Bankless Episodes: The Most Recent One podcast Discussions were held on the possible advantages of authoritarian governments in the 21st Century. Arguments were made based on the fact that both the Chinese and Russian government spend significant amounts of money to spread their respective narratives, while the US takes a hands-off attitude.
The episode features insights from Noah Smith, Ethereum’s co-founder, and Vitalik Buterin, an economist.
Effectiveness of Authoritarian Regimes as a Threat to Liberalism
Smith asserts that at the close of the 20th Century, liberal democracy was seen as the best societal model. Francis Fukuyama is the epitome of this. “The End of History” thesis. But recent events have cast some doubt on the triumphalism. This reassessment is largely based on the rise of China and perceived weakness in the US.
The Internet plays a pivotal role. Smith asserts that democratic liberal countries have historically been better at aggregating data through elections, markets and public discussion. This advantage could be reduced by the ability of the internet to centralize large amounts data. As China has shown, authoritarian countries can use this data to assess public sentiment and allocate resources more effectively, while also responding quickly to unrest. “white paper protests.”
The internet also encourages anarchy in information, making disinformation easier to propagate. The situation complicates the governance of liberal democracies. Politicians spend considerable time fighting false narratives and raising money, which takes them away from their core duties.
Buterin elaborates, comparing the landscape of information to Thomas Hobbes’ concept. “war of all against all,” The only equilibrium that could be stable is monopolistic narrative control. This metaphor shows how authoritarian governments can exploit the Internet’s data-aggregation capabilities, transforming a tool that was designed to empower liberals into one which strengthens central control.
Contrarian arguments to the efficacy of Authoritarian Regimes
Smith and Buterin explore then counterarguments. Smith makes a comparison with the printing press which, by lowering information costs, led to an increase in liberalism as well as societal fragmentation. He asks why the Internet wouldn’t take a similar path.
Smith says that there are nonlinearities in the current situation. In the beginning, technologies such as the printing press or telegraph helped liberal democracies to improve information collection by reducing costs. The benefits of reducing these costs to zero plateaued as they approached zero. However, the cost of information warfare and disinformation grew exponentially.
Buterin continues that centralised systems are often better at extraction than in production and could be able to compete with more liberalized systems in conflicts of zero-sum. He says that only focusing on economics could lead to a narrow view of success, which might not take into account the wider impact human flourishing has.
Buterin examines then the fundamental differences between the physical and digital worlds, especially in terms of defence mechanisms. Decentralized and encrypted platforms are digital protections with no physical equivalents.
Buterin also points out that fragmenting internet users into smaller communities with more specific interests could help mitigate negative effects from information warfare. This fragmented space often has a higher level of discourse than large platforms, such as Twitter.
Buterin said:
“Twitter is the worst of it that you see, and it’s the worst of it precisely because you can see it right if you think about private group chats, for example.
Private group chats consistently maintain higher levels of quality and high levels of productive discourse on smaller social media platforms, whether it’s Farcaster or whatever else they maintain higher levels of discourse.”
“He then pointed to an article Smith discusses how to get ready for 2022 in his article. the internet wants to be fragmented.
Smith admits that this is true, stating that the costs of information tournaments could be reduced by less reliance on large platforms. Smaller groups can have more productive and coherent discussions.
Smith is concerned about authoritarian influences’ global reach, even though he offers reassurances. This concern stems from his use of sharp tactics to gain power. He explains that China is using economic leverage to influence governments and companies abroad, blurring the borders of nationalities in digital space. The ongoing information war across borders is a challenge that differs from the traditional conflicts.
Blockchain could be the key to saving democracy
Noah Smith raised during the conversation the issue of whether the blockchain could be used to enable safe communication between citizens living in authoritarian nations like China and Russia. He asks whether there is a way for citizens to communicate anonymously and freely about politics, without being monitored by the government.
Vitalik Buterin highlights the response by Vitalik Buterin work Rarimo is a Kyiv-based company. The company developed an “outil” called “Freedom Tool“, which relies on zero-knowledge proof The technology allows Russians to vote online and verify their citizenship, without having to reveal their identities.
The system is designed to ensure that results cannot be tampered with.proof It is a kind of voting that can be anonymous and censorship resistant. Buterin views this example as a way that blockchains and zero-knowledge can be used to provide privacy and trustworthiness. This could create a more resilient and secure infosphere, both against centralized and uncentralized cyberattacks.
Buterin admits that, while the blockchain may not be required for Americans to be able to communicate with each other, it might be essential for those in authoritarian countries to be able to hold private and secure conversations regarding their political situation. The technology can help to promote internal dissent within authoritarian regimes and encourage democratization by creating a secure space for communication and organisation.
Smith understands the importance of pluralism and is interested in creating tools that will make it easier for multiple groups to interact productively. This isn’t about playing cat and mouse games with oppressive governments, but creating systems that allow diverse voices to speak without fear of reprisal.
Blockchain technology offers promising ways to support democratic movements, safeguard freedoms and protect them in authoritarian environments. It can provide anonymous, secure communication, and it has verifiable vote mechanisms.
It may be possible, by leveraging the technologies available, to overcome some of the challenges liberal democracies are facing in this digital age. This will ensure that democracy continues to flourish even when the environment is challenging.
In the end, this discussion emphasizes how difficult it is to predict long-term results in light of rapid technological progress. The ability for authoritarian governments to use these technologies in a way that is detrimental should not be understated. Future is uncertain and will continue to be shaped by technological abilities, political structures, as well as societal values.
In this article, we mention a number of things. article
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
“ItsDailyCrypto is not responsible for any activities you perform outside ItsDailyCrypto.”
Source: cryptoslate.com