Are direct democracies more vulnerable to disinformation?
Deliberately spread misinformation surfaced during many elections in 2024 and is having an impact on social trust.
But the wave of disinformation is expected to particularly affect direct democracies – such as Switzerland or many US states – according to Touradj Ebrahimi, professor at Federal Technology Institute in Lausanne (EPFL).
Do you think that disinformation is particularly dangerous for societies where citizens directly vote on many political issues?
More
US disinformation surge rings alarm bells for Swiss direct democracy
Correct: This can result in choices that do not reflect the genuine will of the population.
Corrigir: Isso pode resultar em escolhas que não reflectem a vontade genuína da população.
Thank you for your perspective and your comments! And do you think this makes a difference when in democracies not only politicians are elected, but the population also decides on individual issues in referendums?
Vielen Dank für Ihre Perspektive und Ihre Kommentare! Und denken Sie, dass dies einen Unterschied macht, wenn in Demokratien nicht nur Politikerinnen und Politiker gewählt werden, sondern die Bevölkerung auch über eine einzelne Themen in Volksabstimmungen entscheidet?
Certainly, disinformation is a major
concern these days and can be a significant threat to democracy for several reasons:
1. Disinformation can undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. When people don't know what to believe, it can lead to widespread scepticism about the government, the media and even the electoral process.
2. Manipulation of Public Opinion, if information is false or distorted it can be used to manipulate public opinion, influencing electoral and political decisions. This can result in choices that do not reflect the genuine will of the population.
Com certeza, a desinformação é uma grande
Preocupação nos dias de hoje e pode ser uma ameaça significativa à democracia por várias razões:
1. A desinformação pode minar a confiança do público nas instituições democráticas. Quando as pessoas não sabem em que ou no que acreditar, isso pode levar a um ceticismo generalizado em relação ao governo, à midia e até mesmo ao processo eleitoral.
2. Manipulação da opinião Pública, se as informações forem falsas ou distorcidas podem ser usadas para manipular a opinião pública, influenciando decisões eleitorais e políticas. Isso pode resultar em esco que não reflectem a vontade genuina da população.
We feel uneasy about this buzzword "disinformation", which is repeatedly used in discussions, especially by left-green circles. Who, which (political?) organisations, governments, parliaments etc. decide what constitutes disinformation? Do honest citizens have a say in these decisions? We must be vigilant and take great care to ensure that officially ordered suppression of certain, supposedly undesirable statements does not lead to unwanted censorship by citizens and thus to the curtailment of our freedom of opinion and thought. This is guaranteed by the constitution. Swiss citizens think for themselves and are mature enough to be able to judge what is serious and what is not in today's flood of information. We do not need and do not want pre-censorship, and certainly not politically biased censorship! That only existed and still exists in dictatorships.
Wir verspüren ein Unbehagen bel diesem, vor allem von links-grünen Kreisen immer wieder in die Diskussionen eingebrachten Modewort "Desinformation". Wer, welche (politischen?) Organisationen Regierungen Parlamente etc. entscheiden, was eine Desinformation ist? Haben rechtschaffene Bürger ein Mitspracherecht bei diesen Entscheidungen? Wir müssen aufmerksam sein und sehr gut aufpassen, dass behördlich verordnete Unterdrückungen von bestimmten, angeblich unerwünschten Aussagen nicht zu einer vom Bürger ungewollten Zensur und damit zur Beschneidung unserer Meinung- und Gedankenfreiheit führen. Diese ist verfassungsmässig garantiert. Die Schweizer Bürger sind selbständig denkend und reif genug, um bei der heutigen Informationsflut beurteilen zu können, was seriös ist und was nicht. Wir brauchen und wollen keine Vorzensur, schon gar nicht politisch einseitige! Das gab und gibt es nur in Diktaturen.
Hello and thank you for your contribution.
However, I have to disagree with you that disinformation is a "buzzword" - and most parliamentary initiatives on the subject come from the ranks of the FDP.
The question of who decides what constitutes disinformation is indeed a tricky one, as I also looked at in my article: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/demokratie/geistige-landesverteidigung-die-wege-mit-denen-europ%C3%A4ische-demokratien-wie-die-schweiz-der-neuen-bedrohungslage-begegnen/89057566
By definition, however, disinformation is content that someone has shared with the intention to deceive. Accordingly, it is not a question of discrediting unpopular opinions, but of deliberately controlling content that has been disseminated with the intention to deceive.
This usually comes from dictatorships - and is intended to destabilise democracies.
Guten Tag und vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag.
Ich muss Ihnen allerdings widersprechen, dass es sich bei Desinformation um ein "Modewort" handelt - und die meisten Parlamentsvorstösse zum Thema kommen aus den Reihen der FDP.
Die Frage, wer entscheidet, was Desinformation ist, ist tatsächlich heikel, wie ich in meinem Artikel auch angeschaut habe: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/demokratie/geistige-landesverteidigung-die-wege-mit-denen-europ%C3%A4ische-demokratien-wie-die-schweiz-der-neuen-bedrohungslage-begegnen/89057566
Qua Definition sind Desinformation aber Inhalte, die jemand mit einer Täuschungsabsicht geteilt hat. Entsprechend: Es geht also nicht darum, missliebige Meinungen zu diskreditieren, sondern bewusst, mit Täuschungsabsicht gestreute Inhalte unter Kontrolle zu bringen.
Meist kommen diese von Diktaturen - und verfolgen eben die Absicht, Demokratien zu destabilisieren.
I believe disinformation is part of human kind and it will stay with us but its way to fight it. One of the reasons disinformation is so widespread? Basic principles that were not taught in school and yet its foundation of Justice System
Any Country that has 2 parties and more is prone to disinformation. More parties harder to distinguish right from wrong!
To make it simple. The Justice System is a perfect example and solely works on that Principe.
In essence, Court room, Judge and 2 parties.......
The judge can make a fair decision ONLY if he or she listens to both sides. There is no other way, it's simple.....
In real life we are divided, people rarely follow what Judge MUST follow otherwise there is no Justice?
People are very polarized and defending the stance of their political party without even giving the chance to listen to the other side. Many times we judge driven by emotions not reason.
No school teaches you those basic principles.
There is a way to discover the Truth, what any Justice system does.
There are three steps to follow.
First step is to collect information from any possible sources but very important is to disengage emotions.. That's what the Judge is doing. Carefully listen to both sides and every story.
Once you collect information you start the second step. PROCESSING, you process information That what panel of Judges doing.. Carefully consider every information
Last step, ACTION you act upon discovery. Or the Court, Judge read the verdict.
In the current world environment Disinformation is booming like mushrooms after rain... If citizens are educated right way disinformation in the Second phase of processing wouldn't last long.
Thank you for your contribution!
There are some interesting considerations in it. However, they are based on a very fundamental error in thinking: In any country where there is only one party, disinformation is even more prevalent and is not scrutinised - at least publicly. Dictatorships spread disinformation.
I also wonder whether you can expect the same from every person as you can from a judge? After all, they can only assess content independently of their emotions within a professional framework.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag!
Es sind einige spannende Überlegungen darunter. Sie liegen allerdings einem sehr grundlegenden Denkfehler auf: In jedem Land, in dem es nur eine Partei gibt, ist die Desinformation noch viel prägender und wird - zumindest öffentlich - nicht hinterfragt. Diktaturen verbreiten Desinformation.
Weiter frage ich mich, ob man von jeder Person gleich viel erwarten kann, wie von einer Richterin oder einem Richter? Diese können ja ebenfalls nur im professionellen Rahmen Inhalte unabhängig von ihren Emotionen bewerten.
There is no fundamental error in thinking it can be your inability to understand ............
I took the Justice system as the best example of how to get to the TRUTH.
Judge represent the TRUTH........
Absolutely you have to expect from every person to align with the truth..
Truth by default doesn't care about your or mine opinion its our duty to align with it.
Disinformation is an attempt to hide the TRUTH…You don't have to fight Disinformation its better to spend energy to teach the Society how to reach the TRUTH once you succeed that, Disinformation doesn't have chance.
My point was Disinformation, Misinformation, Propaganda, Manipulation in Direct Democracy any Democracy, Dictatorship can't stand the chance if Society uses the proper Formula to fight that.
Didn't want to go into details!
TRIVIUM and QUADRIVIUM - Seven Liberal Arts
Every school should have those books and teach the children how to think.. Who does that? Which school in Switzerland or the USA has those books in the program?
Look at the conflict in Ukraine........ I know it is a different subject but we shouldn't have this mess that can bring the World to the end if people are capable of rational thinking......
We choose the side purely by emotions or is work of Disinformation Misinformation Propaganda Manipulation you name it………. And we form our opinions which is very dangerous ………. Direct Democracy or Dictatorship it doesn't matter Disinformation is present which society is more equipped to fight it?
Edward Bernays in his Book explains very well, and many other Books that are great sources of Information ………
Social Media and Mainstream media are in today world Huge Bucket of garbage in Democracy truth is in that Bucket its up to you how deep and “dirt” you want to go to reach it…….
Thank you for your comments. Of course, it depends on whether a society is organised democratically. There is no dictatorship in which freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be enforced - and unlike as a citizen in a democracy, as a resident of a dictatorship you have no way of enforcing them.
You write that it is not necessary to fight disinformation, but to teach society how to obtain the truth.
In fact, media literacy education for all ages and education about deepfake videos etc. is exactly what is meant by combating disinformation.
Vielen Dank für Ihre Ausführungen. Natürlich kommt es darauf an, ob eine Gesellschaft demokratisch organisiert ist. Es gibt keine Diktatur, in der Rede- und Pressefreiheit durchgesetzt würde - und anders als als Bürger in einer Demokratie hat man als Bewohner einer Diktatur keine Möglichkeit, sie durchzusetzen.
Sie schreiben, man müsse Desinformation nicht bekämpfen, sondern der Gesellschaft beibringen, wie diese die Wahrheit erlangt.
Tatsächlich ist Bildung im Bereich Medienkompetenz in allen Altersstufen und Aufklärung über Deepfake-Videos etc. genau das, was man unter Bekämpfung von Desinformation versteht.
I do agree with you about last statement...... One danger is that many times at least here in USA Mainstream Media pedaling Disinformation.
Your Country I believe spread Disinformation ( not willingly will get to that) too that is why I believe is better to educate Society to find the Truth and spend time and money there than fight Disinformation
Misinformation Disinformation Propaganda Manipulation , so much ways to twist reality that is impossible to fight , and as people get smarter and more wiser so the way to manipulate society improve
That is why I believe TRUTH and teach society how to find the truth is best way.............
Actually that is Civic duty of every Citizen to know how to alight with it.
When I say Swiss AND Disinformation…….. I will point out the Russia Ukraine conflict because it is very important for the entire World….
Be honest, how many times has Swiss TV published Video where Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt USA officials decide who would join the Ukraine Government? Not sure they are…..
How many Swiss people after watching Mainstream Media go to Russia TV and watch or try to understand what Russia wants? Not Many.
Did you see the video where US Congressmens give a speech to the Ukraine Army in Ukraine (2016), saying its time to destroy Russia? You do your part here when we come back to Washington we will do our part?
NO, Your Government in this Global world can't do that…….. That is why I may believe the Swiss Government spread Disinformation because there is no other way to survive.
What George Bush jr. said after September 11? You are either with us or against us…….
My point is while we are focusing on Social Media Disinformation, it is present. It is dangerous for society no doubt just look at Alex Jones here in USA , a very destructive person with his INFO WARS ………
But main Culprit of Disinformation is very often where we don't look at and that is Mainstream Media pedaling Government Agendas
But if he thinks that Ukraine will be defeated easily if it does not have the support of the USA he is wrong, for rockets of a certain distance there is England and other European countries that for all that Trump is doing will turn their back on the USA.Besides those English or French rockets all Ukraine needs is swarms of drones and they have already been able to make a single operator manipulate multiple drones that is all they need if all of Europe provides not even drones but material to build them because they are experts in that .Ukraine does not need USA for anything .and the Bear will do the same as he is doing so far and trump will see how he destroys his own country in only 4 years because this racist in politics is totally null and void.
Trump es asuntos politicos es cero cerebro ,esta dando vida al mostruo.Pero si cree que Ucrania sera vencida facilmete si no tiene el apoyo de USA se equivoca para para cohetes de cierta distancia esta inglaterra y otros paises europeos que por todo lo que esta haciendo trump le van a dar la espalda a USA.Ademas de esos cohetes ingleses o franceses todo lo que nesesita Ucrania es enjambres de drones y ya ye han podido hacer que un solo operador manipules multiples drones es todo lo que nesesita si toda europa proporciona ni siquiera drones sino material para contruirlos porque ellos son expertos en eso .Ucrania no necesita a USA para nada .Y el Oso se las vera igual como lo esta haciendo hasta la fecha Y trump vera como destruye el mismo a su pais en solo 4 años porque este racista en politica es totalmente nulo
The Swiss model is best for Switzerland, not sure it would work in other countries. Disinformation comes mostly from the mainstream press and radio/TV. That happens in every country and is very hard to control.
Definitely yes!
Eindeutig ja!
Undoubtedly, the country with the most experience in using direct democracy instruments to govern the state is Switzerland. I observe that many countries talk about the need to introduce direct democracy on the Swiss model. Few point out that Switzerland only uses some instruments of direct democracy. Only an optional referendum and a referendum on amending the constitution are held on the initiative of the people. No one pays attention to the fact that the optional referendum involves changing the way the government is appointed. There is a need for a magic formula, otherwise it will be almost impossible to pass laws, because the opposition parties will make it impossible by initiating an optional referendum every time.
I am missing a study explaining the aspects of the implementation of direct democracy instruments, the advantages and the risks.
Thank you for your contribution, which highlights some important aspects of the Swiss system.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag, der einige wichtige Aspekte des Schweizer Systems herausarbeitet.
No...countries where politicians dictate policy and speech are the most prone to disinformation. How strange to think a few easily corrupted politicians with dubious leadership qualifications will somehow be better at providing correct information versus their preferred disinformation.
The US spends hundreds of millions yearly on anti-china propaganda. Is it any wonder the western world blames China for everything? But a couple anti-vaxxer quacks in a direct democracy a somehow more of a "disinformation" threat?
A bit like the American fighter jets we purchased. The populace was split. It took the government several votes and lots of pushing to get voter approval. Another vote had been called on to avoid purchasing American jets..but the government went ahead and did so anyways. Jets that send information directly to the aggressive US. Had the government followed the demands of the direct democracy we would not be sitting on expensive paper weights that the US controls.
Thank you for your comment! You seem to be referring to militant anti-vaccination activists - why do you think that disinformation comes mainly from them?
Vielen Dank für Ihren Kommentar! Sie beziehen sich anscheinend auf militante Impfgegner:innen - wieso denken Sie, dass Desinformation vor allem von diesen ausgeht?
Anti-vaxxers were not at all my point versus a quick example.
Stange to claim direct democracies suffer more from some disinformation issue..f...but...if even 10% of the population suffered from being poorly informed on an issue does that somehow exclude the other 90% from being able to reach their own conclusions versus having government mandated information shoved down their throats?
For some reason you even included the US ...which in no way is a direct democracy (love to hear which issues you think the Americans get to vote on versus 1 of 2 corrupt political parties) . Politicians decide on abortion rights...not citizens. US politicians decide to toss $trillion yearly into "defense" not the populace. US politicians dictate pretty much all policies to the populace. The US is 29th on the Global Democracy Index and is considered a flawed democracy (Switzerland ranks 8th as a Full Democracy)
I also mentioned anti-china propaganda sponsored by the US....you didn't mention that? Should we discuss all the pro-israel propagandas which makes Israel seem to be the perpetual victim whilst ignoring decades of land theft and jewish terrorism that Israel turned a blind eye to? While westerners cry about China's firewall and not being able to find tiananmen square the same could be said of western technology not giving results for Israel's atrocities. Swissinfo won't even let you use the "G" word when referring to decades upon decades of israeli atrocities. The western collective (to include your own organisation) is easily seen as guilty of providing disinformation yet this is the only disinformation that you believe should be allowed in direct democracies? It's easy enough to ignore the guy claiming Bill Gates is putting microchips in vaccines...not quite so easy to ignore government/press propaganda and censorship on topics.
Could you give a few examples where the government turned out to be more trustworthy than the overall populace versus pushing personal agendas for the most part?
Dear Smiss
Thank you very much for your varied and layered comments! You are of course right that everyone is least likely to see their own biases. In your new comment you referred to anti-vaccination activists, so I picked up on that. I have now realised that they were linked to your older comments.
Well, there is no question that it makes sense to take a critical stance towards government positions. But critically addressing disinformation does not mean claiming that we should rely solely on government positions.
Disinformation includes misleading and false information that is spread with the intention to deceive. It can originate from various governments or from private actors. The question behind this debate does not imply how disinformation should be dealt with. It raises a topic for discussion, with reference to a professor at the EPF Lausanne who has this concern.
As in an earlier comment, you criticise the fact that a reference is made to the US states. Many US states have developed people's rights. Categorising the entire country as a flawed democracy does not change this, on the contrary: the question of whether the population in states such as California can inform themselves is all the more important the worse the general democratic institutions are. It is precisely in a system with problems that the risk of disinformation becomes more important. Contrary to what you write, the fact is that abortion rights in particular are voted on by the population in US states a record number of times. You can find more on the topic here: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/democracy/why-the-us-and-switzerland-are-direct-democracy-sister-republics/87536566
With regard to the genocide allegation in connection with the current war in Gaza, which is now being litigated by South Africa, we report as a journalistic medium, for example in this podcast:
https://podcasts.apple.com/in/podcast/a-look-into-south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel/id1506227169?i=1000642605195
With regard to the Middle East conflict and the war in Palestine, I would like to tell you personally that I find the term "Jewish terrorism" distasteful, unless you are talking about Baruch Goldstein.
The question of how Israel's actions in the Gaza war are categorised will remain controversial as long as no international court has reached a verdict.
In general, we try to discuss one topic in our debates. In this case, it is the question of the possible effects of digital disinformation on direct democracies.
Sincerely,
Benjamin von Wyl
Lieber Smiss
Vielen Dank für Ihre vielseitigen und -schichtigen Kommentare! Sie haben natürlich Recht, dass alle Menschen ihre eigenen Biases am wenigsten sehen. In Ihrem neuen Kommentar haben Sie auf Impfgegner Bezug genommen, deshalb habe ich das aufgegriffen. Dass sie verbunden waren mit Ihren älteren Kommentaren, habe ich nun gemerkt.
Nun, es steht ausser Frage, dass es sinnvoll ist, eine kritische Haltung gegenüber Regierungspositionen einzunehmen. Aber eine kritische Thematisierung von Desinformation bedeutet ja nicht, dass man behauptet, man solle sich einzig auf Regierungspositionen stützen.
Desinformation umfasst irreführende und falsche Information, die mit Täuschungsabsicht verbreitet wird. Sie kann von verschiedenen Regierungen ausgehen oder auch von privaten Akteuren. Die Frage hinter dieser Debatte impliziert nicht, wie mit Desinformation umgegangen werden soll. Sie stellt - mit Verweis auf einen Professor der ETH Lausanne, der diese Sorge hat - ein Thema zur Diskussionen.
Wie bereits in einem früheren Kommentar kritisieren Sie, dass ein Bezug zu den US-Bundesstaaten gemacht wird. Viele US-Bundesstaaten haben ausgebaute Volksrechte. Die Einstufung des gesamten Landes als flawed democracy ändert daran nichts, im Gegenteil: Die Frage, dass sich die Bevölkerung in Staaten wie Kalifornien informieren kann, stellt sich ja umso mehr, je schlechter es um die generellen demokratischen Institutionen bestellt ist. Gerade in einem System mit Problemen wird das Desinformationsrisiko ja wichtiger. Anders, als Sie schreiben, ist es übrigens so, dass gerade über Abtreibungsrechte rekordmässig oft von der Bevölkerung in US-Bundesstaaten abgestimmt wird. Hier finden Sie mehr zum Thema: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/democracy/why-the-us-and-switzerland-are-direct-democracy-sister-republics/87536566
Im Bezug auf den Genozidvorwurf im Zusammenhang mit dem gegenwärtigen Krieg in Gaza, der nun durch die Klage von Südafrika verhandelt wird, berichten wir als journalistisches Medium, zum Beispiel im Rahmen dieses Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/in/podcast/a-look-into-south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel/id1506227169?i=1000642605195
Bezüglich dem Nahostkonflikt und dem Krieg in Palästina möchte ich Ihnen persönlich gerne mitteilen, dass ich den Begriff "jüdischer Terrorismus" geschmacklos finde, wenn Sie nicht gerade von Baruch Goldstein sprechen.
Die Frage, wie das israelische Handeln im Gazakrieg eingestuft wird, bleibt kontrovers, so lange kein internationales Gericht zu einem Urteil gekommen ist.
Generell versuchen wir in unseren Debatten über eine Thematik zu diskutieren. Hier soll es um die Frage der möglichen Auswirkungen von digitaler Desinformation auf direkte Demokratien gehen.
Herzlich,
Benjamin von Wyl
There are at least four positions on disinformation: 1. those who deliberately spread it to keep people away from real information; 2. those who spread it believing it to be true (culpably spread it) and have the same result; 3. those who are left without access to real information because they can't find it amidst the sea of disinformation; 4. those who have the active work of checking the information and thereby finding the truth and reality in order to be able to orientate themselves in the face of it.
It's vital for democracy that people get used to frequently seeking to be well informed so that they don't get carried away by anti-democratic movements that hide behind false information or are immersed in so much information that, even if it's real, they won't be able to assimilate it all in time to take a position on something.
Democracy is a political phenomenon motivated by respect for other people and their rights and respect for the law. People's consciences need to be formed for it and the world needs to be moved into the right position: no person enslaved, no person without access to culture, no person in poverty. All people with their international human rights guaranteed wherever they are.
Existem ao menos quatro posições da desinformação: 1. Quem dolosamente a espalha para afastar as pessoas da informação real; 2. Quem a espalha acreditando ser verdade (culposamente a espalha) e tem o mesmo resultado; 3. Quem fica sem ter acesso a informação real por não encontrá-la em meio ao mar de desinformações; 4. Quem tem o trabalho ativo de fazer a checagem das informações e com isso achar a verdade e a realidade para poder se orientar diante disso.
É vital para a democracia que as pessoas se acostumem a buscar frequentemente estar bem informadas para não se deixarem levar por movimentos antidemocráticos que se escondem através de informações falsas ou de serem imersas por tanta informação que, ainda que reais, não terão como assimilar tudo a tempo de se posicionar sobre algo.
Democracia é um fenômeno político motivado por respeito às demais pessoas e a seus direitos e respeito às leis. É preciso formar a consciência das pessoas para ela e é preciso movimentar o mundo para a posição adequada: nenhuma pessoa escravizada, nenhuma pessoa sem acesso a cultura, nenhuma pessoa na miséria. Todas as pessoas com seus direitos internacionais humanos garantidos onde quer que estejam.
Thank you for the interest. I put the referendum of 'adapting the Swiss economy to the planet limits' as one example that a large group of politicians were at best poorly informed about farming and industry. I agree that they were the minority. However, the European Union, where democracy is far less direct, did pass some very over-reaching laws / manifests.
.
I generally fully agree with you, that misinformation and bad decisions can apply to politicians, too, and a well functioning country must have strong safeguards against this.
Thank you very much for your differentiating comment!
Vielen Dank für Ihren differenzierenden Kommentar!
A. stop the financing of political parties.
take an example of the USA. The amounts spend on elections is ridiculous and disgracefully. If you would spend that money on your peoples welfare. !!
B. The dangerous points of democracy : a democrate will try to convince ( if needed) the opposite party with arguments.
A totalitarian will not try to convince, but apply force and fear.
You can never beat a tyrant with words, you have to do it with force.
And that is the problem !
Look back in the past, so many examples.
In Zwitserland you have a good system, pls stick to that. I can only hope that more countries will follow. But.............
Swissinfo is the leading provider of information in Switzerland, and soon we'll be as well informed as the United States.
Swissinfo est le premier des informateur en Suisse, bientôt, on sera, aussi , bien informés que les États Unis.
I think AI is the least threatening precisely for Switzerland, because the Federal Council is made up of political competitors, where no party has a numerical advantage. Here it does not matter so much which party wins the election. None of them will seize power in the state. My only concern is that the Federal Council is created on the fragile ground of a magic formula and not a constitutional provision.
Of course, disinformation can come from AI - but it can also come from humans. In general, thank you for your interesting perspective. You are indeed right that this form of government, which aims to equalise different positions, may also equalise access to information.
Natürlich kann Desinformation von KI ausgehen - Sie kann aber auch von Menschen ausgehen. Generell danke ich Ihnen für Ihre spannende Perspektive. Tatsächlich haben Sie Recht, dass diese auf Ausgleich der verschiedenen Positionen zielende Regierungsform auch einen Ausgleich im Zugang zur Information bewirken mag.
The capitol and the bank never come to an agreement when it comes to the treasury department. It's time for wall street to reach out to members of congress.
El capitolio y el banco nunca llegan a un acuerdo cuando de el departamento de el tesoro se trata. Ya es hora de que wall street haga un acercamiento a miembros de el congresso
Direct democracy limits abuse of power by politicians, and this outweighs costs. In the 21. century, far bigger danger to the prosperity and survival of countries are closed political parties disconnected from the general society.
.
I point that the question is one sided as it omits politicians, like other commenters noticed. It can also can be easily mis-constructed as a proposal to hollow democracy, because supposedly citizens are too stupid to find correct information, and politicians should bypass them, of course benevolently.
.
A recent rejected referendum is a perfect example that politicians cannot be assumed to be better informed about the society than the society itself. One can worry - whether the Young Green politicians, young people from big cities, really understand what makes farming and industry of Switzerland work?
Thank you for your comment. Which referendum are you referring to? The question of who is informed and who is not, as well as who understands what Switzerland is all about, is what makes the question so difficult. The majority of politicians in Switzerland do not live in big cities and are not green. So, if you see the danger of politicians ignoring the population, they would hardly be politicians with a green agenda because they don't have a majority.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Kommentar. Welches Referendum meinen Sie denn? Die Frage, wer informiert ist und wer nicht, sowie wer versteht, was die Schweiz ausmacht, macht die Frage ja so schwierig. Die Mehrheit der Politikerinnen und Politiker in der Schweiz lebt jedenfalls nicht in Grosstädten und ist auch nicht grün. Also, wenn Sie die Gefahr sehen, dass Politikerinnen und Politiker die Bevölkerung übergehen, wären das wohl kaum Politikerinnen und Politiker mit einer grünen Agenda, weil diese keine Mehrheit haben.
I have lived in various countries, spending a lot of time in Italy and Malta. I strongly advise everyone to defend the Swiss model of DEMOCRACY at all costs. What are called democracies in various European countries have very little that is democratic. I would also strongly distrust European structures and avoid agreements that 'castrate' the Swiss model with agreements and obligations subject to structures that are not even directly elected by the people.
Ho vissuto in vari paesi spendendo molto tempo in Italia e Malta. Consiglio fortemente a tutti di difendere a tutti i costi la DEMOCRAZIA modello svizzero. Quelle che vengono chiamate democrazie in vari paesi europei hanno ben poco di democratico. Diffiderei fortemente anche delle strutture europee evitando accordi che "castrino" il modello svizzero con accordi ed obbligazioni soggiacenti a strutture che non vengono nemmeno direttamente elette dal popolo.
But of course, disinformation is a problem for all of us, and I think that is a big part of Colombia's problem, because the news and media are managed by right-wing people, people who have their own interests and who care less about letting the people know what they are doing.
Pero por supuesto la desinformación nos jode a todos, creo que en gran parte es el problema de Colombia, pues los noticieros y medios de comunicación son administrados por personas de derecha, personas q tienen sus propios intereses y q lo q menos les importa es q el pueblo sepa lo q hacen.
Social networks have liberated speech and given us access to unformatted information.
Despite the dangers, particularly of algorithms, we are living in a time of greater freedom.
Free will and personal objectivity make it possible to sort things out.
As a result, ideologies are being called into question that were hitherto conveyed by media in the hands either of governments or of vested interests monopolising information and, until recently, communication.
If we take the Woke phenomenon as an example, it has been imposed through propaganda in various forms (advertising, films, shows, TV series, etc.).
Imposed does not mean accepted.
The vast majority of people do not support this seizure of power by minorities whom they respect but do not consider to be a model.
This goes against the natural laws of humanity.
The informal takeover of free will by the people underlines the need for democracies to adapt.
This takeover by individuals is rejected and denied by journalists, who believe that they alone are capable of thinking and are straying from their mission, which is to report facts and shed light on reasoning.
Journalists have become censors and inquisitors, and their words are inaudible and not credible because they are too closely aligned with interests that do not appear to be those of the people.
For this reason, the Swiss political system, imperfect though it may be, is the best equipped today to adapt to the democratic changes that are essential.
The citizens' referendum, as it is set up in Switzerland, makes it possible to reconcile democracy and the expression of the people fairly.
France and the EU would do well to draw inspiration from this, because the people of the West will not wait and will put their trust in those who are offering them the common-sense changes they are hoping for, which are now coming from Argentina and the USA.
Les réseaux sociaux ont libérés la parole et permettent d'accéder à une information non formatée.
Malgré les dangers et particulièrement des algorithmes nous vivons une plus grande période de liberté .
Le libre arbitre et l'objectivité personnelle permette de faire le tri.
Cela a pour conséquence de remettre en question des idéologies qui étaient jusqu'ici véhiculer par des médias aux mains soit de gouvernements soit d'interet particulier monopolisant l'information et jusqu'à récemment la communication.
Si nous prenons en exemple le phénomène woke celui ci s'est imposé via une propagande aux diverses formes ( publicité, films,spectacles, séries tv,..)
Imposé ne veut pas dire accepté.
La vaste majorite des peuples ne cautionne pas cette prise de pouvoir des minorités qui par ailleurs ils respectent mais ne considèrent pas comme modèle.
Celui ci allant à l'encontre des lois naturelles de l'humanité.
La reprise en main informelle du libre arbitre par les peuples souligne la nécessité de l'adaptation des démocraties.
Cette reprise en main par les individus est rejetés et niés par les journalistes qui pensent qu'eux seuls sont capables de penser et s'écartent de leur mission qui est de rapporter des faits et d'éclairer un raisonnement.
Journalistes devenus censeurs et inquisiteurs leur parole est inaudible et non crédible car trop affidés à des intérêts qui n'apparaissent pas comme celui des peuples.
Pour cela le système politique Suisse même imparfait est aujourd'hui le mieux armé pour s'adapter aux changements democratique indispensables
Le référendum citoyen tel qu'il est paramètré en Suisse permet de concilier démocratie et expression du peuple équitablement.
La France et l'UE ferait bien de s'en inspirer car les peuples occidentaux n'attendront pas et feront confiance à ceux qui leur offre les changements de bon sens espérés et qui viennent aujourd'hui d'Argentine ou des USA.
Thank you for your contribution. The instruments of direct democracy in Switzerland are indeed seen as a means of social equalisation. However, this is always in conjunction with parliament: more often than a referendum actually being held, parliamentarians' actions are characterised by the possibility of a referendum.
However, I have to disagree with you on one point: you write about "the natural laws of mankind". There are no such laws. Humans have a first nature, of course, but this is relatively far removed from our lives today, for example with regard to the fact that we live in cities, for which we have not yet adapted biologically. However, humans also have a second and third nature, which are culturally characterised - and are therefore not subject to any known or unknown "natural laws".
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag. Tatsächlich gelten die Instrumente der direkten Demokratie in der Schweiz als Mittel zum gesellschaftlichen Ausgleich. Dies aber immer auch im Zusammenspiel mit dem Parlament: Häufiger, als dass ein Referendum tatsächlich ergriffen wird, sind die Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier in ihrem Handeln von der Möglichkeit eines Referendums geprägt.
In einem Punkt muss ich Ihnen aber widersprechen: Sie schreiben von "den natürlichen Gesetzen der Menschheit". Solche gibt es nicht. Die Menschen haben eine erste Natur, klar, aber diese ist relativ weit von unserem heutigen Leben entfernt, etwa im Hinblick darauf, dass wir in Städten wohnen, wofür wir uns biologisch noch nicht angepasst haben. Die Menschen haben aber auch eine zweite und dritte Natur, die kulturell geprägt sind - und entsprechend keinen bekannten oder unbekannten "natürlichen Gesetzen" unterliegen.
I am a member of the Asamblea Ciudadana para el Clima, Secretary General, National Environment Award. In Spain, as in all countries, whether they are democratic or not, disinformation from parliaments and political parties is also widespread through the media, which do not inform citizens what is opinion or what is true information as they should publish it, thus manipulating public opinion. It is the same political parties that, according to their own interests, are supported in bad faith by the democracy that protects the rights of expression.
Thus, it is necessary that the public receives, as when we receive an official notification, when the information is of general interest, truthful and based on science.
Soy miembro de la Asamblea Ciudadana para el Clima, Secretario general , Premio Nacional de Medioambiente. En España como en todos los países sean democrática , o no, también la desinformación desde los parlamentos los partidos se amplia a través de los medios de información que no informan a los ciudadanos que es opinión o que es información verdadera como deben públicar, así manipulan la opinión pública. Son los mismos partidos políticos que según sus intereses, se apoyan con mala fé por la democracia que protegen los derechos expresión.
Así se hace necesario que la opinión pública reciba , como cuando recibimos una notificación oficial, cuando las informaciones sean de interés general, veraces y apoyadas en la ciencia.
Disinformation or fake news spreads against democracy and only favours a select group of the elite who handle privileged information, close to the circles of government and power, for their own benefit. It is important to take into account why Elon Musk took control of Twitter (now called X) and the modification that was established in the social networks controlled by meta, where information is not checked, and there are selective blocks to information contrary to the "dominant ideology of these social networks".
A case to take into account is the president who took office in Argentina by means of a "balotage" (54% MILEI vs. 44%UP), because no force got more than 40% and 10% of difference with the second. In the general elections the officialism obtained 37%, the LLA of MILEI 29.9% (almost two points less than in the PASO which are the compulsory internal elections to validate the candidates) and in third place the PRO WITH 24.5%). thanks to the fake news, the media spreading those lies and the bad management of the UP government GIVES THE TRIUMPH OF MILEI. Once Milei won the ballot he was isolated for 4 months in an important hotel in CABA, owned by one of his main shareholders, where the law firms of the main companies drafted the law bases and its unconstitutional decrees that he is issuing evading the executive branch and buying wills in parliament (Senator Kuider was arrested at the border of the Republic of Paraguay, entering with more than 200.000 dollars illegally and from the debate of the law bases until its approval tried to relaizar real estate operations in that country for more than 600,000 dollars, coincidence with the management and his vote that helped to the approval of that law.
La desinformacion o noticias falsas difundidas atenta contra la democracia y solo favorece a un grupo selecto de la elite que maneja informacion privilegiada , cerca de los circulos de gobierno y poder, para su beneficio propio. Es importante tener en cuenta porque Elon Musk toma el control de Twiter (hoy llamado X) y la modificacion que se establecio en las redes sociales controladas por meta , donde no se chequea la informacion, y hay bloqueos selectivos a información contraria a la " ideologia dominante de estas redes sociales".
Un caso a tomar en cuenta es el presidente que asumio en Argentina por medio de un balotage ( 54% MILEI CONTRA 44%UP ), por no conseguir ninguna fuerza mas del 40% y 10% de diferencia con el segundo. En las elecciones generales el oficialismo obtuvo el 37%, la LLA de milei 29.9% ( casi dos puntos menos que en las PASO que son las internas obligatorias para validar los candidatos) y en tercer lugar el PRO CON EL 24.5%). gracias a las fake news , los medios difundiendo esas mentiras y la mala gestion del gobierno de UP LE DA EL TRIUNFO DE MILEI. Una vez que Milei gano el balotage estuvo 4 meses aislado en un importante hotel de la CABA , propiedad de uno de sus principales apotantes, donde los estudios de abogados de las principales empresas redactaron la ley bases y sus decretos anticonstitucionales q va emitiendo eludiendo el poder ejecutivo y comprando voluntades en el parlamento ( el senador kuider fue detenido en la forntera de la rep de Paraguay , ingresando con mas de 200.000 dolares ilegalmente y a partir del debate de la ley bases hasta su aprobacion intento relaizar operaciones inmobiliarias en ese pais por mas de 600000 dolares, coincidencia con la gestion y su voto que ayudo a la aprobacion de esa Ley.
Join the conversation!