this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
695 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
85355 readers
3376 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Will they remember this the next time he's up for reelection?
Voters have a depressingly short memory.
That's why democracy is also known as being ruled by the hordes of idiots. It's amazing when people are well informed on what they are voting on, the problem is that's never happened in mass and never will. People will vote based on their feelings or just straight up not at all.
I'm imagining the most wealthy (who think they know what's best for the world, like P.T.) would say something eerily similar to what you are saying.
The very rich have access to all of the information. One can't expect people who face significant barriers to higher education (and other means of informing themselves) to be on the level of experts, the educated and informed, or the very rich.
Why are people against experts, the educated, and the informed?
Partisan news media seems like the likely culprit. A broken political system posing as democracy could be another factor to consider. Opaque algorithms that put people into information bubbles (with the intention to make them addicted and as uninformed/reactionary as possible) are definitely a major factor.
Calling democracy mob rule is really old. I would at least prefer representatives to be scientists or otherwise the most informed on the subject and policies they are deciding on. I would also prefer all policies to be tested to see if they actually create their desired outcomes. I would prefer the desired outcome to always be increasing human and environmental wellbeing.
I’m just thinking how for most of history, humanity put these people on a pedestal and let them get away with a lot (through religion, in most cases I think).
I think your culprits are accurate.
Humanity's leaders reflect the rot within.
family guy episode about lois campaign for mayor basically sums about the low, uniformed voters. all she needs to utter was a few words, and keep reminding people of a past incident.
Yup just tell group X who dislikes thing Y or group Z that X and Z are bad and you're in like Flynn.
https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE
He's not the first but I was thinking about that. I can't remember the critic but early on in the American experiment someone described it as mob rule.
Similar but I would prefer a representative democracy but where the representatives need to be national experts on what they are deciding. So for instance if it's medicine then the representatives need to be physicians and medical scientists, and previous heads of hospitals. If it's dealing with the environment then the representatives need to be environmental scientists, civic engineers, and so on. Aka have the most informed people for that which you are trying to make decisions. Even better, have their policies reviewed by a body of their peers the same way scientific publishing works to get a measure on how good or bad their ideas are. Even better, test their ideas when they've been implemented to see if they're actually working.
I wasn't making a political point with the video, but your points are interesting.
I agree that, as far as I understand it right now, body-reviewed policies are the democracy we should have.
How about also requiring someone to have experience or a degree in a specific field to vote on specific issues? For example, I've been working in tech for a decade, I should be able to vote on technology policies, but not on medical policies.
That's a fair additive although it can be difficult to define the boundaries. Particularly tech can have a far reaching influence and arguably global influence these days. If the scope of the policy is narrow then I can imagine that being functional, if the scope is potentially global then that may become an issue.
or not vote at all
The number of people who vote by the top name is higher than you expect.
Last name start with a B and your opponent's last is a T.... you're getting a head start just because of that alone.
If I dont know any of the candidates, I vote against the declared republican by voting for the declared Democrat. If a republican is running unopposed, I write in Barack Obama. I was a swing voter before Donald Trump became president.
Most ballots randomize the order for that reason.
also they word the propositions in such a way to think you are either supporting or against it.
Fuck elections, these types of people require more immediate consequences.
Lots of recall campaigns have successfully been done. They have the benefit of being very public and attention grabbing by nature. That's if more immediate ejection/dismissal mechanisms don't exist on a panel/committee.
You're operating under the assumption that these people haven't already made the calculation that wherever bribe they received is worth their position.
So recalling them, or voting them out, after they've done what they were bribed/blackmailed to do, isn't the threat, or check on power, that many here believe it to be.
No they won't. Unfortunately
Even if he lose he will be hired by flock, it works this ways sadly.
Meh. Flock isn't big enough to hire every rando county commissioner that buys their garbage. This isn't Lockheed hiring a retiring general or some K street group picking up a friendly senator.
And even if they do hire him, at least he's not in a position supposedly representing anyone anymore.
He didn't get the cameras, the sheriff did. They want them to pass an ordinance to block their use