[grunder_advice]

Pretty much all western countries are experiencing a crisis of democracy. It seems to me that the biggest contributor to this is the vulnerability of the electorate. It seems to me that it has become possible to hijack the minds of individuals with sustained propaganda campaigns.

You have individuals who at best completely a BSc in Business Studies, and you are asking them to decide on COVID or climate change. That by itself is a hard ask. Then you infiltrate their content consumption habits and you bombard them with propaganda. And then these people are asked to decide on the future of the nation. This of course only compounds on the natural divisions that are already present within the electorate.

I'm not immune from this, and neither are you. I don't know what the solutions should be and how CS graduates in particular can help. It just seems to me that we haven't developed enough on a social level to deal with these challenges.

[GardenLetter27]

IMO the issue is not propaganda at all, but real physical problems that are not being addressed.

Western governments have been mostly incapable of building housing and infrastructure. We have a severe housing shortage, barely improved public transport since the 80s, a lack of energy production (in Europe), lack of reservoirs, an aging population and increased international competition, etc.

And this all creates a huge pressure for ordinary people, just housing alone has a huge impact now - stunting the formation of families, and effectively taxing productive people to fund those who were lucky enough to buy the assets in the past.

[cycomanic]

This is one thing that I don't understand, take for example Germany, the population barely grew over the last 20 years [1], at the same time there has been a building boom that building costs have risen dramatically (more than doubled between 2010 and 2024). Compare that to the 60s and 70s where population was rising much faster in combination with the rebuilding effort. So is the growth of housing stock lower than the population growth? If yes how come that this was not the case when population growth was significantly faster (even 30 years ago). I don't recall there being more building going on when I was young than now, in fact if anything my impression is it's the other way around.

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/germany-popul...

[atmavatar]

> IMO the issue is not propaganda at all, but real physical problems that are not being addressed.

I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, a big reason the real problems aren't being addressed is because of propaganda.

To my mind, the biggest problem is ultimately wealth/power consolidation in the hands of a shrinking group, resulting from massive consolidation of markets, repeatedly eliminating taxes on the most wealthy, and legalized bribery finally cemented in the Citizens United ruling.

As a regular worker, you have limited job mobility because there are fewer businesses within any market you may specialize in, those remaining players in the market often act as cartels, and emboldened shareholders demand layoffs on the regular. It feels like you're drowning in costs because housing has long outpaced inflation while your typical yearly raise rarely meets or exceeds it.

You can turn to your representatives for some relief, but voting Republican is guaranteed to make the problem worse (and they aren't shy about telling you they'll screw you over for the benefit of the wealthy), while voting Democrat doesn't actually make things better because they're controlled by the same special interests and merely present the illusion of an alternative.

The consolidated media, owned almost entirely by wealthy individuals with explicit mandates to support right-wing messages (e.g., Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Sinclair Broadcasting group, and now Paramount Skydance) and constantly tell you that all your problems are really the fault of immigrants and other minorities - hence how we ended up with ICE-occupied cities, while simultaneously only making the problem worse with tariffs, which both increased prices and led to a slump in job creation.

[antman]

I will agree but rephrase, they were not incapable limiting supply of housing or chinese imports or international information channels is the model. Artificial barriers, ethical redefinitions, rag pulling, tollboothing have been the way to divide and conquer to channel the decaying international and domestic market share to political affiliates. Most political , maga, lgbt, policing, race etc issues are highlighted and disproportionately promoted to noise out discourse about money. If money and safety is considered as a key factor of historical actions and current events, then countries grievances are eastbti explain. When I hear for the other side the media to claim “they went crazy”, “they are barbarian subhumans” I know I am being manipulated.

[grunder_advice]

Propaganda always builds on real greviences that the electorate has.

It's good that you bring up housing. There are, to my knowledge no political parties that have made housing their top agenda item. They only use housing as a talking point to serve their message. For example the extreme right will just say, immigrants are occupying all the housing supply. The extreme left will say it's just capitalism that is to blame.

[zavec]

> IMO the issue is not propaganda at all, but real physical problems that are not being addressed.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. There can be real problems, and propaganda can magnify those and lead people to decisions that are for the benefit of the propagandist rather than things that will actually solve the problem.

[lljk_kennedy]

Failure of the markets, and capitalism in general. Surely if the markets worked properly there would be ample housing due to demand?

[watwut]

That does not explain radicalization and anti-democratic turn of billionaires.

Ordinary people who are turning fascists are not turning fascists because of economic anxiety. They reject party that make economy better.

[AlecSchueler]

> Western governments have been mostly incapable of building housing and infrastructure.

The reason we need non stop housing construction is because the underlying issue is capitalism's demand for infinite growth.

[_heimdall]

In my opinion these types of problems always boil down to fear. When a person or people are afraid they act erratically. At a large scale it often leads to the wrong type of leader stepping up to use that fear for their own gain, in many cases they pull the majority together by pointing at a smaller group and claiming they're the cause of all the problems.

The only reliable solution I know to that is for people to be principled. People need to know what core fundamentals matter to them and they need to stick to those guns consistently.

Today it seems like we've lost that almost entirely. Most people hold strong views on certain topics or policies but they aren't driven by principles, that becomes clear when their strong opinions contradict themselves at a pretty fundamental level.

There are plenty of symptoms of the problem and I'm oversimplifying here, but if I could wave a magic wand and change one thing it would be to restore principles back in the average person. I honestly don't care what their principles are, I don't think that's the point, we simply can't move in a good direction without people knowing what matters to them.

[AnimalMuppet]

You stopped too soon in your analysis. Why is there so much fear? Why is there more than, say, the 1980s? The 1970s? (Or was there this much fear then, too, and we just don't remember it that way?)

Is it basically economic? We had this amazing economic ride from 1945 through the early 1970s, and that gave a view of what life could be like that permeated society and gave hope, and the hope continued long past the growth. Now people are realizing that the hope is not likely to happen to them. Is the fear caused by realizing that the hope is in danger? (That hope is in danger in another way, too. People are realizing that, even if they get better economic circumstances, past a certain point prosperity is still kind of empty.)

Or is the fear manufactured? Is it part of the propaganda? Are we being made to feel afraid, so that we can have a crisis of democracy? So that more non-democratic leaders can take over?

Or is it something else?

[microtonal]

The only reliable solution I know to that is for people to be principled.

...and educated.

Today it seems like we've lost that almost entirely.

We replaced it by egoism. Through decades of neoliberalism we are taught to only care about ourselves, not our communities. Making money and buying things became our main philosophy. It does not matter if you are actually well-off, everyone is in a race with everyone else.

As a result, we don't stand up against injustice as long as it does not affect us much. And the egoism makes everything seem like a zero-sum game, if an immigrant gets a house paid by taxes, then I must be losing something.

This is also what permeates current US policy - you can only win if someone else loses. In this mindset it is not possible to have cooperation that is mutually beneficial.

I hope we can heal as mankind and take care of each other again.

[mikkupikku]

Even if everybody agreed on the basic facts (which is only possible if they're all drinking from the same well, eg impossible if the press is free) there would still be huge disagreement on what political course of action to take in response to those agreed upon facts, because different people have different values.

Take your global warming example, and suppose we have a magic wand to make everybody agree that it's happening, that humans were causing it, that its happening fast enough to cause massive extinctions, and that action now might still prevent this. With all of these given as universally held beliefs, it should be easy to resolve right? Well no, because in this scenario the magic wand aligned just about everything except values. Does somebody really care about the long term ecological impact of the thing more than they care about how environment austerity would impact them and their family personally? Some will, some won't, so the political debate remains standing. In fact, many of those selfish people will probably decide to stubbornly insist on a narrative that global warming isn't real, even though they know it is (thanks to the magic wand), so you'll be left wondering if your wand even worked at all.

[grunder_advice]

I don't discount that people have different values and interests. I said that propaganda compounds on those divisions. I think aligning values is also something that is actionable, but that's another topic altogether. My general feeling is that our democracies would be much healthier without embellished fake new narratives about what is happening around us, irrespective of how different our values might be.

For example, let's take global warming as an example. The embellished fake news narrative is that any action at all to reduce our carbon footprint will bring about complete economic collapse, and that global warming is fake news anyway and extreme weather has a completely intangible effect on the life of people living today.

Both of those are false embellished fake news narratives that build upon real concerns. It's true that we should keep the economic health of the nation in frame when we discuss measures. It's true that we might to some extent insure ourselves against natural distastes. But the fake news narrative is the embellishment of these concerns.

[rahimnathwani]

Apart from facts and values, people differ in their ability to predict the outcome of policy choices.

[fc417fc802]

> In fact, many of those selfish people

Is it selfish to take the attitude that humanity will deal with the consequences of its actions as they arise? That rather than expending vast amounts of capital reorganizing and regulating society to prevent disturbances before they happen we can instead accept the disturbances and deal with the consequences as necessary?

I don't personally think very highly of such a plan but neither do I think that it is reasonable to apply a blanket label of "selfish" to anyone who speaks in favor of it.

[SCdF]

> and you are asking them to decide on COVID or climate change

In case you didn't mean this, do you agree that the propaganda you're referencing above is the "you" in this sentence? eg the propaganda is the thing that is asking them to decide on covid or climate change.

I don't think anyone who is genuine expects the public to have expertise in these topics. The propaganda seems centred around a constant war against intellectualism and expertise, such that people think they should have an opinion on things they are woefully unqualified to have opinions on, and politicians just align themselves to what they think will get votes.

[xtiansimon]

> “…do you agree that the propaganda you're referencing above is the "you" in this sentence?”

?? The op is making “propaganda” by some assertions in their comment?

[goatlover]

Who is responsible for these sustained propaganda campaigns? Some of it is foreign interference looking to destabilize, but a lot of it is sponsored by wealthy individuals whose interests are a lot different than the average person, and whose opinions are sheltered from the realities of ordinary life.

[arethuza]

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

Warren Buffet

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26ever...

[Spooky23]

The core are reactionary people who control resource extraction businesses. The Koch’s, Waltons, etc.

Now there are many players. The useful idiots have enriched themselves enough that they are a force unto themselves,

[rsp1984]

The boring but true answer is that the only thing people should be protesting for is a change of the electoral law. Everything else is downstream of that.

In the US, it's a de-facto duopoly on power, held up by a number of "winner-takes-all" rules. Politicians of either party will do everything in their power to keep "outsiders" (i.e. people/parties that are not entrenched in the two-party system and might actually drive positive change) from ever gaining a foothold.

In Germany it's the famous 5% rule that virtually ensures that every new party must maximize populism or perish.

I'm sure it's very similar in most other "democratic" countries.

Laws aren't perfect. In fact they often are buggy as hell. The electoral law is certainly no exception. However it is ultimately the law that matters most as it determines who can raise to power and who can't. Ensuring it fair and democratic should be the #1 civic duty.

[jhbadger]

I'm not sure "keeping out outsiders" is a bug. The US is experiencing what it is like to be governed by an outsider with no previous political experience and who thinks things like "laws" don't apply to him, and who thinks experts can't be trusted and puts unqualified people in charge of the military, science and health. Politicians need to develop -- they should start with a local position, and "graduate" to a national-level position before they even attempt to rule a nation.

[pousada]

IMO the 5% rule is pretty good.

Otherwise we would have loonies like the Grey Panthers (old people party), the “Spiritual Party”, or the extreme right-wing “Republicans” (AFD is moderate compared to those) being able to vote on laws etc.

Of course that also cuts out some parties that I have supported in the past, but the system allows a lot of parties to participate that aren’t _that_ populist (e.g. the Greens, the Left, the Pirates (I think they managed to get a seat or two in the past))

Of course it’s not perfect, but I still think it’s one of the best flawed systems we came up with so far. We should keep iterating on it but very slowly and carefully.

[raincole]

> You have individuals who at best completely a BSc in Business Studies, and you are asking them to decide on COVID or climate change. That by itself is a hard ask.

But it's more or less the premise of democracy.

A professor in our school jokingly said that the key of functional democracy is to distance average voters from decision making processes. Now I am not so sure whether he was joking at all.

[jonstewart]

I dunno monied interests leveraging newfound scale of propaganda through internet monopolies might also bear some of the blame.

[rolandog]

> You have individuals who at best completely a BSc in Business Studies, and you are asking them to decide on COVID or climate change. That by itself is a hard ask. [...]

Personally, I don't think it's that hard of an ask. The problem was allowing the platforming of disinformation sponsored by adversary nation states that led to the mental pollution and radicalization of so many individuals.

Also, not protecting the neutral institutions and allowing that distrust be sown was a big mistake.

Finally, not taking the reports of infiltration of police and security agencies by extreme right organizations seriously has been proving to be a nation-ending level of an error.

[kylecazar]

Populism tends to emerge from real grievances. Economic hardship, job insecurity, rapid social change. We're definitely seeing it.

Simultaneously, propaganda is getting worse. If you read the NY Post/Facebook and watch Fox, you aren't just getting a different opinion from someone watching CNN and reading the NYT. You're getting different facts. I encourage people to do a comparison. Its wild.

[lazide]

It’s always been the case (people getting hi jacked with propaganda campaigns!)

The difference now is how targeted, specific, and external said campaigns can be - for cheap.

Previously, if you started to send the anti-every-other-group propaganda to each individual, you’d be clearly identifiable, it would be more visible (flyers, leaflets, etc.) and consequences could be aimed in your direction.

What is going on now appears to be more like most people have ‘your own little narcissist’ in their pocket, poking their buttons in a way designed to drive them and everyone else crazy while deflecting the blame on everyone else.

Also, as the peer comment noted - all of this distracts from people’s actual real needs being met, which makes them easier to manipulate. It’s a classic strategy for any Narcissist.

[grunder_advice]

Thanks for making this point. I 100% agree. I think previously the way politics worked, there was an element of people keeping each other in check. Now everyone can become as radicalized as their individual limits allow them to become because they live in a personally crafted narrative.

[rjdj377dhabsn]

> Pretty much all western countries are experiencing a crisis of democracy.

Genuine question: what exactly is a "crisis of democracy"?

I see this term thrown around all the time now, but all I can conclude is it's just part of the hyperbolic rhetoric that dominates mainstream and social media.

[racktash]

I think you've described the problem (or one of them) very well.

We've seen how misinformation -- including ideas that were once fringe, believed only by a minority of cranks -- spreads and becomes acceptable, becomes a "legitimate alternative opinion".

We've seen, too, how hostile states, populists within, spread falsehoods to sew havoc and division.

My only hope, really, is that I think some of the younger generation are slightly more alert than some Gen X and millennials (my own generation) as to the dangers of misinformation online.

I wish I knew the solution too. Like you, I feel quite helpless even in terms of what to WANT. Can the Twitters of the world be regulated? If so, are we as a society able to agree on how it should be regulated, or are we too divided to agree on anything?

It's a mess. I don't know how we get out of it.

[redkoan]

Sometimes it seems to me that the general population should forsake the illusion of privacy on the web, and that mass interactions (comment sections, social media etc.) should embrace and enforce verified identities online more to curb the amount of influence being exerted on the public opinion.

To much poison in the well without any (social) accountability

[XorNot]

> Pretty much all western countries are experiencing a crisis of democracy.

No America is pretty uniquely having one, but because of American exceptionalism instead it can never just be an American problem it simply must be a global one.

[starryex]

I think one think we can do as engineers is refuse to build these propaganda machines. All the tools used to infect people with the propaganda are built by us. Refuse to work for the biggest offenders - Google, Meta, Twitter, etc. Engineers lust after these jobs and then complain about the fall of democracy. This is the biggest thing we can do. Refuse to build the tools of misinformation.

[hackable_sand]

Then why are you propagating class divide in your very comment? Like what the actual fuck?