Why do people living in democratic countries vote for political candidates who openly violate democratic standards? A new study by a University of Notre Dame [in France] found that diverse understandings of democracy among voters can lead to votes for authoritarian-leaning political leaders.

“A considerable variety in democratic views leads part of the electorate to overlook violations of democratic norms such as minority rights protection or restraints on executive power,” said Marc Jacob, assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. “These varied attitudes represent an important vulnerability for the democratic system as they can enable authoritarian political candidates to access and retain power.”

The study, [...] found that voters' differing conceptions of democracy shape their ability to recognize democratic violations and, in turn, affect their voting choices.

Jacob and co-authors Natasha Wunsch of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and Laurenz Derksen of ETH Zurich conducted a candidate choice experiment in Poland, a democracy where elections remain competitive despite some democratic backsliding over the past several years. (Democratic backsliding occurs when existing democracies slip backward toward autocracy and is currently taking place in every region of the world.)

The researchers found that respondents who supported democracy in principle but adhered less strongly to liberal democratic norms, such as minority rights protection and constraints on executive power, tolerated democratic violations more readily.

[...]

“Democracy education often features big, abstract ideas, but it’s just as important to show people how civil liberties, power-sharing, and the rule of law directly benefit them—and to remind them that their votes play a crucial role in keeping those values alive.”

Political scientists and economists have traditionally argued the more economic prosperity a country has, the more democratic it becomes - but Professor Ian MacKenzie from University of Queensland’s School of Economics in Australia says the relationship is not simple.

“When a country’s income is very low, survival is the focus and the marginal benefits of consumption of material goods is very high,” Professor MacKenzie said.

“Essentially, when you don’t have much, an extra dollar is very, very valuable to you.

“Because of that, you won’t invest time in political activism, you’ll invest it in working to increase your income.”

Professor MacKenzie, along with economists Dr Dario Debowicz (Swansea University), Professor Alex Dickson (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow) and Associate Professor Petros Sekeris (Toulouse Business School), looked at data from every country between 1800 to 2010 to analyse their income and democratic score.

They hypothesised the relationship between the income of a country and its level of democracy is not linear but instead forms a U-shape.

Professor MacKenzie said when societies reach a high level of income, the curve shifts towards increased democratisation.

“As income increases, there comes a turning point at which your income has increased so much you start to value improvements in political freedoms,” he said.

“People feel more empowered to challenge authorities.

“A lot of people believe there is no link between income and democracy, or that there is a positive link – as in more income equals more democracy.

“What we’ve shown is that it’s more complicated than that.”

Professor MacKenzie said China was a country to watch in that it has experienced extraordinary economic growth over the past 4 decades while remaining an authoritarian state.

“The U-shaped theory suggests political uprisings could occur if economic growth continues,” he said.

“China has many citizens who are benefitting from the country opening its markets and increasing its GDP (gross domestic product) so there’s a lot of evidence to suggest they may start craving democratic principles.”

The research was published in Springer Nature.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/20532607

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.

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

archive.org link

According to Reuters, he is accusing the company of discrimination, wrongful termination and showing a pattern of bias against Palestinians. Hamad said he noted procedural irregularities on how the company handled restrictions on content from Palestinian Instagram personalities, which prevented them from appearing in feeds and searches.

archive.today link

archive.org link

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/16422026

Not a surprise but man

archive.org link

Credible Web Community Group

archive.org link

Why would you want to delegate moderation:

Temporarily, while looking for new mods and admins. When an instance is under attack by trolls and the like, ask extra help When there is a large influx of new users

archive.org link

The field of social development has seen three major approaches to dealing with problems:

the Charity Model

the Needs-Based Approach

the Rights-Based Approach

For half a century, developing nations were arguing at the United Nations sessions for the need to recognize the right to development as a human right. With a growing globalization process and several political changes around the world, and with increasing pressure from developing nations, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development.

“The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised.”

This declaration gave a strong boost to the Rights-Based Approach to development and marked a new era in social development.

archive.org link

Federated Moderation: Towards Delegated Moderation?

What would an ideal fediverse organization do?

Fediverse, NetCommons and the blueprint for P2P society?

RIPE NCC Community Fund 2023

United Software Development: A new paradigm?

Federated Moderation: Towards Delegated Moderation?

EC - NGI0 Liaison -- Webinars and Workshop April 2021

Important: We need Your Input on the Future of the SocialHub

Hospitality exchange community considers moving to the fediverse ;)

Proposal: New top-level forum section for Domains

Working and thinking on "native" #openweb aproches to governance

Organizing for SocialHub Community Empowerment

RIPE NCC Community Fund 2023

archive.org link

I see no reason why, after the Fediverse has found a solid moral ground, it shouldn’t put this up to the test against Meta and try to win over some terretory with it. Actually, it seems like the most sensible thing to do. Because we want to bring these digital rights to as many people as possible, and for that, we need to partially federate with Meta.

archive.org link

This question is particularly relevant for non-profits working in the field of human rights – especially those who are familiar with the problems inherent in Facebook’s attention-based business model.

In other words, doing human rights advocacy through Facebook could be a case of “one step forward, two steps back”: Though awareness and even impact may be achieved on a particular progressive front, it comes at the cost of all the economic, social, and political problems associated with surveillance capitalism.

archive.org link

A Victorian children’s court granted permanent stay of the case, and Magistrate Lesley Fleming made damning findings against police.

In the decision, Fleming found law enforcement used “the guise of a rehabilitation service to entice the parents of a troubled child to engage in a process that resulted in potential harm to the child.”

“The community would not expect law enforcement officers to encourage a 13-14 year old child towards racial hatred, distrust of police and violent extremism, encouraging the child’s fixation on ISIS,” Fleming said.

Fleming also found police had purposefully delayed charging Thomas until he turned 14, which would make it more difficult to use the doli incapax defence, which states children under a certain age cannot be held criminal responsible for their actions.

The AFP officer responsible for signing off on the operation, Deputy Commissioner McCartney, told Senate estimates he would do it again.

McCartney defended the operation on the grounds that the de-escalation techniques employed by Victoria Police’s Countering Violent Extremism team weren’t “being effective”.

archive.org link

In terms of human rights, social media platforms have a huge impact on how an individual may express, search for, and encounter information. Individuals may be subjected to discrimination through or by the platforms, or have their personal data and privacy restricted. However, as private companies they are not bound by human rights law, unless human rights standards are translated into national regulation. Such translation has happened in many areas of life—workers’ rights, protection of children, environmental protection, protection of journalists and press freedom, for example—but there is still no regulation that stipulates the role and responsibility of tech giants that have reached such a size and volume that their impact on individual speech, public debate, discrimination, and privacy may in many contexts be more significant than that of the state itself.

archive.org link

Great question.

archive.org link

Earlier this month, the 47 member states of the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a landmark Resolution (A/HRC/20/L.13) to include the “promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet.” The Resolution, which was presented by Sweden, was backed by more than 70 countries in all, both members and non-members of the HRC.

archive.org link

"Our findings suggest age verification is generally supported, but participants think it likely would not work. Instead, they said more safety education, face-to-face dialogue, and accountability from social media companies would be better approaches to keeping young people safe online."

It will stop migrants who cross unlawfully from receiving asylum, but only takes effect when the southern border has been "overwhelmed"

archive.today link

archive.org link

Go to vote if you don’t want to go to war.

That’s the stark choice that Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk is presenting ahead of the European elections this weekend. His team is highlighting security, or, more precisely, the threat of Russian aggression, as the big theme.

With parties sympathetic to Russia set to make gains elsewhere, including in central Europe, Tusk’s Civic Coalition is stressing that the EU needs to stand firm and united against the danger from Moscow.

He’s urging the Polish people to get out and vote, to protect themselves.

archive.org link