Politicians are not more vain than they used to be, they are more vulnerable

Without Google, there would be no Baerbock case, no Guttenberg case, no Giffey case. Are politicians now more vain and ruthless than they used to be? Hardly likely. What has changed are the means by which biographical and academic details can be dragged to light. Everything comes out. Hoping that misconduct will go undetected is naive.
The Baerbock case has also shown that there are people who make a living from scouring the vastness of the Internet for something resilient. Plagiarism as a business model. What private detectives were once hired to lay in wait with binoculars and cameras is now done with a click of the mouse.

No protection lasts forever

The research field includes everything that is digitally available – or can be made available. Chat history on Twitter, Facebook acquaintances, Instagram videos. Everyone has a cell phone with them. Anyone who goes out in public must expect to be photographed, filmed and recorded with every fragment of sentence everywhere. This results in the fear of many politicians of compromises, which in turn results in those slippery, rarely platitude-free appearances that the audience likes to complain about.
The fear is justified. In addition to continuous observation, there is a data theft that is gigantic in size. Whether 500 million Yahoo users, Hillary Clinton’s email account or the network of the German Bundestag: No protection lasts forever, codes are cracked, encryption is decrypted. Only the thieves know what happens to the data and information. Targeted disclosure, blackmail – anything is possible.

Are we becoming “more compassionate and forgiving”?

“Perhaps our new public will cause us to be more compassionate and conciliatory with one another,” writes Internet philosopher David Weinberger, who conducts research at Harvard University, “and also with the errors and weaknesses of public figures.” Election campaign times, at best a pious wish.
Because the power of the new research tools, especially Google, is supplemented by the loss of power of the traditional media. Due to the increasing use of social networks, you have lost the authority to interpret political events. It used to be said that what is not mentioned in the news is unimportant. The time is finally over.

In principle, everyone today has access to the public. As a result, it has become more diverse and more democratic, but also more prone to scandal and more emotionally driven. Respect and consideration step back in favor of the legendary bon mot by the Austrian essayist Anton Kuh: “Just don’t get factual right away. It can also be done personally. ”

We will have to learn to live with thunderstorms of outrage

What follows from this? Not much. The consequences of almost total transparency, combined with an unfiltered flow of communication, are only just beginning to emerge. The process is not reversible. With thunderstorms of outrage pounding down on people who go public, these people will have to learn to live. They need damn thick fur, damn good friends, and damn loving family. The public, on the other hand, as amorphous as it may be, has to answer the question of whether criticism of people cannot also be formulated in a human way and guided by the idea of ​​humanity.