So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information?
For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with detailed discussion there's a bigger, dumber one.
I would love someone to propose something radical, but the only new ideas I've heard are monarchy (from people that also tend to think minorities are a problem) which is terrifying, or Chinese style rule, which honestly sort of seems to be working? I have no idea, I'm a software developer, not a political theorist, but you have hit the nail on the head.
"If you can't choose wisely, choose randomly"
https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...
It seems to me that often, those people tend to be lobbyists that just happened to volunteer themselves when the politician was out of their depth. If the politician is any good at what they do, they will consult several experts, but there is still room for significant bias to creep in.
Now the question is whether the average random citizen is more or less likely than the average politician, to succumb to this kind of external influence. My guess is that random selection will yield less people who are only in it for the power, but also less people who are genuinely driven by the need to solve problems within society.
Two misconceptions in one short phrase.
Democracy always worked perfectly well, just not as advertised, a common phenomenon with heavily advertised products.
Social media is just making things harder and more expensive for advertisers. They'll figure something out, with much groaning and moaning.
Imagine a world government wherein the killing, torture, and imprisonment of people is illegal, as the core clause of the state. In this state, the core clause does not permit the interests of the state over those of the individual; the state exists to support an individual.
Imagine a political party which comes to power through the co-option of the public sphere to support the above goals, while preaching that this party alone is capable of bringing about the revolution. Imagine a single leader which is the beating heart.
Imagine this party preaching that the global economy must be reverse-engineered to adhere to the above-mentioned goal. Imagine that technical renaissance is trumpeted.
Imagine this totalitarian state and its transparent principles. Transparent enough to call itself totalitarian.
Now imagine the orange flag flying on the marble arch on a clear day.
ooh the irony...
That's not the reason democracy is broken. Democracy was broken since the time of the ancient Greeks. That's what Socrates set out to prove with his trail. Democracy is not a good system, the sooner you come to that conclusion the better it is!
The underlining problem is that fair and honest journalism - that reports the facts and lets the viewer/reader make up their own mind - has been replaced by a sided & weaponized news media, owned and operated by those with high-level agendas (those that want to impose control on the public, engage in geopolitics, fight petrodollar wars, consolidate power, etc).
Attention is scarce. So when you combine all the resources and effort that marketing departments from Fox News to Charmin toilet paper, add Facebook as a primary medium, throw iPhones and ADHD into the mix, the only tactics that work appeal to base instincts. Make something flashy, attention grabbing, and short lived.
When that happens to ALL information, there’s no place left for balanced thinking that doesn’t come to some immediate divisive conclusion that just confirms what you already believed. There isn’t enough attention to get depth or thought provoking material in and have it win in your A/B tests.
So what happens? Democracy loses as base radicalization is mechanically forced by the attention economy to win out.