I also couldn’t help but notice you completely glossed over the much more important point of misinformation for manipulation.
Fighting misinformation has to happen through establishing and maintaining trust, and providing trusted counters to misinformation. Establishing trust requires alignment with the people you want to trust you.
Interference (as opposed to participation) in the free flow of information and the process by which truth is determined is a great evil.
The purpose of a democratic government is to reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.
This is what's happening right now in Spain. Foreign interference (Ceuta, Dept. Of Homeland evidence...), followed up by foreign social media manipulation campaigns.
Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government.
This is a direct threat to democracy.
The domestic government holding a monopoly on information is a threat, and foreign information can be a relief, yes.
Foreign misinformation is also a threat, and domestic government shutting it out can also be a relief.
So you have to ask yourself, where are we? Is Spain (or any European country that is not currently bootlicking, for that matter) a dictatorship that needs Freedom messages in a bottle from the USA, or is the USA directly subverting their democracies with espionage?
Why did the USA give millions to Morocco earlier this summer? Why did the Dept. of Homeland (so espionage) produce decade old evidence of corruption in a former administration that would be linked to the current one, at this precise time? Just asking questions here.
The democratic way to fight misinformation is with public trust, a well educated population, and by publishing true information to counter misinformation. Anything less treats citizens as children who can’t be trusted to form their own opinions.
I agree on the philosophical part, letting our governments act opaquely under the veil of national security, inevitably leads them to turn on their citizens. But total transparency will be exploited by foreign powers (likely with domestic cooperation), until those that once defended it are removed from power.
Historically, this kind of control has always been a favored tool of the corrupt. If you build an apparatus of censorship, it will be used to harm the public.
There is a gray line somewhere between surveillance state and revealing all intel, which can serve national security and also diplomacy.
The problem is that this typically ends up shifting corruption towards these sectors, which ends up hollowing out national security.
Things like overclassification are a serious problem.
You know, democracy obviously has its downsides. Should we abolish democracy because of that?
This could have been prevented by blocking foreign misinformation.
> "the essential democratic freedom – freedom of expression – is both ingrained in and potentially harmful to democracy."
So basically you are arguing for the authoritarianism against the democracy. It is just so you seemingly does not like the word authoritarianism and like the word democracy, and are trying to justify the discrepancy by some kind of paradox (which there is none).
Even IF you are right about people will destroy the democracy by their will if that will does not formed by the government, there is still no paradox and that is still called the authoritarianism. By that, you simply point out one of the weakness of the democracy, and suggest the authoritarianism as a better alternative (even if you are refusing to use the correct definitions).
Not the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
You should really read those Wikipedia articles. Creating and explaining your own definitions and circular logic make you sound like a fool.
Right now, there are foreign actors helping right-extremist campaigns in Europe. Those parties' goal is ultimately converting to Authoritarianism. You can connect the dots yourself now.
You mean those foreign actors who force themselves across Spain's border? It is not a threat to democracy, it is one of the problem that democracy solving (by replacing the government that allow that to happen)
> Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government.
I mean yeah, democracy is doing it's job.
Who decides what is misinformation? The state? The ministry of truth? That is the problem with this sort of wishful thinking.
> used to manipulate the population
The media industry manipulates opinions via TV channels and newspapers and has done so for the last 50 years. Heck, some states have their own TV channels like the BBC, France Info (France) , SVT (Sweden) which is completely ironic since the state funds them and there is no way to know how neutral these are.
> dangerous information
Dangerous information is a misnomer. You could print out how to build an atom bomb and give the step-by-step instructions for free in entire neighborhoods and no one will be able to build it because you need the right expertise and the materials to create one.
Same with bio-weapons unless you think you can develop these in your kitchen after work?
Secondly, we are back to the same problem. Who decides what is "dangerous information" and how far would you be willing to go to contain it? Censor social media? Censor private messages? What about emails? Textbooks? Listening devices in all homes? Cameras that you can't turn off in your toilet in case you pass information to someone else while taking a crap?
Certainly you can understand that deliberately lying about, for example, areas where the science is overwhelming such as vaccines or climate change, is misinformation. I explicitly said I don’t have a solution, your introduction of a “ministry of truth”, “wishful thinking”, censorship and surveillance are your own fabrications, not part of my argument.