According to a report by Cryptoslate, the latest episode of the Bankless Podcast discussed the potential advantages of authoritarian regimes over liberal democracies in the 21st century. In this episode, hosts Ryan Sean Adams and David Hoffman delve into whether authoritarianism can outperform liberal democracy in competition, and how blockchain technology can play a role in this. The program also invited economist Noah Smith and Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin to provide insights.
Table of Contents:
1. The efficiency of authoritarian regimes poses a major threat to liberal democracy
2. Counterarguments for the greater efficiency of authoritarian regimes
3. How blockchain can save democracy
Noah Smith believes that although liberal democracy was hailed as the best social model at the end of the 20th century, and liberal democratic countries were able to aggregate the messages the public wanted to convey through markets, elections, and public dialogue. However, with the development of the internet, this advantage has been greatly diminished, as authoritarian states can now use internet data to gauge public sentiment, allocate resources more effectively, and respond quickly to unrest, as demonstrated by China’s rapid policy shift after the 2022 “White Paper Movement.”
Furthermore, the emergence of the internet has made it easier for false information to spread, which complicates governance in liberal democratic countries. Politicians need to spend a lot of time refuting false narratives and fundraising, which undermines effective governance, as evident in Taiwan’s political environment (rampant internet armies, biased mainstream media, spread of false information by KOLs, etc.).
Vitalik Buterin further extends this topic by likening the overall landscape of the internet and information to Thomas Hobbes’ description of the “war of all against all.” In such an environment, everyone is fighting for control over information, and the result may only be a stable state achieved through strong control and monopolization. His metaphor emphasizes that authoritarian regimes may utilize the ability to aggregate large amounts of data on the internet, which should be a tool for promoting freedom, but can be transformed into a tool for centralizing power. This suggests that authoritarian regimes can strengthen their power by controlling the flow of information and monitoring the public, which is technically feasible.
Smith and Vitalik Buterin then discuss counterarguments. Smith uses the example of the printing press, which reduced the cost of information dissemination and led to political development towards liberalism instead of authoritarianism. But why won’t the internet follow a similar trajectory? Smith suggests that the possible reason is that initially, technologies like the printing press and telegraph only “reduced the cost of information dissemination,” which helped enhance the information aggregation capabilities of liberal democratic countries. However, the internet brings these costs close to zero, flattening the advantage, while the costs of false information and information warfare grow exponentially.
Vitalik Buterin adds that centralized systems (such as authoritarian governments) are usually more efficient in extracting resources than production, which can allow them to potentially surpass free systems in zero-sum games. He warns that if success is evaluated solely based on economic output, it may overlook the broad impact on human well-being.
Furthermore, Buterin considers the fundamental differences between the digital world and the physical world, particularly in terms of defense mechanisms. Digital defenses, such as encryption and decentralized platforms, provide robust protection without a physical counterpart, indicating inherent resistance to comprehensive control in the digital domain.
Moreover, Buterin discusses the trend of fragmentation on the internet, pointing out that the shift towards smaller, more specialized communities helps reduce the negative impact of information warfare. In these smaller communities, higher levels of conversation quality can usually be maintained compared to large, chaotic platforms like Twitter. He uses Twitter (now X) as an example, explaining how the visibility of large platforms leads to a decline in quality, while private group chats and small social media platforms like Farcaster can maintain higher levels of conversation and productive flow.
Smith agrees with this view, believing that reducing reliance on broad, controversial platforms (such as FB, X, Threads, etc.) can reduce the social costs associated with the information race, allowing people to engage in more constructive and focused discussions within smaller, more cohesive groups.
During the discussion, Noah Smith raises a question about whether blockchain technology can enable citizens of authoritarian countries like China and Russia to communicate safely. He wants to know if there are ways for people to discuss political issues freely and anonymously, bypassing government surveillance and censorship.
Vitalik Buterin responds by mentioning a company called Rarimo, which has developed a tool called “Freedom Tool” in Kyiv that allows Russian citizens to prove their citizenship and participate in online voting using zero-knowledge proof technology without revealing their identity.
This system ensures that the results are tamper-proof and visible, creating an anonymous and censorship-resistant form of voting. Vitalik believes this is an example of how blockchain and zero-knowledge proofs can provide privacy and trust, potentially creating a more secure and resilient information space to counter centralized and decentralized network attacks.
Vitalik admits that while Americans may not need blockchain technology for communication, having the ability to engage in secure and private political conversations could be crucial for people living in authoritarian countries.
Noah Smith praises Vitalik Buterin’s perspective and believes that developing tools that promote pluralism will help shape a healthier internet ecosystem. The purpose of these tools is not to engage in ongoing confrontation with authoritarian regimes but to create a robust framework that allows diverse voices to freely express and interact in an environment without fear.
Overall, blockchain technology provides an important tool as it can enable secure, anonymous communication and verifiable voting mechanisms, which is highly promising for supporting democratic movements and protecting freedom in authoritarian environments. By applying these technologies, it can help counter some of the challenges faced by democracy in the digital age and ensure its continued prosperity in a challenging environment.
Finally, the discussion emphasizes the complexity of predicting long-term outcomes in the rapidly evolving technological landscape. While authoritarian regimes may effectively utilize these technologies to enhance control, the adaptability and resilience of liberal democracy should not be underestimated. The future developments are still fraught with uncertainty and will be determined by the interaction of technological advancements, political structures, and social values.
Successful Conclusion of CoinEx Taiwan’s 7th Anniversary Celebration, Embracing the Arrival of the Web3 Era Hand in Hand with Users
Since its establishment in 2017, CoinEx has been a professional cryptocurrency trading pla…