How Democracy Survives the Internet: The lessons that Wikipedia can teach.

Video thumbnail (Frame 0) Video thumbnail (Frame 1063) Video thumbnail (Frame 2832) Video thumbnail (Frame 4096) Video thumbnail (Frame 5558) Video thumbnail (Frame 6860) Video thumbnail (Frame 8230) Video thumbnail (Frame 9863) Video thumbnail (Frame 11633) Video thumbnail (Frame 13012) Video thumbnail (Frame 14325) Video thumbnail (Frame 15588) Video thumbnail (Frame 16688) Video thumbnail (Frame 17833) Video thumbnail (Frame 18793) Video thumbnail (Frame 19979) Video thumbnail (Frame 21347) Video thumbnail (Frame 22653) Video thumbnail (Frame 24200) Video thumbnail (Frame 25412) Video thumbnail (Frame 26801) Video thumbnail (Frame 28016) Video thumbnail (Frame 28977) Video thumbnail (Frame 29919) Video thumbnail (Frame 31323) Video thumbnail (Frame 32325) Video thumbnail (Frame 33404) Video thumbnail (Frame 35641) Video thumbnail (Frame 36793) Video thumbnail (Frame 38064) Video thumbnail (Frame 39184) Video thumbnail (Frame 40342) Video thumbnail (Frame 41316) Video thumbnail (Frame 42395) Video thumbnail (Frame 43504) Video thumbnail (Frame 45607) Video thumbnail (Frame 46907) Video thumbnail (Frame 48571) Video thumbnail (Frame 49749) Video thumbnail (Frame 51484) Video thumbnail (Frame 53810) Video thumbnail (Frame 54883) Video thumbnail (Frame 55810) Video thumbnail (Frame 57764) Video thumbnail (Frame 60442) Video thumbnail (Frame 63224) Video thumbnail (Frame 66582) Video thumbnail (Frame 67765) Video thumbnail (Frame 69298) Video thumbnail (Frame 70302) Video thumbnail (Frame 71249)
Video in TIB AV-Portal: How Democracy Survives the Internet: The lessons that Wikipedia can teach.

Formal Metadata

Title
How Democracy Survives the Internet: The lessons that Wikipedia can teach.
Title of Series
Author
License
CC Attribution 4.0 International:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
2019
Language
English

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Internetworking 8 (number)
Number Goodness of fit View (database) Finite-state machine Rule of inference
Graphics tablet Arithmetic mean Determinism Determinism
Arithmetic mean Object (grammar) Vulnerability (computing)
Time evolution Multiplication sign Demo (music) Evolute System call Sinc function
Point (geometry) Random number Context awareness Randomization Beat (acoustics) Representation (politics) Metropolitan area network Sampling (statistics)
Point (geometry) Context awareness Multiplication sign Projective plane Computer network Knot Mereology 19 (number) Online chat Broadcasting (networking) Frequency Kritischer Punkt <Mathematik> Software Quicksort
Broadcasting (networking) Frequency Functional (mathematics) Broadcasting (networking) Different (Kate Ryan album) Concentric Source code 19 (number)
Axiom of choice Source code Broadcasting (networking) Information Software Home shopping Program slicing
God Software Average Line (geometry) Physical system Number
Data model Context awareness Message passing Open source Business model Conservation law Number
Content (media) Exclusive or Graph (mathematics) Software Different (Kate Ryan album) Business model
Domain name Open source Digital media Different (Kate Ryan album) Multiplication sign Division (mathematics) Exception handling
Point (geometry) Domain name Execution unit Wechselseitige Information Link (knot theory) Digital media Open source Cellular automaton Interior (topology) Maxima and minima Menu (computing) Line (geometry) Mereology Field (computer science) Automatic differentiation Wave Software Commitment scheme Different (Kate Ryan album) Internetworking Natural number Conservation law Quicksort Computing platform
Axiom of choice Googol Internetworking Integrated development environment Internetworking Search engine (computing) View (database) Core dump Data conversion
Focus (optics) Bit Office suite Automatic differentiation Computing platform
Point (geometry) Web page Matrix (mathematics)
Algorithm Information View (database) Multiplication sign Computer network Electronic mailing list Parameter (computer programming) Control flow Facebook Type theory Goodness of fit Word Internetworking Different (Kate Ryan album) Personal digital assistant Convex hull Drum memory Determinant
Identifiability Information Personal digital assistant Perspective (visual) Neuroinformatik
Category of being Context awareness Digital electronics Personal digital assistant Software developer Multiplication sign Family Game theory
Category of being Dependent and independent variables Hacker (term) State of matter Internet service provider Right angle Evolute
Context awareness Googol Theory of relativity Hacker (term) Speech synthesis Metropolitan area network Writing
Content (media) Time evolution Business model Virtual machine Artistic rendering Chaos (cosmogony) Evolute Automatic differentiation
Building Sign (mathematics) Googol Sound effect Sphere Polarization (waves) Sphere
Facebook Category of being Dependent and independent variables Matching (graph theory) Channel capacity Analogy Set (mathematics) Bit Polarization (waves) Limit (category theory)
Facebook Context awareness Statement (computer science) Automatic differentiation
Wiki Finite difference Different (Kate Ryan album) Decision theory Evolute Automatic differentiation
Point (geometry) Context awareness Multiplication sign Plotter Automatic differentiation Number Wiki Content (media) Integrated development environment Internetworking Forest Normal (geometry) Data structure Rhombus
Randomization Civil engineering Time travel Projective plane Theory Value-added network Web service Process (computing) Representation (politics) Selectivity (electronic) Acoustic shadow Annihilator (ring theory) Rhombus
Web service Randomization Group action Natural number Hybrid computer View (database) Sampling (statistics) Regular graph Sampling (statistics)
Group action Process (computing) Open source View (database) Bus (computing) output
Point (geometry) Context awareness Voting Different (Kate Ryan album) View (database) Physical law Projective plane Electronic mailing list Translation (relic)
Building Process (computing) Projective plane Mass Endliche Modelltheorie Object (grammar) Discrete element method Resolvent formalism Number Exception handling
View (database) Rhombus
Word Channel capacity
Multiplication sign Sampling (statistics) Representation (politics) Quicksort Bookmark (World Wide Web) Exception handling God Number
Point (geometry) Group action Focus (optics) Game controller Randomization Confidence interval Decision theory Multiplication sign Projective plane Source code Mereology Radical (chemistry) Ideal (ethics) Representation (politics) Selectivity (electronic) Data conversion Resultant Address space
Multiplication sign View (database) Projective plane Counting Basis <Mathematik> Open set Content (media) Voting Single-precision floating-point format Normal (geometry) Video game Selectivity (electronic) Whiteboard Freeware
Digital electronics Arm Exterior algebra Cellular automaton Multiplication sign Videoconferencing Planning Insertion loss Digital signal Asynchronous Transfer Mode Rhombus Number
Commitment scheme Multiplication sign Video game Mereology
act.
so. i'm going to take it that we have some common ground here. i'm going to take it that we have common ground on the idea that democracy is on shaky ground.
not just because of the white male crazies in the anglo democracy world. but in the two hundred and plus years of this great experiment of democracy what's striking is that we're still not certain that it delivers what it promises it will deliver that there's a deep uncertainty about its.
place in our future now it's had a pretty good run after many many years of basically no democracies the last seventy years saw an explosion of democracy around the world.
so we come to a place where basically only the roads denied the idea of rule by the people but in fact.
will buy the people is not so much the way rulers work. everywhere there is the view that society is divided between an elite and the people and everywhere the view of the people is democracy represents the elite. and everywhere there is the view of the elite how can the people be so stupid. now we hear i think we should call ourselves technologists not in the sense of being coders necessarily but technologist in the sense that we think and engage about the question of technology and recognize how.
how technology has affected the markets. we need to recognise the way that it's a fact that democracy and asked the question how we can build democracy better given the technology. or how can we change technology given the ideals of democracy. whatever i say something like that especially in germany i always get slammed when i say things like that in germany i say it and i have to say this caviar at so i don't get slammed probably get slammed anyway but when we think about technology like this we don't have to think about it in a deterministic way nothing.
i'm saying means that it's determined that one technology produces what we're talking about here there are obviously a million possibilities but we need to recognise the way some pads are made more likely than others given a technology.
so that we can recognise that more likely path and respond even if it is not determined that this likely path will occur. so if we take that is the objective and that is the caviar tim we say we have this common ground as technologists i think we should recognize as technologist that technology has been an important way rendered democracy vulnerable.
how would why i want to talk about today. but i talk about it to lead to this question of whether we're going to accept the consequences of this technology or reject the consequences and then ask how could we have changed or how could we accommodate the technology to reject those vulnerabilities that technology has. produced it. some background this idea of the people you. central to what i want to say but i want to insist that the people were born in nineteen thirty six. the people were born in nineteen thirty six. what i mean by that and i said it twice i must mean it to be important i do i needed to be important what i mean by that is our ability to see the people.
in a scientific peer a call and reliable way gets born in nineteen thirty six. of course since time immemorial people have been talking about what that people believe james bryce read an extraordinary book in eighteen eighty eight called the american commonwealth where he talked about how we can understand what the people believe even though we had no way to actually measure what the people believe in a reliable scientific. way he fantasized about a quote final stage in the evolution of democracy if the will of the majority of citizens were to become ascertainable at all times this was the ends where we could push a button and know what the people believe but he was far from that end he thought turned out.
he was just fifty years from that because fifty years after he wrote that in nineteen thirty six george gallup demonstrated that technology in absolutely convincing way he delivered us to this final stage of democracy and impure cool way to see what the people.
we believe through a technology of random representative polls the context for this was a contest in the american political fights for president between franklin delano roosevelt and the man named alf landon.
the then current technology for measuring public opinion polls kind of a straw poll were people sent in their ballots for more than three million ballots had been collected those ballots had predicted that out landing was going to beat franklin roosevelt by twenty points. now you know because you don't who are few and it is that i've landed didn't beat franklin roosevelt by twenty points indeed what george gallup did was to both predict that franklin roosevelt would win and predict precisely by how much the then dominant polling method of.
the literary digest would be wrong and when he said that people said you're not as you're just totally knots and franklin roosevelt went on to win vole largest victory in the history of contested elections in the united states. so yeah technology he made a really outrageous claim he proved why the claim was true and thus was polling born and it became a central part of how we understand the people in the context of democracy but here's a critical point in the background of this project of polling. there was another technology technology of broadcasting. the technology which was at the same time the polling was born just getting going in a really significant way technology to assure that many could hear at one time the same thing. now what they heard was not always wonderful was its experience here but it was sometimes wonderful as america was terrified during world war two it was franklin roosevelt's fireside chats that knit the native the nation together.
people's consumption of radio news went from sixty percent in nineteen thirty nine to seventy four percent by nineteen forty four but the most important of these broadcasts technologies with television which over the course of the period of nineteen fifty until the late nineteen seventy's. concentrated an extraordinary percentage of the public on a very narrow and dominant news segment seventy seven percent of america i'm sorry ninety percent of americans and nineteen seventy seven got their news from three television networks networks the toll. the story in what they perceive to be a neutral down the middle of the road way that wasn't the truth the story they told it was biased in all sorts of ways it was incomplete it didn't consider all sorts of subjects it should have but the point is everybody heard it and it builds a certain community.
who we were was determined by this dominant presence and that can determine how we were polled because as polls ask us questions we repeated what we had learned how we were polled was a function of this broadcast technology. but it was a function of broadcasting and how we spoke how we were heard was a function of this technology you could call this the age of broadcast democracy and when you put it in a finance like that it suggests a book which marcus prior wrote a post broadcast democracy.
which distinguishes between this bizarre period in history of humanity nineteen fifty to nineteen eighty when we were all focused on the same stuff. from the period that began in nineteen eighty when concentrated delivery of news disappeared as broadcasting disappear how are the people constructed. when the stories they are told are not concentrated how are the people made by a world of many different sources.
this is post broadcast because the technology of information had become radically more efficient giving people choices that they didn't have before in nineteen seventy when everyone was watching the news it wasn't because they wanted to watch the news it was.
because they wanted to watch television and the only thing on television for certain slice of the day was news but when the technology for choice became more efficient people could choose to watch what they wanted to watch that i want to watch the news they want to watch the home shopping network where the history channel or sports that. could watch whatever they want in this more efficient choice manse fewer and fewer were watching the same news this is the picture in america of this dynamic this is the big three television networks the black bar you can see it goes from nineteen eighty five covering about seven.
percent of market of america to two thousand and two less than forty percent. than the white bars cable penetration the number of homes a percentage of homes that have cable in their household so this goes from just about forty percent in ninety five to about eighty four percent in two thousand and two and then this line is the average number of channels on those cable systems. so going from about fourteen to over one hundred. you see we go from a world where we're all watching just networks to a world where we're choosing among hundred channels to watch and so obviously as we enter the world of a hundred channels given the free public free to choose officially what they want to watch what we produce is a fragmented.
the public. the question we have to ask is how does that matter how does it matter to who we are in a democracy.
ok as technologies divide us if the markets get built on top of the technology markets.
as market size shrinks brands with in these markets become more important more significant number of brands competing of course explodes been in the context of news in america the number of brands begins to concentrate into relatively few.
the brand has a business model the business model is tribalism. the business model is to practice the politics of hate to teach us to hate the other side. to teach us liberals that conservatives are nazis. to convince the conservatives that liberals are crazies that's what they do that's their message that's how they build loyalty brand loyalty by building hate.
this is the most extraordinary graph i think i've read in the last five years so this is an effort to measure the ideological content of these three major cable networks.
c.n.n. is purple fox news is read msnbc is blue until two thousand and one there's basically no difference in the ideological content of these three networks but as you go over time. the ideological content begins to radically separate because the most efficient business model for delivering cable news in a fragmented highly competitive market is the business model of exclusive ideological deliver a to rally the base. this in this divided the public and so we have a divided public that is now all seeing a different world.
the world we liberals see is not the world the conservative city. truck obama recently said if you watch fox news your and one reality if you read the new york times your in a different reality.
the epistemological reality as.
are fundamental to the story of whether democracy can work and it's not just that they happened to become difference there is an incentive in the media to make them different to make them more different. so for example turns out that if you poll not all science would be fought of in a partisan way this extraordinary work by my colleague dan hynes you can't really understand these graphs except in the following sent these are different domains of science so nanotechnology artificial food coloring a global warming.
where you see a line that's flat what that means is your ideological commitments don't affect your judgements in that science scientific feel so this is saying around the questions about radio waves from cellphones doesn't matter whether you're a conservative or liberal you're going to think. about it in the same way or the fact that you're a conservative doesn't affect how you think about so this is a non partisan domain of science and if you look at that means he considers this looks kind of optimistic because six of the nine are not partisan only three or part. so it's in those freedom means you can expect the networks begin to play off the partisan differences but here there is no return. unless they can render. those six as partisan if they could take these domains of science and make them into polarized debates that this would be yet another field to seoul and then harvest in this effort at making us hate.
eight each other. if that conservatives can make cell phone radiation concerns the sort of thing that only crazy liberals think about they not only would find another fight to rally their team on their tried for probably get more ads from the cell phone companies the point is there is an ongoing interest in making a stupid. giving this tribal nature of media and the incentives built into that platform can now that's just the story with television which still is the most important platform at least in america for affecting public opinion but the reality is the internet only makes this worse.
because we've made a choice someone did i don't know who that person is i'd like to have a conversation with him or her but likely him someone made the choice that the internet was going to be adoration.
was always going to be address them.
when these guys the google voice look like that they wrote an important paper that said advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumer they were going to build a search engine that was not biased in that way.
until they reason realize they could beat billionaires if they changed their view about this fact. that was their view but their view now it is advertising is at the core of everything commercial in the internet via environment.
and the reality is better ads need better data.
this is the insight and the focus of this extraordinary book by sean is above the age of surveillance capitalism surveillance capitalism describing capitalism enabled by surveillance or that capitalism in surveillance the persistent ability of the platform around us to know everything there is to know about you so they can say.
now you better adds. of course soup office against it i fear she is oversimplifying the the story a bit i love this book it's the best most important thing to be read if you read anything in the next six months about this problem but she writes as if all of this surveillance is awful she invokes his idea.
surveillance is to have a kind of soviet or maybe a stasi like overtone to it and the point is this surveillance is not all quite like that some of its bad no doubt that some of its not bad some of its quite get and instead of thinking about surveillance in general i think we should think about the uses of data. i ask ourselves the question which uses we like in which uses we know we should not allow and which uses produce the most trouble for society.
so we can think about that of course an academic so has to be a matrix somewhere here it is. i think about uses that benefit the user benefits society or harm the user harm society and the ones in between so benefit user bells cited i got my amazon page it knows me it's known me since two thousand and three i search for something he tells me a whole bunch of books i might be interested in i love that.
i love that it's trying to figure out what books i want to read because it's usually pretty good and so in my view you can have lots of arguments about whether amazon's good in society but if you like the idea of being able to get access to books can say this benefits users and it benefits society it's and ok kind of use here's a different kind of use.
i imagine that facebook now just to be clear i don't get sued by facebook facebook doesn't do this but just imagine you note the word imagine needs rides hypothetical a magic. that facebook monitors the way you type. and compares the way you type over time. and based on an algorithm is able to figure out whether you have some weird neurological disease based on the way of type two in this hypothetical compares two thousand and two those nineteen the same thing being tight and is determined that's what the hell nine thousand i hear is signaling its determining. that this person has this neurological disease and imagine that facebook sense that information to the insurance companies just what you are no less it has this weird neurological disease just in case that's important to you.
now from insurance perspective that's good information. it makes it easier for them to discriminate against me because they would want to ensure me with his we're disease but from my perspective the idea that there is a snitch in my computer reporting to the insurance company is a really bad thing i should be against that so in some sense it benefits at least the insurance companies a society those that's it harms.
users are here is it easier case of that imagine the technology made it possible for us to identify predator it's like the predators against that ok harms the predator but you see it can benefit society even though it harms a predator that use has that character ok then the other case is this.
this cases of harms user and harm society we all know about the incredible the development of technology for exploiting attics in the context of digital technologies acts and we call them wales time i very close to some.
and in my own family we have to regulate the whales very carefully and this is said to expect this is a feature of the way the data gets used to find and exploit these whales but the interesting category for us to think about is this category use is that benefit the user but harm society what could those be a shift for second to food.
it's extraordinary book salt sugar fat tells a story of food science which is science.
science where they learned to engineer food.
to overcome the natural resistance you might have to eating bad for. you could call it body hacking. and what the science that has exploited evolution the evolution of the way our bodies have been built with the aim to sell food or maybe should be setting scare quotes sell food. now because most of this food is really pretty bad for us we can say it benefits the user in the sense of the user wants to be eating the potato chips or the buffalo wings. but the externalities of the us for society are pretty severe because it produces great health consequences for everyone. ok the problem with this category is it's super difficult to regulate. competition among these food providers makes it really difficult for the corporations to do the right thing they do the right thing and then they have their lunch eaten by a competitor when the government tries to regulated the claim is it's a nanny state trying to regulate the size of your coke bottles and freedom becomes the chant that we have to occur in response to that right.
relation so it's difficult to imagine how you solve it in the context of food right now shift from the context of food to the context of the digital you might know this man just on her us started something called the center for humane technology which he started after leaving google where he was an architect.
in the business of getting people to using the google technologies and what he describes in his speeches and writing is a science that has developed inside of silicon valley a science to engineer attention. to overcome the resistance that we would naturally have to these technologies think of it not as body hacking but as brain hacking.
now here to the scientists are exploiting a certain kind of evolution. the evolution that slot machines have traded on for ever where we like random rewards that gives us a real hit the evolution that says we like the endless bottomless pit of content that we never can stop like popcorn or potato chips. all of this engineering with the aim to sell ads right that business model creates an incentive to know more about you that just by watching you but by poking new by tweaking you by asking you questions by rendering you vulnerable.
reaching down the brain stack to leverage the insecurity you express to sell ads to you better.
this has a fax this technology google news feed has individual of facts whether it's addictions or depressions were some scholars suggest an increase in suicide it has social effects it is architected to isolate to make us vulnerable. sign up to fact she's extraordinary book describes companies in the business of monetizing attention and not necessarily in the ways that are conducive to health of its success of social movements or the public sphere that's what they're doing monetizing attention driving the politics of hate building polarized.
and ignorant public's as they do that this is the extra analogies to social that it is why it fits in this category of benefiting the user were getting what we want but harming society as it undermines the capacity for democracy we like it individually but we should. sadly hate it now you buy look at this is a why would make facebook responsible facebook is just giving you what you what well compare with some real world and a lot match in the responsibility we hold bartenders to one of a responsible for the harm caused by people drinking in their bar what we wouldn't say just when they open and sell during sets.
but we expect bars to do they be happy hours create a little bit of tension little bit more responsibility when you got happy hours going i'm maybe if they have no limit like also use much drink is you wants never well they say no to you then we say in the united states at least the bartenders responsible if you go out and kill somebody with your.
car but imagine the bartender is pharmacologist who has figured out how to spike the drinks so that you want to drink more and can't stop yourself from drinking more. there's no doubt we would say that bartender that pharmacologist you can't do this in the context of a bar facebook is spiking the tricks.
and in this sense it's responsible at least if the spiking can be shown to make democratic culture worse by rendering democracy vulnerable rendering democracy polarized simply to sell ads you know this statement to sell ads is so extraordinary it's astonishing to me we just don't. up in st about it more right if you told me you broke democracy to end global warming i say ok i get it he said i blew up democracy the end world hunger i.b.o. i'm not sure i'd except that trade off but i understand the trade off that if you tell me you broke democracy to make such remarks like.
for richer i don't understand what you're saying any more yet that is what we have allowed to happen. ok so now what do the wiki culture have to do with this.
if their obvious differences with the wiki cultures. the first difference is the difference in incentives. whether accidental or just the inside of genius there was a decision made in the early evolution of this culture not to render the content vulnerable to the incentives of ads. i think billions of dollars was left on the table because of that decision but hundreds of billions of dollars was given over to the public.
given over to the public by a technology that renders itself trustworthy or at least not focused on turning you into a crazy because that's the best way to sell ads if you remove ads from the environment you remove the incentives against the mission of the plot for you allowed. to stay focused on mission unbiased knowledge to all is the mission that's number one number to governance wikipedia doesn't just happen. it happens within a structure a structure governed by norms that understandings in practice is norms they get in forest communities that practice and enforcement of those norms you just can't export. wiki norms to c.n.n. can't work like that. we want banish ads in the real world we won't kill capitalism as much as the democratic socialist would love. the point is the world is filled with the rough and ugly stuff out there on the internet most of it pretty ugly in the context of this type of content but there are diamonds in this rough. and we can craft diamonds in the rough because if we do as wikipedia did the world will find these diamonds so the question is is the final point and i'm going to go couple minutes over but i kind of talk time years i'm taking away from my talk and she's really quite ferocious here i am.
it is a weapon she's pulling those not america so you can have a gun so that's fine. i.
so the question is how we craft diamonds here for these time craft democratic diamonds here that can compete with everything else that's out there but give us a way to have faith once again in this democracy extraordinary book by they have been rebooked against elections which reminds us as if we knew it but you know reminds us that in the history of democracy. the there is an extremely important tradition that says we select representatives not through elections. but through sorted been random selection of representatives.
and that for most of the history of democratic theorizing theorists said if you select through elections you will produce an aristocratic government if you select through sorted and you will produce a democratic government. now what fun a book is talking about is adding the process of sorted shun into the process of governance not so much to and elections are not going to get rid of elections and we shouldn't get rid of all elections but at least it creates the project have sorted shun as a shadow kind of jury service or civil.
service that helps inform government about what it can or should do a kind of hybrid. a way to construct a we the people that we are proud so for example jim fish can at stanford is develop something called deliberative polls for the last thirty years going around the world running these deliberative polls these are regular polls like george gallup would have recognized plus something plus.
is that they are representative but they bring the people together and they inform them about the subject they give them a chance to deliberate in small groups and large groups and they watch other views of all of overtime. so i saw an example of this in this extraordinary place this is mongolia this is not a painting this is a picture in mn clear that's the nature of mongolia here is a picture of mongolia in the sense that this is a random representative sample of mongolia i like to people in the teal user peep.
people who come from the outskirts of lamb bator most of them had spent two nights on a bus to get to him back to our to participate in this deliberative pole and in this deliberative paul they met in the parliament and they deliberated on proposed amendments to the constitution of.
of mongolia it liberated in small groups and a large groups and in the context of that the liberation they eventually changed their views about these proposed amendments and that became an input into the process of amending now these people are not elected.
but they're not ignorant indeed i went in a harvard law professor thinking there's no way they can work out constitutional questions and by the end of that we can listening through a translator was convinced that they were geniuses about constitutional questions is a deep sense a reality that turns out constitutional was not rocket science but the point is ordinary people.
collecting on those questions could produce something worthy something a we could be proud up now my view is we need a million experiments like this everywhere. here in germany the democratic innovation the project is producing citizen councils in many different context there is a more than voting project which is experimenting with different ways to bring out the ideas of people that's not in simple voting democrat democracy are in the site lists.
extraordinary number of projects around the world that are multiplying an experiment thing around this basic model all of them seeking experiments for a better we are we that we could respect because it's a wee that is informed and reflective and judgments the judgments it.
reduces our judgments that a real here he is where innovation in democracy must be. and we have to elevate that it that innovation to make it central to the debate about democracy to show all that there's a wee that we can like. yes you can imagine a world now we've replaced representative democracy but where we complement right to represent the moxie with a regular opportunity to reach out on issues that politicians can't resolve and ask questions in an informed and valuable way and like the wiki. culture. it would do it in a way that has known proper dependencies these are not elected people they're not selling out to their funders of campaigns are not trying to get reelected. but is not laissez faire in the sense that there is a process that these people go through for building understanding a process that is built and crafted and in forced with the objective to create an exception.
to the craziness that fills most of the public airwaves about the views of what we the people are kind of a diamond in the rough. to produce a people to be respected just as wikipedia produce free and open knowledge that could be trusted.
if the people were born in nineteen thirty six. then we can grow up with these experiments and finally speaking a way that we should respect for one final idea minister so you might have seen this movie the favorite extraordinary movie here's our the air when you come now.
the meantime as his monstrous extravagance this is only we're all we want which is not have a must continue by a lot of money that we missed an extraordinary capacity.
they lost and why i can tell even if i can't say and i had the word fact that adequate no one but we would gather and i did not he's been stupor tragedy everyone leaves me.
i have and ok so the general john rather that the favorite is within his vision or of rendering monarchs absurd.
like the reality is that many of them were absurd embarrassing but their embarrassment was hidden from the public so the public didn't think of them as absurd the public thought of them as god's chosen it was hidden until it was not and what it was not markets across the world except in a couple places where to.
destroyed because when the people realize the marks were absurd there was no reason to continue to trust the monarchs. democracy faces the same fate. because the deals right now we the people right now as we represent represented are embarrassing that the most of us are absurd ignorance about all sorts of questions that we are summoned to answer all of us at the same time at the same time are ignorant about all of these. questions were called upon to answer but it could be otherwise. we could imagine multiplying the number of examples where it's just some of us who are some and a representative sample of us representative of the public informed and reflective and inspired.
it must become otherwise. if this democracy this ideal of democracy this support for the ideal of democracy is to survive thank you very much. thank you very much so we have some time for questions race it's amazing that things were making a point to sell we resist all the time for questions if any of year i once to question anything. and otherwise. i see one year and many others on the back and i will come to give you the microphone percent and. the. the. i'm a member of parliament for the left party so the questions i'm concerned with two and i always liked the idea of selecting random people and have them take part in decision making in politics. but how to become from the status quo we have to this idea and should be hundred percent random selected people or maybe thirty percent fifty percent or other stages and but he's ok so we don't leap.
from the status quo to randomly selected groups of people legislating four nations are time that's not possible we taken steps and we develop a bunch of experiments and see how people respond to them based on the confidence that we haven't in what they've done now my own preferences yes it for the. we have a question is should be totally random but ireland has demonstrated a pretty good example of why they shouldn't just be represent a random selection so ireland had its amazing citizen councils that we're considering some fundamental questions that the irish parliament was never going to answer in a different way like should be game. marriage and i and ireland and should they continue to criminalise the termination of her pregnancy. and these councils were made up of one hundred people sixty six randomly selected people and thirty three. representatives from parliament these were the only questions address but these were the to the most significant and they met over many months they would meet once a week and months and the deliberate on it and it became a focus of ireland people watching the conversations and watching and the results astonished people because the results were. for that there should be on the criminalization of the termination abortion and there should be support for gay marriage. i and this was affirmed by the irish parliament and it was affirmed by the parliament because the thirty three parliamentarians felt they were connected to the project so they took the idea is not just these but the others to back into the parliament and made them realize that might be unnecessary hack because the on the. for example here is iceland so iceland had a crisis in two thousand and eight like everybody to it they tied that to the absence of the constitution they started a crowd source project to write a constitution the government decided it was getting out of control so the government took over but you know so basically work like this.
they had a random selection of thousand people who met for the purpose of identifying the values the constitution should have. and then they elected members to draft the constitution so they had an election in iceland where five hundred in twenty four people ran to be on the parliament and to be on this little council and its population three hundred thousand five hundred and twenty four run they elect at twenty four something like that to serve on this count. still they need for four months to draft constitution which is about the time it took to write the american constitution but unlike the americans they posted their constitution to facebook every single week so that comments were taken from people around the world about this draft and they improve the draft on the basis that comments and eventually. they took the draft to the public and they said should the parliament amend the constitution on the basis of the strathmore than two thirds of those voting said yes. and then the parliament and board and still for your five years later the parliament has done nothing with this so this might be the insight that the irish experiment shows you need to bring the parliament in the parliament going to feel connected. and so i'd love to see fifty of those kinds of experiments but what we need to do is to give people a sense just like wikipedia you know if you'd said twenty years ago were going to open up and free online encyclopedia anybody can country the view would be the view was starts crazy that's crazy talk it's going. the crap. andrs the project which many of you have been involved with for the full life of this project proved that was wrong. it didn't prove that every open content project doesn't produce crap most of them too. write it proved that this one could be different because of the discipline and norms and and and principles that were built within it.
and people come to it because they understand it's the diamond in the rough. they see it and they've learned it's like that and they begin to steer to it i think that's the same thing that could happen with these different modes of representing the public are always be gallup telling us nobody believes there should be for him reactors or we should go to war with iraq as the united states was lead with those kinds of polls to say we should do. it's never going to eliminate that but if you could begin to build things that people could have the same trust that they have with wikipedia in the project under same with the public think i think there's a chance we want seem so ridiculous and that's the chance to marcus he meets the eye.
and so we have to remarks still and i would ask you to give a short of the mark and then we can do more questions many outside arms so we've done over go with our time. by the banking larry cells and and won sayings i want to ask you have you heard about the elections circus. the lecture circuit city as it was done here twenty years ago has crossed off lincoln's eve it was called chance two thousand and what you should look into is that we in germany have the plan on selling set citizen jury and there's been much work done on the wisdom of. the people and actually they're great videos about it yeah there's a great side ask a loss that something and it's calmer board as get loss. the collect some of us to collect one of the two that i pointed to but yes there's a huge number of experiments are being done here but i think what needs to these happens people from her world needs to begin to help elevate the significance of this because it's just seen as counter or alternate it's not going to have.
that presence that it's necessary for it to begin to take on the life of its own and my commitment is really important part for people in your world it's not to say that this should replace representative democracy them representative democracies really heart you've got to balance a whole bunch of things together and should we have more money for schools more money for hospitals. more money for roads are hard questions you can't answer them wanted a time these liverpool's are good at one of the time like questions and so it's not to say that they could ever be something instead of a parliament but i think they can help the parliament know what a people properly.
structured think. when will thank you so mean by to all that you have more questions are more odd commons some to get outside in the lobby and to have a few minutes of that chat still and thank you again really nice a relative him here.
Feedback