this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
-19 points (26.8% liked)
Asklemmy
48188 readers
806 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OK, now we're into something...
It is true that it is problematic for the whole population to intervene even in aspects they do not fully or partially master. It makes more sense for the experts to decide in a democratic way than for the expert to make all the decisions, the former is democratic, maybe limited, but democratic after all; the latter is pure and simple Authoritarianism.
Still, I advocate that the commons have at least a notion, however basic, that the experts are voting. Ignorance and lack of transparency are the points that make the population easily manipulated, because they think "Why pay attention to this supposed expert who tells me nothing or at best gives me a half-baked complicated explanation? I prefer to listen to the flatearther who does not take me for a fool and gives me easy to understand explanations".