,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I am perplexed by the fuss about fake news and malicious disinformation. Haven't such things always been part of politics? Isn't the fuss really about the fact that elites no longer have exclusive control of political discourse?
Likewise the hysteria over 'interference' in elections. Isn't the whole point of democracy that elections are open to 'interference'? Isn't 'interference' just a pejorative term for 'influence'?
Who decides what is 'fake news' and what is an alternative perspective? Who decides what is 'malicious disinformation' and what is exposure of truth? Who but the same elites who mourn the loss of exclusive control?
Who decides when legitimate influence over the democratic process becomes illegitimate 'interference' in that process? Who but the very forces which are jealously protective of their own 'influence'?
If the aim is to open up political discourse then this is best achieved, not by censoring news and information, but by teaching people how to be active consumers of media messages.
If the ambition is to improve democracy then this is best achieved, not by putting obstacles in the way of alleged 'interference', but by removing obstacles to popular influence within the democratic process.
