Spalpeen

Clay, what really tipped you over the edge? Was it the eight trillionth biased, irrelevant, spammed, or purchased link on the homepage of Digg.com that made you lose faith? Or was it the fact that every politician who has successfully utilised the internet, has cynically used it to raise money for their existing political platforms? Perhaps the continuing utter insignificance of Creative Commons in relation to greater society, and the prevalence (and success) of DRM?

Technology is not innately “good.”

People split the atom, they use it to build bombs that can millions, and to provide power for millions.

People make a site that can allow anyone to vote for stories, they use it to help other people discover “10 Famous People Saved By The Heimlich“, as well as the latest obscure political development.

Crowds are not wise. They are mobs.

Clay now thinks of the internet as “just another implementation layer for special interest groups” - this didn’t have to be the case! But that’s what happens when people just invent a piece of technology and give it to millions with no guidance. There will always be a need for editorial control.

Frankly, the kind of wide eyed optimism that many people have about the internet is really unhelpful. Theories aren’t enough. Just putting it out there isn’t enough. It’ll take a lot of hard work to make the internet even a shade of the amazing place that people like Clay like to imagine. People want money and power, and the internet is just another tool to get it.

Catch21 got Emily Thornberry MP, Mark Field MP and Nick Harvey MP on to talk about Boris Johnson’s off-hand suggestion for National Service for young people, knife crime and how to encourage young people to volunteer.

This is one of the primary reasons that I believe representative-based politics isn’t the right system to run Governments by. Why should $500 million need to be spent to find the next president, why should any money be spent finding a leader? That money could and should be used on actually improving the lives of people in America. OK, so some will argue that the money will improve America by supporting a worthy candidate, although I’d be willing to argue that the majority of that money is about garnering influence over the representative. Each presidential candidate will be hosting events where you’re expected to pay money to attend, and the pay off is an audience with the candidate, and therefore the potential to influence policy.

It’s the same situation with lobby groups. The same group of rich people have an unfair influence over the process of running a Government. Why should money be the yardstick by which a country’s agenda (via powerful and well funded lobby groups) is set, and the barrier to entry to a politician hearing what you need to say (via rich donors)? The answer is that it shouldn’t.

Strict deliberative democracy doesn’t have representatives. Even a mild form of deliberative democracy that exists within a representative liberal democracy could have the effect of reducing the influence of money over the process of Government.