According to a report by Cryptoslate, the latest episode of the Bankless Podcast discusses 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 co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, to provide insights.
Contents
Toggle
The efficiency of authoritarian regimes poses a major threat to democracy and freedom
Counterarguments to the greater efficiency of authoritarian regimes
How blockchain can save democracy
Noah Smith argues that although liberal democracy was hailed as the best social model in the late 20th century, and liberal democratic countries could aggregate the messages the public wants to convey through markets, elections, and public discourse. However, with the development of the internet, this advantage has been greatly diminished, and authoritarian countries can now use internet data to measure public sentiment, allocate resources more effectively, and respond quickly to turmoil, as demonstrated by China’s rapid policy shift after the 2022 “blank paper movement.”
In addition, the birth of the internet has made the spread of false information easier, which has made governance in liberal democratic countries more complex. Politicians need to spend a lot of time countering false narratives and fundraising, which undermines effective governance, as evident in Taiwan’s political environment (rampant internet armies, biased mainstream media, dissemination 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’ “war of all against all.” In such an environment, everyone is fighting for control of information, and the result may be that a stable state can only be achieved through strong control and monopolization. His metaphor aims to emphasize that authoritarian regimes may use the ability to aggregate large amounts of data on the internet, which is originally a tool that promotes freedom, to instead strengthen centralization. This indicates that authoritarian regimes may enhance 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 lowered the cost of information dissemination and led to the development of politics towards liberalism rather than authoritarianism. But why wouldn’t the internet follow a similar trajectory? Smith believes that a possible reason is that technologies like the printing press and telegraph initially only “lowered the cost of information dissemination,” which helped enhance the information aggregation ability of liberal democratic countries. However, the internet brings these costs close to zero, flattening the advantage and exponentially increasing the costs of false information and information warfare.
Vitalik Buterin adds that centralized systems (such as authoritarian governments) are usually more efficient in extracting resources than production, which can make them potentially surpass liberal systems in zero-sum games. He warns that if success is evaluated solely based on economic output, this practice 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 in 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 to illustrate how the visibility of large platforms leads to a decline in quality, whereas 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 and controversial platforms like FB, X, Threads, etc., can reduce the social costs associated with information races, 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 securely. He wonders 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 uses zero-knowledge proof technology to allow Russian citizens to prove their citizenship and participate in online voting without revealing their identity.
This system ensures results that are tamper-proof and visible, creating an anonymous and censorship-resistant form of voting. Vitalik believes this is an example that shows 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 can be crucial for people living in authoritarian countries.
Noah Smith commends Vitalik Buterin’s viewpoint and believes that developing tools that promote pluralism would help shape a healthier internet ecosystem. The purpose of these tools is not to engage in continuous 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 utilizing these technologies, it can help liberal democracy counter some of the challenges faced 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 face of rapid technological advancements. While authoritarian regimes may effectively utilize these technologies to enhance control, the adaptability and resilience of liberal democracy should not be underestimated. The future development remains uncertain and will be determined by the interaction of technological advancements, political structures, and societal values.