Democracy

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/41779805

[As a personal note by OP: This is about Australia, but it perfectly applies to any democracy on the globe as well imho.]

Warnings this week from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) about sabotage threats marked an important shift in tone.

And they raise important questions about how the Australian government should respond.

Breaking from past practice, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess said Chinese state-linked hackers have scanned, mapped and in some cases infiltrated Australian critical infrastructure.

According to Burgess, these groups are no longer focused on stealing information. They are preparing to disrupt or shut down key systems in a future crisis.

...

Burgess described [that] this threat does not involve persuasion or interference in debate. It is about the ability to disable telecommunications, shut down water systems, interrupt electricity supplies or damage the financial system.

This is preparation to use coercion during a crisis. One can imagine a scenario where Australia’s ability to respond to a blockade or invasion of Taiwan is hampered by a shutdown of critical infrastructure.

Burgess is therefore right to highlight the seriousness of the threat. China has shown that control of digital systems is central to geopolitical competition. Maintaining access to foreign infrastructure is a strategic advantage. As Australia becomes more reliant on digital networks, weaknesses in those systems become national security concerns.

...

There is, however, a second issue that deserves attention. In responding to foreign cyber threats, Australia risks adopting some of the very same digital tools used in authoritarian states such as Russia and China.

Research on digital authoritarianism shows that many authoritarian governments use control of digital networks to manage their own populations. They monitor citizens, limit information and use technology to enforce political order.

...

Burgess’ warning suggests this model is being exported. The aim is to control digital life at home, but also to gain the ability to interfere with digital systems overseas if needed.

In recent years, Australian governments have proposed measures that go well beyond traditional cybersecurity. These include mandatory age checks for social media, strict online limits for minors and expanding the duties of technology companies to assist with national security goals.

These proposals are framed as necessary for public safety. Yet they show a willingness to extend state power deeper into digital life.

...

Burgess’ speech at a business conference reinforces this trend. He addressed government agencies but also corporate boards, telling them national security is now their responsibility, as well.

Much of Australia’s critical infrastructure is owned or operated by private companies. Expecting these companies to act as extensions of national security policy risks blurring the line between public and private roles.

...

A defining feature of digital authoritarianism is the merger of state security priorities with corporate behaviour. If this boundary weakens, Australia could slowly move toward practices it has long opposed.

It is possible to strengthen national resilience without taking this path. A democratic society can defend its networks and deter cyber threats while maintaining openness and accountability.

Burgess is correct that Australia faces a serious and evolving challenge. China’s cyber operations reflect wider geopolitical changes. But an effective response requires protecting both infrastructure and democratic norms.

...

Stronger cyber defences are necessary, but they must come with clear limits on state power, transparent rules for data access and protections for speech.

China’s cyber operations, which are part of a wider strategic contest, are indeed a serious threat. But if Australia reacts by expanding security powers without restraint, it risks weakening the freedoms it aims to defend.

Did a whole bunch of right wing money flood into Youtube trying to influence culture? Or am I jumping at shadows?

Suddenly my Youtube ads are all "Real men protect women and wear this tactical hoodie!" and Youtube thinks I want to watch Matt Walsh's transphobic documentary. Emotionally, it feels like they're throwing salt in my wounds while I'm just trying to watch my astrophysics Youtubers and escape.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/3914045

Here is the study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp1274

Most people in most countries state that they wish to have a democratic government. But the definition of democracy has been constantly contested. Without understanding what people really mean by democracy, the concept is vulnerable to being exploited by dictators and anti-democratic politicians for their own ends.

[...]

A new research study led by the University of Oxford, National University of Singapore, and Emory University has now shed light on the question: "How do people around the world define democracy?"

The study surveyed over 6,000 people from the United States, Italy, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Japan- countries with highly different political regimes, democratic histories, geographic regions, levels of development, and cultural backgrounds. The study explored how people prioritize nine different attributes in their understanding of what makes a country democratic, using examples of hypothetical countries.

[...]

• Overwhelmingly, participants were significantly more likely to view countries that select their leaders through free and fair elections as more democratic than countries without elections.

• Participants were also significantly more likely to view countries with strong protections for civil liberties as more democratic compared with countries without such protections.

• The relevance of these was consistent regardless of people's age, gender, education, minority status, or political ideology.

• After elections and liberties, the two most important attributes were gender equality, then economic equality. Countries in which men and women have equal rights are more likely to be seen as democratic than countries with highly unequal gender rights. Relative equality between the rich and poor (compared with high inequality) also increased the likelihood that a country was seen as more democratic.

• Then, countries where leaders must respect the legislature and courts' authority in decision making were more likely to be perceived as more democratic compared with countries in which the leader frequently bypasses the legislative and judicial branches when making decisions.

• In contrast, the researchers found little evidence of an "authoritarian" redefinition of democracy taking root anywhere. Even within authoritarian countries such as Egypt or Thailand, democracy was still perceived as being rooted in elections and liberties.

As get-out-the-vote efforts hit high gear nationwide, a team of sociologists, political scientists and nonprofits in select states are focused on reaching out to some of the more than two million people with felony convictions who may not realize they have the legal right to vote.

UCLA sociology professor Naomi Sugie, along with colleagues from UC Irvine, UC Berkeley School of Law and Stanford University, analyzed the voting obstacles that persist for this population during the Nov. 2022 election and have released their findings in a study published in the October issue of Punishment and Society. This fall, the researchers are continuing to monitor barriers alongside the Project VOICES team, short for Voter Outreach In Communities Experiencing System-Involvement, who are engaged in a massive outreach effort ahead of the upcoming 2024 election.

The United States faces elections viewed as illegitimate, skyrocketing threats against elected politicians and election officials, and hate crime rates that are now among the highest in this century. What is causing this turmoil, and how do the thousands of people and organizations working to advance democracy help the country get out of this cycle of distrust, hatred, and violence that is convulsing our political and civic life?

The U.S. is testing the waters of a political realignment, as political parties see new opportunities amidst shifts in the country’s demography, economics, and public opinion. The peculiarities of America’s political system mean that this fight for new voters is incentivizing violence and electoral manipulation, just as earlier realignments did. Many on the left hope that the current crisis will end if a Democratic Party that is consistently committed to democracy and the rule of law wins decisively for a significant period of time, cementing a majority that is too solid to be undermined by the MAGA faction’s dirty tricks and threats. While necessary, that will not be sufficient.

Violence and electoral suppression are likely to continue until the parties complete their realignment in such a way that stirring our nation’s core fissure of racial and ethnic hatred is no longer a useful way for Republicans to generate votes, write Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where she focuses on troubled democracies facing violence and polarization, and Brendan Hartnett, research associate at Longwell Partners.

The medical community increasingly acknowledges voting as a crucial social determinants of health (SDOH), framing it as a significant public health concern. This relationship between voting and health is reciprocal: a person's health can impact their ability to vote, while the act of voting can also impact health outcomes.

SDOH encompasses factors such as income, access to nutritious food, reliable transportation, and safe and affordable housing -all critical components of these non-medical determinants that shape health care outcomes. Addressing these social factors is essential for improving overall health and ensuring equitable access to health care for all individuals.

Physician's Weekly groups the SDOH into five domains influencing health: Economic Stability, Education Access and Quality, Health care Access and Quality, Neighborhood and Built Environment, and Social and Community Context.