Not attempting to argue against democracy, but that the algorithms that control what news and items we see are very important, and they are not even open-source! They could take many different forms, some that don't promote outrage as a bottom line, and still be democratic. You mention "especially as we learn how to control the worst aspects of social media", but are we actually making any concrete progress in this area, that we can measure and also call fair?

>The oppressed people themselves are leading the narrative, not because it's fashionable

I'm simply suggesting that the narrative is led by what content is viral. Depending on what people like to talk about, sometimes that might be a just cause and appear to have good effects. But, there is not at all guaranteed, and the system doesn't really care if your cause is just or not, only if it is viral and profitable to report on, which generally means enraging.

The term 'democratic' has fundamentally different connotations in politics, and in media.

'Social Media' is not 'more democratic' it's just a free-for-all where small voices have massively disproportionate power, and there are no controls or integrity - it's just crude, unbridled, bloody populism. A more democratic 'social media' would weigh every plebe's opinion equally.

The 'Free Press' is a self-regulating institution, like a 5th estate, much like the Central Bank, you don't get a 'vote' to determine what interest rates will be, but there is an open system in place for that to happen. You can 'vote' by buying papers and whatnot, but there are other systematic controls.

Social Media is not something we have figured out how to properly use just yet.

To me, "democratic" basically means "majority rule". By that definition, a website offering "social media" is the antithesis of democratric. The website owner is always the deciding vote.

That's a huge mistake. Democracy means "people rule", not "majority vote". The minority are part of the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I used the word "basically" for a reason. Nor did I use the word "vote". I said "majority rule". FWIW, I used that term to refer to an outcome not necessarily a process. I should have been more careful.

The Tyranny of the Majority Wikipedia page presents a criticism of majority rule. This criticism does not contradict the idea that democracy is likely to result in majority rule; it supports it. One can say "democracy bascially means majority rule" because, for those of us in the West, that is, by and large, what we get. According to Wikipedia, the legistlatures of all democratic nations use majority rule (the process) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

However, I only presented a personal and basic definition of democracy, not necessarily a comprehensive or correct one. That is why I used the words "To me" and "basically".

When majority rule is not the outcome of democracy, would you agree that "the people", at least some of them, will contest the notion that what they have is a "democracy"?

How can anyone see the popular social newtorks as democractic?

> I've read enough history to be convinced that democratic-anything is usually better.

How did you come to this conclusion? Legitimately asking because I'd draw the opposite conclusion.

I recommend reading “Why Nations Fail” by Daron Acemoglu. At a very high level, nations often fail because of elite-driven rent extraction. Sometimes they don’t just fail for a few decades, they continue to spectacularly fail for centuries.

When people are forced out of their social and economic agency by a narrow elite, they will continue to be deprived of their agency long after that elite is replaced by another elite and another elite until people forget that they ever had culture and wealth. Now, I don’t think we’re seeing the worst manifestation of that in the U.S. Far from it. But it was striking to see not only how consistently problematic elite stratification is, but how good it can be to give power to the people.

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307719227/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_pp...

During the rise of social media I tended to think the same way, but now I think it’s vital to be able to distinguish between “democratic” and “accessible.”