For this reason, elected authoritarians who wish to consolidate control typically win not by flashy displays of might, but by convincing a critical mass of people that they’re just a normal politician — no threat to democracy at all.
That means the survival of democracy depends, to an extent not fully appreciated, on perceptions and narratives. In three recent countries where a democracy survived an incumbent government bent on destroying it — Brazil, South Korea, and Poland — the belief among elites, the public, and the opposition that democracy was at stake played a critical role in motivating pushback.
I understand the sentiment and agree with the diagnosis. I just worry that the proposed cure won’t address the illness. Decentralization is a band-aid at best.
I think the traditional journalism business model is just a proxy for “truth” in the sense that fact-checking and reliability is really what’s at stake versus social media “news.” And the substituted point is still valid - truth as a business model is no longer financially viable - but the answer in that case I feel should be to make truth financially viable. One way to do that is to depress demand for misinformation (laws prohibiting misinformation and enforcement, creating boycott campaigns against platforms that algorithmically incentivize misinformation like Facebook and X). The other is to reward truth (educate the populace to support it, sure, but also keep funding as a social good journalism like NPR, PBS).
It’s not great, but I don’t feel just pushing into decentralized media will do anything except create even more competing “truths” and hasten information exhaustion and withdrawal from public spaces.