Twenty years ago, I was one of the most bullish advocates of widespread internet access for the masses. I saw the web as anti-totalitarian, progressive, feminist, and leaning towards fair. It would expose us all to more information and culture. The "open air" of democracy, I thought, would prove harkening if not irresistible to people living under despots who had grown accustomed to dishing out "pravda" (truth) through government and corporate press hegemonies.
In some ways, internet access has, indeed, worked out that way. But the "democratization of online information" has also forced us to deal with other things we see in popular governance. Tyranny of the majority, gerrymandering, and appeal to rhetoric over reason... these are as much at play in the internet today as innovation and shared compassion. Plato's Republic must be required reading at Facebook headquarters. There are fewer editors of the internet, and fewer checks and balances of power. It may be a pure democracy (without executives, representatives, or judges) - which, Plato says, naturally gives rise to dictatorship.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say;
Fools because they have to say something" - Plato
People on both sides of arguments today (online) are trying to bully the moderates. In doing so, they share a common position on the social spectrum.
