If the same selection process for less biased information and conferring of "democratic" authority can lead to both Dr. Patrick and Joe Rogan, clearly democracy is necessary but *not* sufficient. As Joe himself says, and you point out, he is *not* a news source, he's an entertainer. So *are* people trusting him about important factual things like how COVID vaccines work? Are people treating him like a news source? If they are, then does the process you're describing work? If not, what's missing. And does Rogan have any responsibility to address that?
Is what happened with Rogan actually problematic for democratic selection of authority? Surely authority must also come with *accountability* to truly be deserving of its ongoing authority. And as far as I understand the outcry about his tacit endorsement or airing of demonstrably false information about COVID was a huge contributor *to* him admitting he was wrong in this case, and agreeing to make some changes. So maybe what happened is pretty right-on, democracy in action: a democratically earned authority figure was held accountable for problems, their right to a platform was upheld (by Spotify), but they also made changes. Democracy! Democracy?
Even in the best of cases it also really only works if the process you use to decide who is legitimate is continuous, and if the majority of others do the same. You have to hold on to a little bit of skepticism, even toward the people you've previously decided are trustworthy and deserving of authority. But it takes effort and mindfulness to do this, it's not easy, and often not comfortable...
If the same selection process for less biased information and conferring of "democratic" authority can lead to both Dr. Patrick and Joe Rogan, clearly democracy is necessary but *not* sufficient. As Joe himself says, and you point out, he is *not* a news source, he's an entertainer. So *are* people trusting him about important factual things like how COVID vaccines work? Are people treating him like a news source? If they are, then does the process you're describing work? If not, what's missing. And does Rogan have any responsibility to address that?
Is what happened with Rogan actually problematic for democratic selection of authority? Surely authority must also come with *accountability* to truly be deserving of its ongoing authority. And as far as I understand the outcry about his tacit endorsement or airing of demonstrably false information about COVID was a huge contributor *to* him admitting he was wrong in this case, and agreeing to make some changes. So maybe what happened is pretty right-on, democracy in action: a democratically earned authority figure was held accountable for problems, their right to a platform was upheld (by Spotify), but they also made changes. Democracy! Democracy?
Even in the best of cases it also really only works if the process you use to decide who is legitimate is continuous, and if the majority of others do the same. You have to hold on to a little bit of skepticism, even toward the people you've previously decided are trustworthy and deserving of authority. But it takes effort and mindfulness to do this, it's not easy, and often not comfortable...
*cough* regularly capture *cough*