the filtering that occurs prior to its coming to me.

What makes me suspicious is that everything I read or view seems justifies my existing beliefs. I mean, all evidence is that I'm a political/social/intellectual genius that has found the insight to understanding the human condition. I have all the knowledge needed to solve the world's problems. Even the articles I read in opposition to my views seem full of holes and misunderstanding of facts. What's more I've found political movements of like minded people, the #kickeminthepants and #wererightandtheyarewrong movements. There's lots of people and we need to stand against the others.

This can't be right. It is too perfect. It seems more likely that I'm only seeing a subset of information that bolsters my self image.

I'm not joining the mob. I don't think so. Is this the right thing to do? History tells us that when dealing with mobs you're either holding a torch/pitchfork or you're tied to a bundle of sticks praying for rain.

Assuming that Plato is right, it seems that the best hope for the future is for each individual to reject the false narrative perpetuated by the internet filters -- that each individual choose to remain as open minded as possible -- to trust that those they disagree with aren't hellbent on the destruction of all that is good in the world.

The paradox is that starting a movement to stop people from joining internet mobs is in and of itself a mob. I think that the best I can do is make a few good points, hope that others listen and decide for themselves what to do.

These are just thoughts I've been having.