THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH THE INFORMATION AGE ARE WE HEADING FOR CYBEROCRACY.

30 Monday Dec 2019

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Cyberocracy., Dehumanization., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Freedom, Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Populism., Reality., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Capitalistic Societies, Cyberocracy., Future Choice., Future generations., Future Society., Human societies, Information revolution., Information Age, Politics of the Future, Social world, The future effect of the Internet, Visions of the future., Wireless information.

(Twenty-minute last post of the year read)

Technology is not neutral or apolitical.

So information may very well come to succeed capital as a central theoretical concept for political and social philosophy.

The retrieval systems of the future are not going to retrieve facts but points of view.

However, the weakness of databases is that they let you retrieve facts, while the strength of our culture over the past several hundred years has been our ability to take on multiple points of view.

The question is, will new technologies speed the collapse of closed societies and favour the spread of open ones. The information revolution empowers individuals, favours open societies, and portends a worldwide triumph for democracy—may not hold up as times change.

The revolution in global communications will forces all nations to reconsider traditional ways of thinking about national sovereignty.

We are witnessing this happing already with the rise of popularism – Election of Donal Trump and Boris Johnston, but the tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. However, mere tools aren’t enough. The tools are simply a way of channelling existing motivation.

The influence in the information age is indeed proving to revolve around symbolic politics and media-savvy — the ‘soft power’ aspects of influence.

The information revolution may well enable hybrid systems to take the form that does not fit standard distinctions between democracy and totalitarianism. In these systems, part of the populace may be empowered to act more democratically than ever, but other parts may be subjected to new techniques of surveillance and control.

Technology with algorithms are leading to new hybrid amalgams of democratic and authoritarian tendencies, often in the same country, like China that is building a vast new sensory apparatus for watching what is happening in their own societies and around the world.

The new revolution in communications makes possible both an intense degree of centralization of power if the society decides to use it in that way, and large decentralization because of the multiplicity, diversity, and cheapness of the modes of communication.

Of all the uses to which the new technologies are being put, this may become one of the most important for the future of the state and its relationship to society.

So are we beginning to see the end of democracy and the beginning of Cyberocracy?

Crime and terrorism are impelling new installations for watching cityscapes, monitoring communications, and mapping potential hotspots, but sensor networks are also being deployed for early warning and rapid response regarding many other concerns — disease outbreaks, forest protection.

However, the existence of democracy does not assure that the new technology will strengthen democratic tendencies and be used as a force for good rather than evil.

The new technology may be a double-edged sword even in a democracy.

To this end, far from favouring democracy or totalitarianism, Cyberocracy may facilitate more advanced forms of both. It seems as likely to foster further divergence as convergence, and divergence has been as much the historical rule as convergence.

Citizens’ concerns about top-down surveillance may be countered by bottom-up “sousveillance” (or inverse surveillance), particularly if individuals wear personal devices for detecting and recording what is occurring in their vicinity.

One way or the other Cyberocracy will be a product of the information revolution, and it may slowly but radically affect who rules, how and why. That is, information and its control will become a dominant source of power, as a natural next step in political evolution.

Surplus information or monopoly information that is concentrated, guarded, and exploited for privileged economic and political purposes could and WILL most likely lead to Governance by social media platforms owned by Microsoft/ Apple/ Google/ Facebook/ Twitter.

When we change the way we communicate, we change society.

The structure may be more open, the process more fluid, and the conventions redefined; but a hierarchy must still exist.

The history of previous technologies demonstrates that early in the life of new technology, people are likely to emphasize the efficiency effects and underestimate or overlook potential social system effects.

The information revolution is fostering more open and closed systems; more decentralization and centralization; more inclusionary and exclusionary communities; more privacy and surveillance; more freedom and authority; more democracy and new forms of totalitarianism.

The major impact will probably be felt in terms of the organization and behaviour of the modern bureaucratic state.

The hierarchical structuring of bureaucracies into offices, departments, and lines of authority may confound the flow of information that may be needed to deal with complex issues in today’s increasingly interconnected world.

Bureaucracy depends on going through channels and keeping the information in bounds; in contrast, Cyberocracy may place a premium on gaining information from any source, public or private. Technocracy emphasizes ‘hard’ quantitative and econometric skills, like programming and budgeting methodologies; in contrast, a Cyberocracy may bring a new emphasis on ‘soft’ symbolic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of policymaking and public opinion.

Why will any of this happen?

Because the actual practice of freedom that we see emerging from the networked environment allows people to reach across national or social boundaries, across space and political division. It allows people to solve problems together in new associations that are outside the boundaries of formal, legal-political association.

As Cyberocracy develops, will governments become flatter, less hierarchical, more decentralized, with different kinds of middle-level officials and offices?

Some may, but many may not. Governments [particularly repressive regimes] may not have the organizational flexibility and options that corporations have.

So where are we?

Future trends:

The advanced societies are developing new sensory apparatuses that people have barely begun to understand and use;
A network-based social sector is emerging, distinct from the traditional public and private sectors. Consisting largely of NGOs and NPOs, its rise is leading to a re-balancing of state, market, and civil-society forces;
New modes of multiorganizational collaboration are taking shape, and progress toward networked governance is occurring;
This may lead to the emergence of the nexus-state as a successor to the nation-state.
We now have communications tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities, and we are witnessing the rise of new ways of coordination activities that take advantage of that change.
Civil society stands to gain the most from the rise of networks since policy problems have become so complex and intractable, crossing so many jurisdictions and involving so many actors, that governments should evolve beyond the traditional bureaucratic model of the state.

There is no doubt that the evolution of network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies will attract government policymakers, business leaders, and civil society actors to create myriad new mechanisms for communication, coordination, and collaboration spanning all levels of governance.

However, states, not to mention societies as a whole, cannot endure without hierarchies.

In the information-age government may well undergo ‘reinventing’ and be made flatter, more networked, decentralized, etc.—but it will still have a hierarchy at its core.” As the state relinquished the control of commercial activities to private companies, both the nation and the state became stronger. Likewise, as the social sector expands and activities are transferred to it, the state should again emerge with a new kind of strength, even though it loses some scope in some areas.

A central understanding of the big picture that enhances the management of complexity is now needed more than ever.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS TRUST IN POLITICIANS AT AN ALL TIME LOW?

30 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Political Trust, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS TRUST IN POLITICIANS AT AN ALL TIME LOW?

Tags

Career politicians, Depoliticization., Fair Political System., Far Right political parties, Political ignorance, Political leaders, Political power., Political spectrum, Political Trust, Politicians, Politics of the Future, Populism., The Lethargy of our Political leaders

(Twenty-minute read)

The problem with the above question is where to start.

Around the world, democracies are distrusted by a majority of their citizens.

As a result, it is creating space for the rise of authoritarian-populist forces or other forms of independent representation.

Without trust we are diminishing our capacity to meet complex, long-term challenges, reducing support for evidence-based public policies and promotes risk aversion in government.

This lack of trust is and will translate into a lack of action.

I suppose that there is no one simple explanation for what drives or undermines political trust but there can be no doubt that social media with the growing worldwide inequality is contributing to spreading distrust. and forming barriers of political engagement.

This is set to get worse with profit-seeking algorithms.

So what is it about citizens, such as their educational background, class, location, country or cohort of birth, that makes them trusting or not?

In general, the strongest predictors of distrust continue to be attitudinal and are connected to negativity about politics which is being influenced more and more by technological algorithms of prediction and recommendation.

What would it be that makes citizens feel that their vote could deliver value?

Most interventions tend to focus on dealing with issues of social disadvantage through education, labour market activation, public participation, improved representation, place-based service delivery and other forms of empowerment.

By offering more participation or consultation we are turning politics into a tokenistic exercise, generating more cynicism and negativity among citizens, who are turning to Populism.

The term populism can designate either democratic or authoritarian movements. Populism is typically critical of political representation and anything that mediates the relation between the people and their leader or government.

Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour parties.

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics.

Populist politics, following this definition.

It revolves around a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than to reflect the different allegiances of the people.

Depending on one’s view of populism, a populist economic program can, therefore, signify either a platform that promotes the interest of common citizens and the country as a whole or a platform that seeks to redistribute wealth to gain popularity, without regard to the consequences for the country.

In Europe, we are seeing the rise of the Swiss People’s Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Swedish Democrats, the Danish People’s Party, the Northern League in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France, Victor Orban in Hungary, and Greece’s Golden Dawn and of course the Brexit party in the UK.

Elsewhere in the world one has to only look at Donald Trump, Dufeele in the Philippines.

The question of what’s fueling this populist?

It’s nothing new.

Most of us are now live in two increasingly separate worlds one wants to eliminate health care, shred the social safety net, and cut taxes on the rich—benefit the winners from globalization and work against the economic interests of the working class.

They others want revenge and this revenge is —not of the economically insecure, but of the cultural left-behinds.

So are groups like the those mentioned above, just groups of nativist, putting their nation first?

The answer is obvious. No. They’re looking backwards.

However, that is not the case, because if populism was truly driven by economic fears, populist candidates should be drawing votes from those who are suffering the most: unskilled workers, the unemployed, those with lower levels of education, and less advantaged groups in cities and urban centres.

Because economic issues have declined in importance to voters, like cultural issues—around women’s rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay rights—climate change – have risen to the fore, along with the anti-immigrant sentiment, authoritarianism, mistrust of global national governance, and right-wing ideological self-placement.

The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western societies.

So a populist leader is forced to be in a permanent campaign to convince his people that he is not established and will never be. Magnify the political divide. Ultimately he ignores complicated democratic systems and is therefore viewed with suspicion…

What if anything can be done?

The importance of beliefs can only be tackled through discussion of the role of mass media in influencing public trust.

The power of mass media is not easy to reconcile with the empirical evidence of experimental social psychology research which demonstrates that people with strong beliefs and values often remain unpersuaded even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Positive economic growth does not necessarily increase political trust, but negative economic growth and prolonged economic crises.

Rather, economic development and social modernisation in advanced industrial democracies have encouraged new types of engaged, questioning and assertive publics, for whom strong economic performance no longer automatically leads to increased trust.

There is only one answer to this question.

It is greater political accountability of MPs and political parties to their electorates and members.

Providing performance data will not work because it leads to government officials trying to manipulate the way citizens judge their performance. Positive data is given prominence, less helpful data sometimes hidden.

There is one thing for sure because trust cut across racial and ethnic lines any solution to the puzzle of political trust can not be achieved without our engagement.

Anti-establishment, might having faith in “plain talkers” and “ordinary people” as opposed to the “corrupt establishment” of business, government, academia, and media but without formal rules there can be no good democratic practice.

Here I may be forgiven for indulging in some wishful thinking and believing that, despite the current shortage of inspirational leadership in the West, trust in democratic principles and values that transcend national boundaries will remain strong and shared by a large number of ordinary people across the world.

The good news for political parties that take up the cause of democratic reform is that the citizenry is ready to take up the challenge.

Finding what is the equilibrium point between political trust and distrust requires reducing inequality because political attitudes are shaped by more than people’s pocketbooks.

In effect, political parties are each a product of the world view of their membership or of their directing minds. Their attitudes, carriage or expression are often indicative of the groups’ underlying body of beliefs, catechism or affirmation of faith.

The chattering class will continue to wallow in their own cynical self-assurance, and the best and most principled among us will remain reticent to enter to the moral minefield of public life.

At the heart of this faulty ontology remains the myth of the autonomous self, the pipe dream that our identity is a “blank slate” that WE choose regardless of the desires and influences of others.

Dogmatism and doctrinaire ideology may seem no longer attractive or realistic political attributes. But democracy will continue to mean a change of government from time to time as if oscillating between two sides with opposing philosophies rigidly applied.

The democratic tradition of alternating governments, evolving policies, pragmatic choices, etc theoretically presents us with some choice with regard to the management of our economic and other affairs.

Being so vulnerable to purely political decisions surely honesty is required.

Perhaps it is time to remove politics from decisions that require long term solutions and set them in law, like reducing Carbon emmission, before we see civil unrest, and migration on a massive scale.

Why should this be done:

Because elections are for political parties to be in office for the short term – five years if not re-elected.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: DEMOCRATIC EMPOWERMENT NO LONG REST WITH POLITICAL PARTIES.

26 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Elections/ Voting, Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: DEMOCRATIC EMPOWERMENT NO LONG REST WITH POLITICAL PARTIES.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Big Data, NEW DEMOCRATIC EMPOWERMENT, politics, Politics of the Future, SMART PHONE WORLD, Technology, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

(A Ten minute read)

You might be asking yourself like many why it is that we are inflicted by the like of Donald Trump, Madame La Pen, Brexit, ect.

Any fool on the street can tell you that technology is changing at a whiplash-inducing pace. What’s much more difficult to predict is which technologies specifically are about to hit big.

To me it is obvious: Artificial Intelligent.

Platforms that serve manipulative interests of political elites, in which leaders do most of the conversing and democratic discussion is reduced to campaigning for elections and the casting of votes.

The result of elections and referendums are becoming more individualistic than they are democratic with Democracy becoming, trivial, incoherent, or manipulative across all sorts of domestic debates, military interventions, consumer advertisements, and television specials.

Democracy use to stirred up by:

The public relations agencies, the direct-mail companies, and opinion-polling firms work in concert with the infrastructure of think tanks, tax-exempt foundations, and other centers. With the press and television industry as the principle gatekeepers of political debate. Other channels of political information are almost nonexistent.

Today, tremendous changes in advanced computing technologies are giving rise TO A NEW DEMOCRATIC EMPOWERMENT, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VOTING.The smart phone rules as to which party is the best in more way than one.

On-line computer services and networks, which are oriented toward spontaneous communication among citizens is limiting their exposure only to the affairs that match their interests. Populist appeal.

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology will and is expanding this type of public involvement with information-driven politics, the politics of knowledge, not necessarily the politics of winning elections.

But does the public really want a daily digest of political information?

IN WHICH IT HAS LITTLE OR NO SAY.

We are witnessing an ominous trend toward political dysfunction as the number who vote in national elections continues to slide below fifty percent.

One possible reason for this trend is that many people believe that political representatives have little to offer in terms of solving the immediate daily concerns of employment, health care, education, housing, transportation, drugs, crime, social decay, injustice, and so on.

Maybe, if the right tools were available, people would have a better chance to communicate with representatives, know and protect their own rights, engage in deliberation, test hypotheses, discover knowledge, discuss theory, and better understand world events

At the moment AI is all about analyzing the content of candidate appeals and making informed guesses about candidates.

Obviously, merit exists in the public becoming more politically astute and “awakening from the dormant state.” Success may depend partially on whether participation can be achieved in such a way as to impinge minimally upon the matters of private life.

The old politics often depicted as canned debates and public spectacle is becoming unacceptable to an intelligent populace.

New politics demands semantic understanding and identifying the chains of reasoning. These goals require building new tools and networks for the next generation of machine politics.

We are in the middle of a technological upheaval that will transform the way society is organized. We must make the right decisions now.

Every minute we produce hundreds of thousands of Google searches and Facebook posts. These contain information that reveals how we think and feel. Soon, the things around us, possibly even our clothing, also will be connected with the Internet. It is estimated that in 10 years’ time there will be 150 billion networked measuring sensors, 20 times more than people on Earth. Then, the amount of data will double every 12 hours.

Many companies are already trying to turn this Big Data into Big Money.

Soon we will not only have smart phones, but also smart homes, smart factories and smart cities.

Should we also expect these developments to result in smart nations and a smarter planet? ALL EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE.

Today 70% of all financial transactions are performed by algorithms.

This all has radical economic consequences: In the coming 10 to 20 years around half of today’s jobs will be threatened by algorithms. 40% of today’s top 500 companies will have vanished in a decade.

Society is at a crossroads, which promises great opportunities, but also considerable risks. HERE I A NOT TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE BUT OUR INABILITY TO EXPRESS OURSELVES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

If we take the wrong decisions it could threaten our greatest historical achievements.

Super-intelligence is a serious danger for humanity.

Search engines and recommendation platforms are beginning to offer us personalised suggestions for products and services.

But it won’t stop there.

Some software platforms are moving towards “persuasive computing.

These platforms will be able to steer us through entire courses of action, be it for the execution of complex work processes or to generate free content for Internet platforms, from which corporations earn billions.

The trend goes from programming computers to programming people.

These technologies are also becoming increasingly popular in the world of politics.

Under the label of “nudging,” and on massive scale, governments are trying to steer citizens towards healthier or more environmentally friendly behaviour by means of a “nudge”—a modern form of paternalism.

Singapore is seen as a perfect example of a data-controlled society.

It won’t be long before Every chinese citizen will receive a so-called ”Citizen Score”, which will determine under what conditions they may get loans, jobs, or travel visa to other countries.

This will be a sort of digital scepter that allows one to govern the masses efficiently, without having to involve citizens in democratic processes.

Would this overcome vested interests and optimize the course of the world?

If so, then citizens could be governed by a data-empowered “wise king”, who would be able to produce desired economic and social outcomes almost as if with a digital magic wand.

God forbid.

Lets hope we remain influenced by issues as much as by perceived.

Democracy is not for Hire or Sale. In order for us to retain control of our lives, these networks should be controlled. I am talking about Google, Twitter, and Facebook.

All technology and associated algorithms should be given a World Health Certificate in as much that they are serving the common good and human values.( See previous Posts)

Creation of computer applications to enhance democratic discussion is now a pressing problem.

Echo’s ability to represent “aggregate behavior” might be useful.

All Common Sense comments appreciated. All like comments chucked in the Bin.

WE CAN NO LONGER OR AFFORD TO LEAVE COMMON SENSE LYING IN A DORMANT STATE.

Starry-eyed cyber optimism [which suggests] a new form of technological determinism according to which the Internet would be the hammer to nail all global problems, IS BULL SHIT. SAY NO TO:

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THE SOURCES OF POLITICAL POWER IS CHANGING. SOCIAL MEDIA IS RUNNING POLITICS.

24 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Communication., Elections/ Voting, Facebook, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., Technology, The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THE SOURCES OF POLITICAL POWER IS CHANGING. SOCIAL MEDIA IS RUNNING POLITICS.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Fair Political System., Political power., Politics of the Future, Power of Social Media, Social networking, Technology

( A ten minute read)

Some posts back I wrote a piece asking if there was any Intelligence between Donald Trump’s ears and a subsequent post on what a vote is worth. ( see previous posts)

We live in turbulent times and the structure of the source of power is changing.

Gathering political information via social media brings an increased risk of digesting information from questionable sources.

Why?

Because Facebook now dominates the news being read by young people and its domination is not just national – it is global.

It may well be time to think about what societies need to do to counter this growing, global news monopoly. Facebook may not be in the business of news production but its impact on news is already profound and not always positive.

Because it is provided by organisations or politicians that are paying Facebook for their attention. Gone are the days of the blind following the blind it’s now the misinformed following the distracted reading their news on their Facebook/Twitter feeds.

Ever since the so-called Facebook Obama election of 2008, our political discourse is shrinking to fit our smartphone screens, where we find cover political campaigns more like a horse race, rather than focusing on the issues.

Donald Trump, he’s the first candidate optimized for the Google News algorithm.

Donald Trump got the equivalent of about $55 million in free advertising space from the eight major media outlets.

Trump a vast web audience—four million followers on Twitter alone.

The best way to dominate the online discussion is not to inform but to provoke which is the changing dynamics of political races. You’re only as relevant as your last tweet. What’s important now is not so much image as a personality that bursts into focus at regular intervals without ever demanding steady concentration.

The more visceral the message, the more quickly it circulates and the longer it holds the darting public eye.

Elections are pivotal in shaping that world – for better or worse.

Up to recently elections were the voice of the people expressed by voting.

Hopefully this will remain so, however fears of a robot apocalypse mask the actual problems that we face by increasingly letting our lives be run by algorithms.

AIs will have and are having a knock-on effects that we have not prepared for.

When a computer spits out an answer we are typically unable to see how it got there.

There are algorithms all around us they may seem neutral and objective and unbiased but in a world of pervasive connectivity AI is the key to harnessing the power of electrical data prior to voting. It allows for millions of election related options that are posted online to be classified automatically and analysed to understand the pulse of an election.

Algorithms are now being used to make life-changing decisions such as when a prisoner should be given parole, or who gets elected. So it is time to forget everything you know about democracy.

Microsoft is building an A.I. empire and will appoint its leaders.

Twitter did exactly that : Producing a man who bankrupted his companies not once, not twice, but six times.

( The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991, Trump Castle, 1992,Trump Plaza and Casino, 1992, Plaza Hotel, 1992, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004, Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009,) and Trump America in 2020, which currently has a National Debt bordering on 20 trillion.

Since his election to be the next President of the US the media headlines are littered with the rhetoric of powerful people in the form of CRINGING WORLD POLITICAL LEADERS CHANGING THEIR SPOTS IN ORDER TO LICK UP TO A MAN THAT HAS MANY CHARACTERISTICS OF A FASCIST.

Mr Trump’s views are some of the most extreme in American politics.

[He has:

advocated deporting nearly 11 million undocumented workers.
called for a border wall to be built between the US and Mexico.
said he would force Mexico to pay for the wall by threatening to ban Mexicans in the US from sending remittances home.
Mr Trump changed his position on abortion at least five times, alarming many social conservatives. This flexibility has convinced many social conservatives that Mr Trump cannot be trusted to appoint a Supreme Court justice who would oppose abortion rights.
Mr Trump has aggressively criticised international trade agreements.
He has repeatedly said the US should rethink its commitments to Nato, saying other member countries do not pay their fair share of the organisation’s budget. He has also floated an idea that South Korea and Japan could arm themselves with nuclear weapons – eliminating the need for US protection.]

In the last few years the Internet has borne witness to and facilitated a great deal of social and societal change.

While undoubtedly carrying the potential to do great good, the Internet has been plagued with numerous impediments NONE WORSE THAN ITS ASSISTANCE IN THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP.

I am aware that the Internet cannot be blamed in isolation.

The inequalities of the Capitalist system is a major contributor, but the dumbing down by the smart phone Apps are also influencing the reasons why we cast a vote.

If you not convinced the only thing that might be more perplexing than the psychology of Donald Trump is the psychology of his supporters. It isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed.

We now find ourselves looking a man and his team of advisors that has an ultimate goal to pursue national greatness in disrespect of the cost which will take the form of a state that will be anti-democratic and totalitarian. The state needed to fulfill this goal is a state that breeds ( As did all major fascist regimes that have ever existed) political parties that spend more time arguing than implementing policies.

At the same time, there is a paradoxical here with a resurgence of interest in universalism within the international legal context and the discourse of human rights, which at this point lack a firm philosophical foundation.

With a world facing problems that requires a vast resurgence of interest in universalism.

Power use to be what goes on in the head, and what goes on is a recognition of a reason – or better and more often: various reasons – to act differently than one would have without that reason…Power rests on perceived and recognized justifications – some good, some bad, some in between. A threat can be seen as a justification, as can a good argument.

We are turning a blind eye to the day when we will have websites that are themselves artificially intelligent .

This type of power is not accountable and nobody can make it accountable. All AI decision-making is by definition, unknowable and will remain so till 2018 when a new European union comes into force giving citizens – right to an explanation.

This however will not be of much use as AI processes data in ways we can’t. Ask its creator how it achieves a certain result and you get a shrug.

These AIs brain responses are automatic, and not influenced by logic or reason.

What does it mean to act, and to act well?

We now have software writing software and soon we have unsupervised learning.

Even with all the technological advances we have seen over the last few years there still remains a large disconnect between technology and the general public.

How do we determine which actions are those which are moral, and which fall outside this sphere? And how do we negotiate the priority of all of these questions?

In fact, digital technology, particularly the internet, offers potential complications into human beings’ discussion and understanding of free will; even as the internet appears to open up options and capacities for individuals to exercise increased autonomy, it also has the potential to change the very ways in which human beings think, thereby impeding human capacities for meaningful self-reflection, a necessary if not sufficient criterion for rational autonomy.

The Internet, we’ve often been told, is a force for “democratization.

It’s worth asking, though, what kind of democracy is being promoted.

People skimmed headlines and posts, seeking information that reinforced their biases and rejecting contrary perspectives. The Internet inspired “participation,” but the participants ended up in “cloistered cocoons of cognitive consonance.”

The social networks operated by companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google don’t just regulate the messages we receive. They regulate our responses. They shape, through the design of their apps and their information-filtering regimes, the forms of our discourse.

All social networks impose these kinds of formal constraints, both on what we see and on how we respond. The restrictions have little to do with the public interest. They reflect the commercial interests of the companies operating the networks as well as the protocols of software programming.

With the instantaneous transmission of information, the internet has revolutionized the way we do business, obtain knowledge, vote, and communicate with others. Instead of a one-way relationship in which the human agent has total control as the sole actor and the tool is merely the object acted upon – a mere means to an end which the human agent has in mind, it would be more accurate today in the face of digital technology, specifically the internet, to recognize that tools also act on their users. When we create things to use for our own purposes, these tools can and do indeed act back on us, in some cases changing the very ways we think.

It is especially poignant to make this observation in the face of the development of the internet because of information technology’s potential to dramatically augment or infringe on human autonomy.

While the internet may indeed open up choices and opportunities to people that were never there before, it also has the potential to degrade individuals’ deep reading capacities, which is a dangerous threat to these individuals’ claims to free will since deep reading is necessary for meaningful introspection which is necessary to claims on rational autonomy.

On the other hand as we continue to enter the digital age, the neutrality of the internet becomes a resource that we must fight to protect, or we risk our further advancement.

Maintaining net neutrality is not simply a matter of protecting existing standards and preventing the extension of authoritative powers, but instead is a matter of establishing a new fundamental human right in the digital age. We can only hope that in unity we can break the barriers which stand between us, and in so doing, provide a living and evolving blueprint for our mutual future.

The Internet is changing the way we think about power and its interaction with economic and international relations.

A blind acceptance of a narrative provided by the Algorithmic world is not acceptable.

Therefore before the names of just and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant, and to make good that propriety which by mutual contract men acquire in recompense of the universal right they abandon.

As a matter of urgency must establish a world governing body to overlook all technology. ( see previous posts)

When it comes to Algorithms the stakes for society are too high because AI may have arbitrarily negative consequences. Algorithms are a source of power and how they manifests themselves in the world cannot be let to the wimp of Capitalism.

If we are to read beyond the archaic dichotomous representation of international conflict, daring to create your own mind on the matter, doing so involves more than simply good intentions and determination.

It requires obtaining a new type of dignity as “selfs.”

Moreover, a willingness to engage in a dialogue concerning Being will allow for a creative and broad interpretation of man’s relationship to his world, and the responsibilities and interconnectedness that characterize it when it is not defined simply as an atomistic “standing reserve.”

This shallow consideration of the context plagues the headlines and propagates a facile belief in domineering great powers as the ‘be all and end all’ saviors of world conflict. The two leading competitors for the prize of… (peace?) in Syria leads one down a dangerous path that bolsters a bellicose Waltzian ‘balance of power’ attitude and neglects the voice of the people. This can be seen in the unacceptable bloodstains of millions around the world to this day.

The implications of Internet Freedom and its assistance or impediment has a knock on effect for International Relations as a whole.

The internet has become such an indispensable part of our everyday life that it is incredibly difficult to imagine life before it. Luckily the general public can align with interest groups via the web, thus making such groups much larger and more powerful than ever before. Unfortunately Ethicists are still confronted by the traditional questions that have plagued them since the ancients. They have been cut adrift from the context out of which they developed, searching for a foundation which is not forthcoming.

The disproportionate impact of the internet on the presidency and special interest groups only furthers the gap of influence between the public and the president.

As we move forward into an era of increasingly powerful digital technologies we have to ask the question WHY IT IS that the electrical system of one of the most powerful country can only produce two candidates that endeavored to buy with billions of $ the position of USA President.

WHEN YOU OBSERVE what are the power dynamics and systems of knowledge in our modern world, and what are their relationships to concepts of morality in general? All men having right to all things: power only exists when such an acceptance exists. Therefore where there is no commonwealth, there nothing is unjust.

The power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to each other, relate to people, or relate to corporate enterprises, control over security, production, finance, and knowledge.

What is authenticity? In that respect, like all forms of honesty—intellectual and other— a principle of authenticity stems above all from a powerful sense of universal respect and love.

Charismatic’ domination derives from a population that perceives their leader to be virtuous and deserving of their dedication.

Furthermore, because people perceive their leader’s charisma as being the basis for the validity of the state’s legitimacy, one may infer that they also view their leader as a virtuous person who they understand has an inner calling to lead.

That the supporters and friends of a charismatic leader orient their interests to be in line with his/hers because they genuinely believe in the allure of their leader’s personal qualities.

Hence, because a charismatic leader is someone who many people favor, and due to them believing in his/her devotion to the state, it follows that the validity of a state’s authority under a charismatic leader is dependent on their charisma.

Efforts to engage the public are meant to sidestep the special interest groups that have dominated governmental discourse over the past several decades. The dominant theme according to the “We The People” rollout is to open a dialogue directly between the people and the administration, one that will meaningfully impact policy and legislation. Yet, the website has not led to any significant legislation at present and so far it has failed to promote meaningful interaction between the people and the presidency.

Parliament is problematic because This weakens the state and, ultimately, the nation

This writing has merely touched the surface of the issues at hand.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37999969

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REPLACE POLITICAL PARTIES. PART THREE.

29 Friday Jul 2016

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REPLACE POLITICAL PARTIES. PART THREE.

Tags

Fair Political System., Inequalities of opportunity, Political leaders, Politicians, politics, Politics of the Future

I can’t help but to return to the fascinating question.

WHY?

Because DIVERSITY is absolutely necessary to justice.

Because Biometric E-Voting is on the horizon with a new paradigm in political communications. Look at your desktop, and you’ll see the ways the new media are changing the political scene from the bottom up.

Because of the outmoded ways we allow politicians to make decisions on our behalf.

Because candidates who would have had no chance before the Internet can now overcome huge odds.

Because we are becoming aware of what today’s Capitalism is doing to culture. A top-down, big-money view of politics while the unresolved tensions between morals and markets are getting worse.

Because of corporate funds in political which are devastating to the public interest.

Because more and more of the new Generation want to balance individual autonomy with civic virtue. New social media are already changing the way organizations attract supporters.

Because we need a balanced society without turning persons into clients, cogs or worse. Facebook addicts. The potential mobile universe of grassroots text messagers is now over 136 million.

Because most social mayhem now arising around us is driven by seduction and stresses of public decay under a capitalism that’s no longer tempered.

Because with today’s casino like, predatory, intensively degrading capitalism is ruining social equality.

Because if we don’t want the curtain to drop on Sapiens history we have to answer the question. What do we want to become?

Do we want a digital existence. With hundreds of cable TV channels and satellite radio stations, millions of bloggers, and literally billions of Web pages all pouring out trillions of unadulterated verbal and written diarrhea that nobody gives a shit about.

The media today are more diffuse and chaotic than ever.

Because there are thousands of other reasons but it is naive to think or imagine that we might hit the brakes and stop scientific project that are upgrading Homo sapiens into a different kind of being, or a computer with a mind inside. ( Nobody is willing to argue such a proposition as the answer is we are doing it to cure diseases and save human lives.)

So I suppose we are left with the real question that is not what we want to become, but what do we want to want?

It is obvious that we all want to live, but up to now we have not given the question of living enough thought.

In my mind no political power should have the power to declare war without asking its people first, never mind getting a United Resolution it is the Young of a country that dies.

If you don’t agree with me here have a look at what happens.

The 20^th century is described as the “bloodiest”, with an estimated 187 million deaths due to the various wars combined.

The death tolls for various conflicts throughout history, the best estimates put the total death toll due to all wars at 341.7 million people.

The United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of March 2015, approximately 210,000 civilians have died violent deaths as a result of the wars. The number of displaced people exceeded 50 million in 2013.

Our subjective well-being is not determined by external parameters such as wars, salary, social relations or political rights. Biologists hold that our mental and emotional world is governed by biochemical mechanisms shaped by million of years of evolution.

Any decision that has a direct effects should be put to the nation as a whole not delegated to those that happen to be in power at any given time.

So here is my suggestion.

In this age of instant communication there should be a Free Government App (for argument sake called Vote Now.)

This App delegates an unique password to all.

When any political party in power want to commit a country to any project that will cost the nation let’s say over 6 billion.

We the people of the country are asked to approve or disapprove the project within a given number of days, weeks or whatever.

The app provides all relevant information connected to the project.

The E-voting system using biometric enables a voter to cast his vote using internet without additionally registering himself for voting in advance and going to a polling place. Why not an App.

This App will stop governments from sell of the country’s natural resources to Sovereign Wealth Funds and cut out lobbyist and any form of corruption.

Here are a few recent UK decisions that should have been put to the people.

For examples 300 odd sitting Conservative MP under the leadership of a Prime Minister Theresa May (a Prime Minister that has no mandate) recently voted in favour of spending over £31bn over the lifetime of the programme, including adjustment for inflation over that period, and an additional £10bn as a “contingency” to renew four worthless submarines carrying Trident nuclear missiles.

It’s no wonder they got cold feet on the total lifetime cost of the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant which could be as high as £37bn. Which is was to be funded by the EDF and a Chines Sovereign Fund against 35 years of guarantee returns at twice the present cost of power.

The two new carriers that has attracted criticism over its £6.2bn cost.

Maybe I am nive but I would not let elected or non elected people sell my future.

All views and suggestions welcome.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REPLACE POLITICAL PARTIES: PART TWO.

28 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Humanity., Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, World Aid., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REPLACE POLITICAL PARTIES: PART TWO.

Tags

Fair Political System., Political ignorance, Politicians, Politics of the Future, The Future of Mankind, The Lethargy of our Political leaders, United Nations, Visions of the future., World Politics

IN THE FIRST PART ON THIS BLOG I ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING THE WAY WE VIEW DEMOCRACY AND AS A CONSEQUENCE POLITICAL PARTIES WILL OR ARE BECOMING OBSOLETE.

For those of us who still think that because we support a particular party AND that it will deliver on its pre-election promises I can only say we are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Governance use to be understood as ‘a system of values, policies and institutions by which a society manages its economic, political and social affairs through interaction within and among the State, civil society and the private sector.

This for now holds true for the most part but it is changing as we enter the Technology Revolution.

Why?

BECAUSE MOST SOCIETIES ARE NOW A MIX OF SEVERAL CULTURES DRIVEN BY A WORLD MEDIA THAT HAS TURNED EVERY FORM OF GREED AND VIOLENCE INTO AN ENTERTAINMENT.

POLITICIANS ARE NO LONGER CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR THEM.

THERE IS NO LONGER ANY LONG TERM PLANNING ONLY KNEE JERK REACTIONS.

INDEED WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE BEAR TRUTH- THEY ARE ALL DRIVEN BY DATA ON THE ECONOMY, AND MANIPULATED BY BIG MONEY OR THE LACK THEREOF.

Where does this leave us.

Just look at the current USA presidential election. Two candidate that are viewed as a threat to world peace.

There is an urgent need not just in the United States to invest in cultural diversity and dialogue.

Culture is increasingly recognized as a cross-cutting dimension of the three economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability.

We must strengthen social cohesion and provide sources of inspiration for renewing forms of democratic governance if we are to put a break on governance for the sake of money rather than for the values we all cherish.

We must places more emphasis on ‘unity in diversity.’

Indigenous knowledge can direct us towards more sustainable modes of living.

Similarly, ignoring the increasingly multicultural makeup of societies would amount to negating the existence of large sections of the population, which compartmentalizes society and damages the social fabric by creating competition between the different communities over access to resources (for education, health, social services) rather than promoting a sense of solidarity.

The expansion of digital networks, for example, has sometimes helped to revitalize endangered or even extinct languages; and the development of new technologies has greatly increased the possibilities of communicating and exchanging cultural content in time and space. Moreover, in certain cultural contexts, global cities in particular, the varied cultural flows and sometimes unexpected encounters produced by globalization are reflected in a growing range of consumer habits and trends.

You might ask why more emphasis on ‘unity in diversity.

Because Cultural diversity, characterized as it is by space-time compression linked to the speed of new communication and transportation technologies, and by the growing complexity of social interactions and the increasing overlap of individual and collective identities — cultural diversity has become a key concern, amid accelerating globalization processes, as a resource to be preserved and as a lever for sustainable development.

Intercultural dialogue must be seen as a complex and ongoing process that is never completed.

Unfortunately Globalization is NOT ACHIEVING THIS but is leading inevitably to cultural homogenization. Facebook, Twitter, Linked In etc.

While it is true that globalization induces forms of homogenization and standardization, it cannot be regarded as inimical to human creativity, which continues to engender new forms of diversity, constituting a perennial challenge to featureless uniformity.

Digital technology has drastically changed the modes of producing and disseminating cultural products, and cultural industries that previously were kept separate by analogue systems of production (film, television, photography and printing) have now converged.

We can’t hold a computer program like Google hostage to our demands.

We must move away from elite level deal making by allowing diverse interests to influence and design our own debating and decision-making rules.

Take for instance the eradication of world poverty, which is an intolerable violation of human rights in terms of both the hardships and the loss of dignity it causes – must be approached in terms of each specific social and cultural setting.

No amount of money is going to make any long-term worthwhile difference.

This can only be done with massive investment in Education.

Without education we are blowing in the wind, because rights and freedoms are exercised in very varied cultural environments and all have a cultural dimension that needs to be acknowledged so as to ensure their effective integration in different cultural contexts.

Education is a fundamental human right to which all children and adults should have access, contributing as it does to individual freedom and empowerment, and to human development.

We must escape National dialogues and engage in collective world mandates, that have legal status, and are independence from the government.

We must re- invent the United Nations changing it from a gossip shop on world problems to an Organisation that is fully funded with total transparency.

Irrivalent of the changes in technology quit hoc resolutions diplomacy is not enough.

Human beings relate to one another through society, and express that relationship through culture.

New technologies have not yet rendered the older technologies obsolete.

If we are to respond to the challenges inherent in a culturally diverse world, we must develop new approaches to intercultural dialogue, approaches that go beyond the limitations of the ‘dialogue among civilizations’ paradigm. Too often, dialogue events have stressed collective identities (national, ethnic, religious) rather than identities of individuals or social groups.

We must ensure a level playing field for cultural encounters and guaranteeing equality of status and dignity between all participants in initiatives to promote intercultural dialogue involve recognizing the ethnocentric ways in which certain cultures have hitherto proceeded.

The founding Vetoes in the United Nations must be scraped by give all nations an equal voice.

While virtually all human activities are shaped by and in turn help to shape cultural diversity, the prospects for the continued vitality of diversity are crucially bound up with the future of languages, education, the communication of cultural content, and the complex interface between creativity and the marketplace.

Recent decades have witnessed an unprecedented enmeshment of national economies and cultural expressions, giving rise to new challenges and opportunities.

The emergence of genuine ‘knowledge societies’ implies a diversity of forms of knowledge and of its sources of production, We are creating Internet technological Sahara Deserts that are and will drive millions to seek a better life or wars.

Communication networks have shrunk or abolished distance, to the benefit of some and the exclusion of others.

To address the problems that derive from the grotesque inequalities and structural poverty of our world which is at the foundations of 90% of the mess we now find ourselves in. We must recognise that successful intercultural dialogue lies in the acknowledgement of the equal dignity of the participants… based on the premise that all cultures are in continual evolution and are the result of multiple influences throughout history.

All rights and freedoms have a cultural dimension that contributes to their effective exercise. It is precisely this dimension that forms the link between the individual, the community and the group, which grounds universal values within a particular society.

All communities do not experience and respond to phenomena such as globalization in the same way.

As migration flows have intensified with globalization, they have significantly modified the ethno-linguistic makeup of a number of countries and have created new linguistic and translation needs, especially in administrative, legal and medical circuits worldwide.

Characterized as it is by space-time compression linked to the speed of new communication and transportation technologies, and by the growing complexity of social interactions and the increasing overlap of individual and collective identities — cultural diversity has become a key concern, amid accelerating globalization processes, as a resource to be preserved and as a lever for sustainable development.

Finally, forms of democratic governance can be renewed by deriving lessons from the different models adopted by diverse cultures.

We the people of the world must make our collective voices heard which is becoming almost impossible due to all of the above.

If we don’t want to rule by Afficher l'image d'origine

AI has officially made its way into Google’s search algorithm.

(The artificial intelligence of RankBrain comes in the form of mathematical entities called vectors that can be understood by computers. When presented with an unfamiliar word, RankBrain will help formulate a guess at what the query was about and filter accordingly.)

There are many possibilities as to how Rank Brain could work into being a signal to direct your choice to making any decision.

Central to the many problems arising in this context is the Western ideology of knowledge transparency, which cannot do justice to systems of thought recognizing both ‘exoteric’ and ‘esoteric’ knowledge and embodying initiatory processes for crossing the boundaries between them.

Diversity of traditions and cultures has for centuries been one of Europe’s riches and that the principle of tolerance is the guarantee of the maintenance in Europe of an open society.

Take England’s recent referendum on the EU.

So far the English referendum has resulted in transitional period now represented by an unelected interim governments whose authority to press the out button and start negotiations to leave may lack legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

Political transitions are tumultuous processes that celebrate advances and suffer setbacks several times before they can conclude with a new, widely accepted constitutional order.

There is a whole new class of millionaires as the new generation takes control of banks, government, and other institutions. The stage is set for another depression and the collapse of the welfare state.

How this can be achieved I leave to you to suggest.

But I am convinced that with the smart phone we should create a new political platform where the voice of people would hold weight in decision taken by our political masters.

If every eligible voting age citizen had a phone, any project that cost over x billions could be electronically sent for approval or disapproval.

As how to finance the United Nations ( see previous post : A World Aid Commission)

Can any of what I am writing about be achieved. Yes it Can.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REPLACE POLITICAL PARTIES

25 Monday Jul 2016

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Capitalism, Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REPLACE POLITICAL PARTIES

Tags

Democracy, Fair Political System., Political ignorance, Politics of the Future, SMART PHONE WORLD, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

( Six minute Read)

You might think this is a stupid thing to contemplate.

But just look around you.

Every minute on the web there is a new petition to vote on.

People are invited on Facebook and twitter to vote and for that matter to get killed ( as reported on the Shooting in Germany)

And now Hillary Clinton has just released a mobile game app that allows the user to build your own campaign headquarters by completing ” Fun” challenges to earn credit stars which you can cash in a virtual shop. You get a free Autograph and a Trump or False Quizzes and a lovely virtual plant to be watered.

You don’t have to be a genius to know what is behind the App.

And just the other day Paddy Ashdown in the UK set up a new political group called MoreUnited.UK which intends to support political candidates it agrees with – regardless of their party affiliation – with cash and on-the-ground campaigners.

So where or what next.

This is a serious question as the world is shaped by big, powerful forces or trends that nobody can control.

These forces are now driven by technology.

Right now these forces are driving the biggest change in 500 years and I don’t have to tell you that they are not all good despite the new environmental spirit.

Governments are preoccupied with cloaking democratic sovereignty in order to do business for the kept classes. A source of great social unrest, state violence, and public pressure for institutional reform. I.E. the English referendum to leave the European union.

The modern capitalist system has been charged more and more by its critics with crushing the spirit and substance of representative self government.

The subject of capitalism versus democracy is back.

Market failures are having political effects: they are breathing new life into demands for fresh thinking and a new democratic politics that, so far, has not happened on any scale.

Capitalist markets have been a mixed blessing for democracy in representative form. The dynamism, technical innovation and enhanced productivity of the free market have been impressive. Equally notable with the free market is the rapaciousness unequal ( class-structured) outcomes, reckless exploitation of nature.

Pauperism mixed with plutocracy is today a feature of practically every democracy on our planet.

Enough is Enough.

With the gap between the rich and poor grows even wider there is political trouble ahead.

This is why every form of democracy worth its salt has stood against the presumption that the wealthy are ‘naturally entitled to rule.

Is capitalism the only moral economic system or a deeply flawed socio-economic system that has to be addressed by more government intervention and control? Or is it foundations no long based on individual rights? Each individual is an end in themselves and not a means to achieve the wishes of others.

If you adopt the view that capital belongs to everyone it is the only moral system because it respects the volitional reason of the individual to engage with others and further their own happiness as they see fit and it allows them to fail and learn from the consequences if they should make a mistake.

But the above is no longer true as we enter a new form of Capitalism which Oliver Stone recently christened as ‘ SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM, ROBOT TOTALITARIANISM .

POKEMON GO’S collects names and locations of the user. It can also access the contents of your USB storage, your accounts, photographs, network connections, and phone activities, and even activate your phone when it is on standby mode. It reserves the right to share all the data it collects with a third parties such as advertisers. It is a sinister trade-off for playing a game that you think is free.

So the question asked in the heading of this blog is more than serious.

Are Politicians representing or will they be able to represent the people in the future?

In democratic election campaigns, do political parties any longer compete freely for votes?

Do Political parties (in this world of fast developing technologies) any longer provide a way for voters to easily identify a candidate’s positions?

As Parliaments gain greater control, the issues on which they disagree often are not goals so much as means: how best to keep the economy growing, protect the environment, and maintain a strong national defense.

Such competition is one of the hallmarks of democracy.

Parties’ views on government’s role often depend on the specific issue or program in question.

A political party use to be a group of voters organized to support certain public policies. The aim of a political party is to elect officials who will try to carry out the party’s policies. This is no longer true.

In the modern age where everything is connected to everything.

The United States has a two-party system.

Political parties are often a standard by which a country’s political freedom can be measured. Some countries have only one political party. In China, for example, there is only one party, the Communist Party.

Democracies usually operate under either a two-party or a multiparty system. Like the United States, Britain has a two-party system. The major parties are the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, though there are active third parties.

Multiparty systems are common in Europe and other parts of the world. In this system, three or more parties each enjoy substantial support from voters. France, Germany, Israel, and South Africa are just a few examples.

In these countries there may be many parties representing a wide range of political views. Because of the number of competing parties, it is sometimes difficult for any one party to get a clear majority of the votes. In such cases, leading parties that can agree on general policies form a coalition (a combination of parties) to run the country.

In the past 30 years, party membership has dropped significantly across Europe, whereas other forms of political participation have developed.

Social Media has rapidly grown in importance as a forum for political activism in its different forms.

Social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube provide new ways to stimulate citizen engagement in political life, where elections and electoral campaigns have a central role.

Personal communication via social media brings politicians and parties closer to their potential voters.

Although the presence of social media is spreading and media use patterns are changing, online political engagement is largely restricted to people already active in politics and on the Internet.

Social media has reshaped structures and methods of contemporary political communication by influencing the way politicians interact with citizens and each other. However, the role of this phenomenon in increasing political engagement and electoral participation is neither clear nor simple.

In the past few years, the way that citizens communicate with one other about politics has been fundamentally altered by the emergence of social media.

In view of recent political developments as diverse as Occupy Wall Street in the United States, the rise of Indignados in Spain, protests in Moscow and Tehran, and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, it has become increasingly clear that social media are now intertwined with political activity.

However we know surprisingly little about exactly how social media affects political participation.

We are only beginning to scratch the surface of developing theories linking social media usage to political participation.

At the same time, the data being generated by users of social media represents a completely unprecedented source of data recording how hundreds of millions of people around the globe interact with politics.

The M5S Movement in Italy has evolved rapidly to become a significant political player by using social media to engage like-minded people in virtual and real life political action.

The impact of social media on political communication.

New ways of building an online campaign and the trend of personalisation in politics. The possibility to communicate directly with voters via social media is groundbreaking and essential for the development of citizens-initiated campaigning.

Well known cases such as the Obama Presidential campaign, the Arab spring uprisings and UK Uncut demonstrations.

A new concept of virtual political support.

Freedom became capitalism’s self-celebration which it largely remains.

Yet the reality of capitalism is that the mass of employees are not free inside capitalism or any other system for that matter to participate in the decisions that affect their lives ( e.g., what the enterprise will produce,what technology will it use, where production will occur, and what will be done with the profit workers’ efforts help to produce)

In fact their exclusion from such decisions modern-day employees resemble slaves and serfs.

Parliaments and universal suffrage have accompanied capitalism – an advance over serfdom and slavery. An Advance undermined by inequality of opportunity and income a discomforting fact mostly overlooked.

It is not likely that Capitalism is going to disappear in the near or distant future.

There is every likelihood with the arrival of AI ( Artificial Intelligence) that democracy as we know it will be eroded further.

At the moment it all boils down to Smart phone Democracy.

Perhaps in the near future we see a Smartphone political party.

Which might not be a bad way to go provided everyone has a Smart phone and everybody is requested to vote on any project that costs us the taxpayers and the nation over a billion.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE CONDEMNED TO REACTION POLITICS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE

08 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Politics., Technology, The Future, The world to day., What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE CONDEMNED TO REACTION POLITICS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE

Tags

Politicians, politics, Politics of the Future, SMART PHONE WORLD, The Future of Mankind

When you look at the state of the Planet is it time for world Governments to have a third level of Governance.

Our political discourse is shrinking to fit our smart phone screens.

( If we don’t open our eyes we will be governed by natural-born troll, such as MR TRUMP who is adept at issuing inflammatory bulletins at opportune moments, he’s the first candidate optimized for the Google News algorithm.)

A pro active house of power with non political representatives immune from lobbing that know what they are talking about.

Such a house would address the long-term views about family welfare, social conditions, the environment, crime and virtually every aspect of our lives that our national government policy effects.

“When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s difficult to remind
yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.”

Our political actors can only focus on a few core issues simultaneously, the construction and selection of the problems on the agenda constitute a key phase of the policymaking process.

It is far more effective and cheaper to prevent problems from occurring than to let problems grow and then try to solve them.

A proactive approach to change is needed to avoid a potential future threat or to capitalize on a potential future opportunity.

It would not be effected by the political strategies surrounding the construction of insecurity or the currently political needs of focusing on the acquisition and retention of power.

Unfortunately, as human organizations or societies get bigger, older and more complex, “Destructive Achievers” tend to become dominant. They are promoted or elected to power because they are willing to satisfy the short-term desires of the most powerful members of the group, even at the expense of the group’s long-term health.

Every political power has to go through the media.

These days it is impossible to deny the significant role of the media in the life of societies it influence the opinions and beliefs prevailing in society through content management – which is more difficult now with social media , however, to categorically determine the nature of this impact.

While this maybe true political actors wanting to create and maintain their place in the media must comply with the policies of the mass media, based primarily on the desire to garner the greatest possible interest in the message.

Hence, politicians in their activity must adapt not only to the needs of potential voters, but also to the needs of the media, among which the most prominent ones are the sensational nature of the content and availability of the politician.

As a Result the politics presented is superficially world that is reduced to news, schemas and scandals.

A pro active Chamber may cause in the electorate the expectation of integrity, reliability, conscientiousness from their potential political leaders.

Is such a suggestion feasible or foolish?

Both the development of transmission technology and dissemination of information, increased strength and importance of the media in society. As a result political discourse is contaminated.

Reactive Vs Proactive Change 119

It would be feasible if all decisions from this house were electronically vote on by the electorate before submission too Parliament for approval.

The Internet revolution has transformed the way knowledge is disseminated and how people unite over causes.

It is now more than ever necessary to understanding some of the most influential social and political processes of our time. Social networks are playing a key. It is and has transformed elections.

In the 1920s, radio disembodied candidates, reducing them to voices. It also made national campaigns far more intimate. In the 1960s, television gave candidates their bodies back, at least in two dimensions. Today, with the public looking to smartphones for news and entertainment, we seem to be at the start of the third big technological makeover of modern electioneering.

This shift is changing the way politicians communicate with voters, altering the tone and content of political speech. But it’s doing more than that. It’s changing what the country wants and expects from its would-be leaders.

What’s important now is not so much image as personality.

Social media favors the bitty over the meaty, the cutting over the considered.

It also prizes emotionalism over reason.

The more visceral the message, the more quickly it circulates and the longer it holds the darting public eye.

In something of a return to the pre-radio days, the fiery populist now seems more desirable, more worthy of attention, than the cool wonk.

In my eyes, social media is one of the most important global leaps forward in recent human history. It provides for self-expression and promotes a mutual understanding. It enables a rapid formation of networks and demonstrates our common humanity across cultural differences. It connects people, their ideas and values, like never before.

It is in its infancy.

Once we truly learn how to harness this new technology and these new ways of communicating, we will feel the full impacts of social media.

It is responsible for the roots of the Arab Spring in the Middle East, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and others have played not just an important role, but also an instrumental one.

The truth is the fear that some governments have about truly empowering their citizens through these new technologies. They are afraid of power of human connections online forming communities of interest because they are self-monitoring, with their own norms and expectations.

In China, the government of President Xi Jinping has expressed concern about the real power that social media has to spread information

From the printing press to the telephone to the Internet, each of these tools has been a way to organize and activate — to give people the voice they want and deserve.

Forward-thinking governments will listen to those voices and empower them. Others will be fearful of the voice of the people and remain on the losing side of history.

Today’s society, in a similar manner to liquid, adopts various unstable forms under small amounts of pressure. They are incapable of stabilizing in a consistent form, which results in consequences to social relationships and politics.

Meanwhile, political parties, bureaucracy and institutions seem to remain firmly in the 17th Century.

Democracy has to reinvent itself in accordance with this new “liquid society” where collaboration happens between many millions of people directly.

Leadership is not vertical, as in the past, but horizontal.

There is no time and space limitation for public accountability on the Internet.

Creative commonality is standard and does not resemble the authoritarian style of the dead communist experience.

It seems that it is no longer society’s obligation to understand legislation, it is a duty for governments to be understood by their people.

More than ever, the citizen is now part of the solution. Decision-makers must take advantage of technological tools to listen to the people and raise public awareness of controversial debates. If society has logged out of the virtual world it is time for government to realistically log on in an effective way to chat with citizens.

Ultimately, the discussion is all about what government is doing to the people, as in France in 1779, Russia in 1917 and 1991, in addition to many other uprisings in past. After all, it is much easier to listen to people now.

Open government is what politics will be in the Future.

While the possibilities are promising, there is also risk and danger.

It is now evident that there is no such thing as privacy. Google is omniscient of what people search for and do. Facebook has over a billion subscribers meaning Mark Zuckerberg has personal information about one in every seven people on earth. USA, Brazil, Mexico, India and Indonesia are at the top of that list.

Companies collect and negotiate information about customers and often without permission. There have been notorious cases of non-authorized government investigations on people, from autocratic regimes to alleged democracies.

Evgeny Morozov calls for a cyber utopia of ingenuity with the perspective for digital technologies. The dark side seems closer to scenarios depicted in fiction such as 1984, A Brave New World or, more recently, the Guy Fawkes face mask borrowed by the Anonymous movement from the V for Vendetta movie that has become omnipresent throughout the latest uprisings in Turkey, Egypt, Brazil and the United States.

President Obama is the best-known politician to be exploring the possibilities of new technologies to converse with the people.

Others must follow his lead and innovate. It is inevitable.

Facebook´s average user is 22 years old and the digital world continues to evolve bringing greater potential. Soon, every protester will have a smart phone with an HD 3D camera. The ascension of mobile caused Steve Wozniak to announce the end of the personal computer, which he himself invented with Steve Jobs three decades ago.

Politics needs to adapt. Like it or unlike it.

The technology is just scratching the surface of its promise.

Smartphones are cheaper than computers and will become ubiquitous; Everyone will be connected through phones.

Afficher l'image d'origine

A major effort needs to be made to educate voters about proactive vs. reactive approaches to issues.

It’s not just about economics. Afficher l'image d'origine

We are dealing with the mechanism of the spiral of silence, which pulls individuals into a paradox of sorts: to ensure social acceptance, he or she resigns from forming own thoughts and views on certain topics, withdrawing from discussion

The culture of diversity removes any moral (good/bad) and evaluative (positive/negative) dimension that justifies the political, social and ethical associations linked to the dynamics of diversity.

Of course, I’m open to suggestion!

http://go.ted.com/Cuah

http://go.ted.com/Cuaq

http://go.ted.com/CuaH

	bobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
	OG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
	benmadigan on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONC…
	Sidney Fritz on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: CAN…
	Bill Blake on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. FOR GOD SA…

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

Tag Archives: Politics of the Future

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS TRUST IN POLITICIANS AT AN ALL TIME LOW?

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: DEMOCRATIC EMPOWERMENT NO LONG REST WITH POLITICAL PARTIES.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REPLACE POLITICAL PARTIES: PART TWO.

AI has officially made its way into Google’s search algorithm.

(The artificial intelligence of RankBrain comes in the form of mathematical entities called vectors that can be understood by computers. When presented with an unfamiliar word, RankBrain will help formulate a guess at what the query was about and filter accordingly.)

There are many possibilities as to how Rank Brain could work into being a signal to direct your choice to making any decision.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE CONDEMNED TO REACTION POLITICS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

AI has officially made its way into Google’s search algorithm.

(The artificial intelligence of RankBrain comes in the form of mathematical entities called vectors that can be understood by computers. When presented with an unfamiliar word, RankBrain will help formulate a guess at what the query was about and filter accordingly.)

There are many possibilities as to how Rank Brain could work into being a signal to direct your choice to making any decision.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: