Tool of democracy or irksome drivel?

The number 100,000 sounds like a lot, and in some situations it undoubtedly is: 100,000 quid in the bank or 100,000 ants in the kitchen would be cause for considerable celebration and consternation respectively. But, in the context of the internet, 100,000 is nothing. You still see breathless news bulletins reporting that thousands of people have joined some Facebook group advocating, say, death to Justin Bieber, without mentioning that nearly a million have joined a group called "I screamed your name and you didn't hear me, thanks for making me look stupid".
Registering approval or disapproval of anything online requires a few imperceptible finger movements and almost no brain activity. Against this backdrop, the British Government is moving forward with a plan for 100,000 online petition signatures to trigger consideration for a Commons debate.
The evidence against the worth of such petitions is there in the previous government's online archive. Under the new rules, precisely eight would have been seen by the relevant backbench committee.
Sensible but unpopular policies become unworkable if they are vetoed by petition - as road-pricing effectively was in 2007 when 1.8 million people said they didn't like it - but the British eagerly thumbed up proposals for a public holiday the day after Remembrance Sunday. Of course we did; we love holidays, and don't like being taxed. This isn't news, but petitions make it news.
Proposals hammered out on a keyboard are generally hare-brained and ill thought out, and politicians regard them with the contempt they deserve.
In reality, the traditional stack of A4 with a few hundred signatures presented in person will always look more impressive than a few thousand "yeahs" on a website. Commons Leader Sir George Young said yesterday that the plan will give the public a megaphone. Megaphones are profoundly irritating. Independent