{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","title":"技术至死 数字化生存的阴暗面","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0120136503","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","id":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","uuid":"13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","title":"技术至死 数字化生存的阴暗面","normalized_title":"技术至死数字化生存的阴暗面","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0120136503","isbns":["0120136503","9787121227776"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":396,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E8%87%B3%E6%AD%BB%20%E6%95%B0%E5%AD%97%E5%8C%96%E7%94%9F%E5%AD%98%E7%9A%84%E9%98%B4%E6%9A%97%E9%9D%A2","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/13a8d12f-fb2c-4d05-a501-68bf7c192d34/search"},"page":{"printed_page":125,"pdf_page":139,"physical_index":139,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"755532d549696f753226a25f229930f0759c87a7124b6883c8abdf5a16bb8997"},"chapter":"技术至死数字化生存的阴暗面","content":"然而，并不只有“阳光基金会”的解决方案主义者在期待“互联网”表达某种也许根本不该表达的概念。知名的政治理论家一直主张“监督式民主”，政客在（公民、非政府组织、调查团和机构的)持续监督下进行工作，因为，众所周知，政客往往有缺点、效率低和腐败。并不是说这么做是错误的(此种背景下经常被援引的腐败和官僚胡作非为的故事显然不是什么童话故事)，但“监督式民主”理论极少阐明，何种政治活动不应当进行详细审查、监督和评分。这里的危险，跟透明性方案的常见情况一样，在于增加的阳光被认为只对它自己有好处，而不是被当作其他更高利益的推动者。\n\n在《捍卫政治》(DefendingPolitics，这或许是近几年出版的对政治实践的最机智辩护)中，马修·福林达斯(MatthewFlinders)发现，“监督式民主”存在的许多问题，与迈克尔·鲍尔在更广泛的“审计社会”中发现的一样。福林达斯告诫说，监督式民主的主要精力不是培养社会美德，而是“在所谓政客不可信的公理’基础之上，对政客和决策者进行控制、监督和详细审查。”\n\n《卫报》最近一篇文章就体现了某种颇具代表性的公众舆论观点。它引用了一名普通选民的话，该选民抱怨说，“我认为政客就是小偷、说谎者和骗子”。这是一种不诚实的、侵略性的政治模式，它鄙视政客，推崇“我明白了”式的报道方式，津津乐道于“扒政治的皮的喜悦”。最令人不安的是，它对公民责任几乎绝口不提，而是一味强调他们的权利(基本上也只是一种权利：知情权)。正如福林达斯所指出的，把公民当成消费者，会让他们以为，政治能达到“人们通常要求私营单位所达到的服务标准……这在政治上等于自杀。”\n\n欲毁掉政治，修补它\n\n125","previous_page":124,"next_page":126}