But it does. "Persona", etymologically, means 'mask' (Per = through, Sonare = Speak. As in, 'the thing you speak through', context: Plays and such, where you'd wear a mask). But I doubt you'd have any luck telling Merriam and Webster to update the definition of 'Persona' and mention only the mask thing.

Words mean what the majority thinks they mean.

Democracy as a word has been used as a word that means, mostly, that there are elections. The specific notion that the people decide directly is usually referred to us 'direct democracy'. A very wide ranging set of systems which all have in common that, primarily, some chunk of the populace gets to vote politicians out of office, has been called 'representative democracy'.

In the case of 'representative democracy', the 'democracy' bit still means 'power' for 'the people'. It's just that the 'power' that 'the people' have is specifically the ability to vote in (and out) a bunch of representatives who then decide.

Perhaps it is disappointing that this model didn't do what you wanted it to do here (which is: Presumably said representatives should decide to do what the people want them to do), but to lean on etymology to claim that this isn't 'democracy', that's just fallacious reasoning.

No, the representatives have a moral and lawful obligation to act in the interest of the people they represent; that is the principle that is holding representative democracy together. They did not do that this time and that is why it feels anti-democratic.

> They did not do that this time

Because you decided they didn't?

Elections are coming up pretty soon, if they really didn't then the vast majority of them are getting voted out in what will surely be the greatest upheaval in the history of the EU; which of course won't happen because hundreds of millions of us do feel that we're being correctly represented.

protip: just because you got outvoted, it doesn't mean that democracy isn't working correctly.

> Elections are coming up pretty soon, if they really didn't then the vast majority of them are getting voted out in what will surely be the greatest upheaval in the history of the EU; which of course won't happen because hundreds of millions of us do feel that we're being correctly represented.

Hundreds of millions? Surely not. I am sure that there isn't even one hundred million EU citizens that know and/or understand what this is, let alone feel good about it. That's why nothing will change, I agree on that with you, but that changes nothing about how bad and wrong this is.

> Because you decided they didn't?

No. It's because every trustworthy organisation that cares about open Internet actually says (contrary to their usual silence) that this is alarming and have done everything they could to stop this. I really don't understand why you don't listen to them, I see no logical reason not to - everything they (e.g. Wikipedia) say is true and objective. There is a middle ground that we could try to find.

On top of that, every single author/content creator I know is against it and says that their work is doomed because their platform won't accept it or will end. Because of how much of that content is educational, this is definitely something that goes directly against interests of every EU citizen, much more than any copyright-related bullshit.

In this case, foreign corporate interests (EU produces a minority of worldwide content) were more valuable to our representatives (that we can't even choose because our country is too small - we have less than 3% of the EP) than our own interests, and that's why I don't think democracy is working, not because I got outvoted. On top of that, in this case, my country is caught in the middle of a German-France political deal that we can do nothing about (again, less than 3% seats in the EP). It is literally against all interests of all citizens of my country, approved to serve German/French interests - that is totally undemocratic. There literally is not a single subject (person, company, etc) that would benefit from this in my country - every content creator here is small.

Protip: Just that it suits you doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of people are happy with it, especially if most nonprofit AND commercial players agree it's wrong.

The power stems from the people, but in a representtve democracy we the people give the power to elected members of parliament, to represent us so that those parliamentarians can devote their time into the different issues and ensure broad support, contrary to more direct forms of governance where the general population can't invest much time into many debates and only engages where particular interests are touched.

But the parliament and (more indirectly) the council were chosen by the people to exercise power on their behalf in democratic elections.

I am sick of people using this as some kind of an universal argument. The communist party in 1946 was also elected lawfully in my country, and Hitler also was (and yes, I'm fully aware that he lied to the German people - that's the point). And the fact that someone elected these people does not change anything about the possibility of them lying to the people that elected them, and it also changes nothing about the lawful and moral obligation these people have to their people (people they represent - all citizens of their country, not "people that voted for them"!) that they should act in their best interests - which they can just not do at any time, such as now, which makes this argument irrelevant.

That's why it is important that the 'will of the people' is bounded by a strong, hard to modify, constitution.

But that constitution, if legitimate, expresses the will of the people itself. So what really happens is that the principles of the people bound the whims of the people.

Many constitutions were written by some "wise father of the nation".