Update

bajsicki.com.org

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+/home/phil/enc/org/bajsicki.com.org

content/blog/democracy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
++++
+title = "Democracy"
+publishDate = 2024-12-07T00:00:00+01:00
+lastmod = 2024-12-08T00:42:37+01:00
+draft = false
+meta = true
+type = "list"
+[menu]
+  [menu.posts]
+    weight = 3001
+    identifier = "democracy"
++++
+
+One thing that's bothering me since @Beggarmidas@mastodon.social posted a link to [his write-up](https://medium.com/@beggarmidas@mastodon.social/electioncuted-373e4dac07f3) is that... we're not in the best of places as a society.
+
+The algorithms which control the content you see on social media, in the news, even in your email are a much more  thing than the possibility of someone messing with the physical process of voting (software included).
+
+Being able to sway votes in the favor of one's preferred candidate by slowly and persistently feeding them information which gently guides them to vote one way or the other, over time, is something that should be 100% addressed.
+
+If one is able to manipulate people to vote the way you want, that's a problem.
+
+If it's possible to do so in such a way that the influence is evident but within the bounds of the law, that's even worse.
+
+If one can sway voters in such a way that even they don't realize they've been manipulated, and they're under the impression that their choices are their own... that's _really really bad_.
+
+Feeding someone ideas over time (regarless of the medium) to effectively convert them to one's ideas/ philosophy is a long tradition - going as far back as antiquity.
+
+"We're just talking", they'll want to exclaim in their defense. "It's free speech", others may argue. "Freedom of the press," we may hear.
+
+Sure. I get it. But at the same time... the democratic process relies on the assumption that the voters are rational and well-informed{{<sidenote>}}Which is much more than I (as someone working in security) am comfortable with.{{</sidenote>}}.
+
+The former is easily proven false. But fair enough, even in that case an argument can be made that from the voter's perspective, they are doing what's best for them.
+
+The latter, on the other hand... is completely unsupported by current information channels. What we see instead is partisan, incomplete, twisted and warped bits of information that is _essentially_ true in its localized form, but is taken out of context, thus misleading and misinforming the public.
+
+There is this idea that **in a democracy voters choose their representatives based on who best represents their interest.**
+
+What I see happening in the US is the opposite. Politicians and corporate interests intentionally manipulate voters to serve their own ends{{<sidenote>}}I.e. they are perverting the democratic process on a fundamental level.{{</sidenote>}}.
+
+We see this most clearly in the recent presidential elections; both sides{{<sidenote>}}I can only assume, but it seems very likely that it's a conscious effort.{{</sidenote>}} create a theater where social issues of great importance are at stake (often put there), in order to draw the public in, to drive voters into a frenzy{{<sidenote>}}Single-issue voters, anyone?{{</sidenote>}}, all the while pulling attention away from vital issues, such as healthcare, infrastructure, education, and so on.
+
+The process seems to be straightforward: find an issue which will make people freak out/ take sides, and let all the _critical decisions happen in the background_, away from prying eyes{{<sidenote>}}Recently abortion rights, gun rights, immigration, LGBT rights. Yes, they're big issues that touch individuals on a profound level, but they're not nearly as wide-reaching (or expensive for the 1%) to address when compared to the sorry state of rail, healthcare, education, housing and food availability, core infrastructure...{{</sidenote>}}.
+
+Naturally, this also plays on the voter's identity. If they identify themselves as a good citizen and they and their cohort believe that abortion is wrong because of one reason or another, they'll be hard-pressed to vote against a candidate that promises to fulfill the conditions that their identity drives them to satisfy{{<sidenote>}} Someone who identifies as Christian will be likely to want to vote a certain way on certain issues to maintain their identity as a Christian.{{</sidenote>}}. This, of course, plays not only on religious grounds - it can be ethnic, social, political or economic.
+
+Someone whose identity is based around their political alignment or whose family has a long history of politics, or military involvement is very likely to see things which deprive politicians of power as negatives when compared to a person who grew up in poverty and didn't get help.
+
+This is obvious, but is an important point - how we see ourselves, the way we see our position and role in society profoundly affects the political choices we make, because...
+
+{{<blockquote>}}Politics is the plans and actions one makes to achieve what they want.{{</blockquote>}}
+
+**But why go to all this effort?**
+
+Because it's much easier to manipulate voters by subjecting them to an existential choice, than it is to inform them of all the choices they can make{{<sidenote>}}And risk not getting what you want. For instance, nobody sane would vote against high-speed passenger rail networks across America if they were aware of the cost savings and lower environmental impact compared to cars that would bring in the long run. Alas, rail is nearly dead in the US, and not getting much better.{{</sidenote>}}.
+
+So in these few paragraphs we have a collection of:
+
+-   Soft influences:
+    -   social media algorithms and bots,
+    -   troll farms,
+    -   personal interactions,
+    -   ad campaigns
+    -   news outlets (TV, newspapers)
+    -   other media (e.g. social campaigns)
+-   Hard influences:
+    -   Existential threats (human rights)
+    -   Economic pressures (healthcare and infrastructure, cost of living)
+    -   Identity pressures (religious, ethnic, social standing/ status)
+
+In all of this, it's really difficult to pin down a single specific element that can be called _election interference_.
+
+Yet putting all these pieces together, we can see that it's not only possible to design and implement a system of influences which can drive heaps of people to satisfy the results those in power desire, but it also allows _us regular people_ to start noticing these patterns.
+
+Now, fair disclaimer: I'm looking at this from the outside, observing and thinking about it, but I'm not in a position to claim that this is or isn't true. It only just so happens that after the last 8 years of occasionally observing what's happening in the US, I have come to think that the US would look and function very differently if such an organized way of (to put it gently) handling and manipulating its citizens was not at play.
+
+Let's think step by step: putting myself in the shoes of say, a presidential candidate - why would I not go all out, and do everything I can to secure the office?
+
+-   If I can bring up a serious controversial issue to polarize voters, I can split society in 2, so I only need to stand against the other party, instead of independents.
+-   If I can keep voters under economic strain, then I can play on their hopes for wealth during my campaign.
+-   If I can keep them sick, then I can string them along by claiming that their ills will be healed.
+
+Better yet...
+
+If I can make them believe that what **I** want is in their best interest, that it'll _fix_ their lives, that it'll _give them power and agency_ in the world, if I can make them _focus on an (imaginary) enemy_ instead of what I'm really doing... why wouldn't I?
+
+Keep the voters confused, keep them meek and dependent, and you'll have a class of (effectively) indentured slaves.
+
+Perhaps these are harsh words, perhaps (I hope) I'm wrong.
+
+But then I look at those [charts](https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/) and [wiki pages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States) and I can't help but feel very uneasy. And this isn't even including the conspiracy grifts or malicious advertisers (has anyone heard of Agora Financial?){{<sidenote>}}All of which only serve to confuse voting demographics further and increase the polarization between the two parties, rather than addressing actual problems.{{</sidenote>}}.
+
+So what's one to do?
+
+I don't have a good answer. But I'll accept this one:
+
+[Join the FSF.](https://my.fsf.org/join)