Tyranny, Trump, and Total Control.

My favorite definition of “tyranny” is the following:

“a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

In recent days, the US Election has caused much consternation among those in the media. Most of the sentiment can be summarized by “how did we get it so wrong?”

I would submit — among many other factors — an important consideration is that here in the US (and arguably elsewhere in the Western World), people are exercising a natural resistance to being controlled. They feel it in everything they do, and they’ve determined that it’s not normal. Slowly, the subtle overreach of authority has become so normalized that we’ve almost forgotten that it shouldn’t be acceptable. Whether you accept the “media bias” or “liberal elite” arguments, there is no debating the following facts:

1. Major media outlets are controlled by a small number of conglomerates and those outlets are primarily run out of three main geographic centers in the United States (http://www.frugaldad.com/media-consolidation-infographic/)

2. The top sites for online news control 62% of what online users see (http://wp.me/p1FaB8-5zAV )

3. Almost every poll got the Trump victory wrong (http://tinyurl.com/j4jzm54)

4. Trust in existing US government institutions has never been lower (http://pewrsr.ch/1N7G6N8)

5. Distrust of the online oligarchy has never been higher (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/)

It would be easy to point to the “deplorable” argument. These people were so upset with their current economic and social plight, that they elected the most unqualified (as designated by those same mainstream outlets) candidate in the history of the United States. I would like to argue for a slightly different interpretation. Rather, that:

1. People have come to see the collision of pervasive groupthink when small numbers gather in an echo chamber.

2. The drive to “self-service” online news is motivated by a realization that those companies that control the platform also control the content…whether they acknowledge it or not. If you’re Disney, everyone gets ESPN whether they want it or not (aka ‘bundling’) and if you’re Facebook, well, you don’t like it but you’re serving up “news” whether it’s real or not.

3. If you ask people what they believe on one hand, then ridicule them for their answer on another, then why would you be surprised when they don’t give you honest polling answers?

4. If you ignore a large segment of the population and their concerns, regardless of whether you agree with their positions, that group will take to extreme measures to be heard. Think of it as the inverse of “triggering.”

5. If you continue to abuse people’s sensibilities about how much information you require to “better serve them,” they will take measures to push back no matter how useful your services may be.

I would submit that Trump was elected to be an “avenger” to an aggrieved class. No matter how flawed this avenger may or may not be, he is their answer to decades of being told what to read, watch, say, learn and live by. Whether it’s political correctness, hate speech, or ad hominem attacks-on either side of the issues, a world where we’re told what is acceptable to think, feel and do, is a textbook definition of “a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force.”

As in the Brexit and now with Trump, if you want to move a group toward a certain ideal or outcome, be careful how you do it. If your plan is to radicalize dissent, provide conditions banning free and thoughtful speech and the exchange of ideas — while deriding genuine concern with taunts of “deplorable” — you better be prepared to be surprised.

People, especially those born into “liberal democracies,” have an innate sense for loss of control. They are willing to cede it sparingly, and usually in return for a bargain (e.g. I will give up some of my privacy by taking off my shoes in the security line, but you (government) will make sure no one tries to blow up my plane). And in times of extreme fear (aka 9/11), they’ll give up a lot (The Patriot Act). But when the line is crossed, the promise broken, and the retort from the oligarchy is “this is all normal,” then they will respond.

How, you might ask? They will respond by:

1. Demanding the unbundling of their media options (Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube)

2. Moving to alternative news sources (Drudge Report, Brietbart, and Comedy Central)

3. Giving the pollsters “false positives” (2016 polling, Brexit, Market expectations)

4. Electing more radically right, left, or 3rd party candidates (Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders)

5. Looking for ways to take more control over their personal information (Ad Blockers, End-to-End Encryption, No-track search engines)

Simply put, you can motivate, inspire, and even nudge people toward ideas that work, but you cannot force, cajole, or insult them to your point of view. Those ideas have to serve them in some form and not be delivered as a one-way-only proposition. Whether the proposition is from a ruling class that’s trying to move a large segment of a declining middle class to more federalism, or that’s trying to force users to provide more personal information about themselves to participate in the everyday online world, its value proposition has to be ‘equitable’. It has to be fair-minded and ultimately has to put the user in a position whereby they can make their own choices. Not coerced choices…but choices free from fear, ridicule and “tyranny of the minority.”

FWIW