Cass R. Sunstein: The Daily We

Is the Internet a wonderful development for democracy? In many                  ways it certainly is. As a result of the Internet, people can                  learn far more than they could before, and they can learn it much                  faster.

But in the midst of the celebration, I want                  to raise a note of caution.

the growing power of consumers to "filter" what they see

1. Broadcast.com has "compiled hundreds                  of thousands of programs so you can find the one that suits your                  fancy

2. Sonicnet.com allows you to create your                  own musical universe,

3. Zatso.net allows users to produce "a                  personal newscast." Its intention is to create a place "where                  you decide what's news."

4. Info Xtra offers "news and entertainment                  that's important to you," and it allows you to find this "without                  hunting through newspapers, radio and websites."

5. TiVo, a television recording system,                  is designed, in the words of its website, to give "you the ultimate                  control over your TV viewing."

6. Intertainer, Inc. provides "home entertainment                  services on demand,"

Of course, these developments make life                  much more convenient and in some ways much better: we all seek                  to reduce our exposure to uninvited noise.

Unanticipated encounters, involving topics and points of                  view that people have not sought out and perhaps find irritating,                  are central to democracy and even to freedom itself.

Second, many                  or most citizens should have a range of common experiences.                  Without shared experiences, a heterogeneous society will have                  a more difficult time addressing social problems and understanding                  one another.

Consider a thought experiment

in which consumers can entirely                  personalize (or "customize") their communications universe.

If people want to restrict themselves to certain points                  of view, by limiting themselves to conservatives, moderates, liberals,                  vegetarians, or Nazis, that would be entirely feasible with a                  simple point-and-click.

A number of newspapers' websites allow readers                  to create filtered versions,

hus MIT professor Nicholas                  Negroponte refers to the emergence of the "Daily Me"—a communications                  package that is personally designed, with components fully chosen                  in advance.

Of course, this is not entirely different                  from what has come before. People who read newspapers do not read                  the same newspaper;

hat is different                  is a dramatic increase in individual control over content, and                  a corresponding decrease in the power of general interest intermediaries,                  including newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters.

People who rely on such intermediaries have                  a range of chance encounters

In fact, a risk with a system of perfect                  individual control is that it can reduce the importance of the                  "public sphere" and of common spaces in general.

The public forum doctrine serves three important functions.²

First, it ensures that speakers                  can have access to a wide array of people.

Second, the public forum doctrine allows                  speakers not only to have general access to heterogeneous people,                  but also to specific people, and specific institutions, with whom                  they have a complaint.

Third, the public forum doctrine increases                  the likelihood that people generally will be exposed to a wide                  variety of people and views.

When you read a city newspaper or a national                  magazine, your eyes will come across a number of articles that                  you might not have selected in advance, and if you are like most                  people, you will read some of those articles.

Television broadcasters have similar functions.                  Most important in this regard is what has become an institution:                  the evening news. If you tune into the evening news, you will                  learn about a number of topics that you would not have chosen                  in advance.

Consider some simple facts. If you take                  the ten most highly rated television programs for whites, and                  then take the ten most highly rated programs for African Americans,                  you will find little overlap between them.

Not surprisingly,                  many people tend to choose like-minded sites and like-minded discussion                  groups.

With a dramatic increase in options, and a greater power to customize, comes an increase in the range of actual choices.

We can sharpen our understanding of this                  problem if we attend to the phenomenon of group polarization.

people, especially if they are                  like-minded, will end up thinking the same thing that they thought                  before—but in more extreme form.

Consider some examples of this basic phenomenon

France become more critical of the United States

whites predisposed to show racial prejudice                  offer more negative

whites predisposed not                  to show racial prejudice offer more positive responses to the                  same question.

A group of moderately profeminist women will                  become more strongly profeminist after discussion.

If the public is balkanized, and if different groups                  design their own preferred communications packages, the consequence                  will be further balkanization,

Why does group polarization occur? There                  have been two main explanations, both of which have been extensively                  investigated and are strongly supported by the data.

The first explanation emphasizes the role                  of persuasive arguments,

which arguments seem convincing.

The second mechanism, which involves social                  comparison, begins with the claim that people want to be perceived                  favorably by other group members

Once they hear what others believe, they adjust their positions                  in the direction of the dominant position.

A crucial factor behind the growth of the Unorganized Militia "has been the use of computer networks," allowing members "to make contact quickly and easily with like-minded individuals to trade information, discuss current conspiracy theories, and organize events."⁴

Perhaps the more extreme tendency is better; indeed,                  group polarization is likely to have fueled many movements of                  great value, including the movement for civil rights, the antislavery                  movement, the movement for sex equality. All of these movements                  were extreme in their time, and within-group discussion bred greater                  extremism; but extremism need not be a word of opprobrium

The basic issue here is whether something                  like a "public sphere," with a wide range of voices, might not                  have significant advantages over a system in which isolated consumer                  choices produce a highly fragmented speech market

Consider in this light the ideal of "consumer                  sovereignty," which underlies much of contemporary enthusiasm                  for the Internet

But the adverse effects of group polarization                  show that, with respect to communications, consumer sovereignty                  is likely to produce serious problems for individuals and society                  at large—and these problems will occur by a kind of iron                  logic of social interactions.

"social cascades."

A stylized example: If                  Joan is unaware whether abandoned toxic waste dumps are in fact                  hazardous, she may be moved in the direction of fear if Mary seems                  to think that fear is justified. If Joan and Mary both believe                  that fear is justified, Carl may end up thinking so too, at least                  if he lacks reliable independent information to the contrar

The view, widespread in some African-American communities, that                  white doctors are responsible for the spread of AIDS among African                  Americans is a recent illustration.

I hope that I have shown enough to demonstrate                  that for citizens of a heterogeneous democracy, a fragmented communications                  market creates considerable dangers.

Why are these shared experiences so desirable?

1. Simple enjoyment

ease social                  interactions, permitting people to speak with one another, and                  to congregate around a common issue, task, or concern,

people who would otherwise                  see one another as unfamiliar can come to regard one another as                  fellow citizens, with shared hopes, goals, and concerns.

How does this bear on the Internet? An increasingly                  fragmented communications universe will reduce the level of shared                  experiences having salience to a diverse group of Americans. This                  is a simple matter of numbers. When there were three television                  networks, much of what appeared would have the quality of a genuinely                  common experience.

My goal here has been to understand what makes for a well-functioning                  system of free expression, and to show how consumer sovereignty,                  in a world of limitless options, could undermine that system

some possible ways of addressing them

(a) the need to promote exposure to materials, topics, and positions that people would not have chosen in advance, or at least enough exposure to produce a degree of understanding and curiosity;

(b) the value of a range of common experiences;

(c) the need for exposure to substantive questions of policy and principle, combined with a range of positions on such questions.

Self-Regulation: Producers of communications                  might engage in voluntary self-regulation.

Subsidy: The government                  might subsidize speech, as, for example, through publicly                  subsidized programming or publicly subsidized websites.

Links: Websites might                  use links and hyperlinks to ensure that viewers learn about sites                  containing opposing views.

Public Sidewalk: If the problem consists                  in the failure to attend to public issues, the most popular websites                  in any given period might offer links and hyperlinks, designed                  to ensure more exposure to substantive questions.

Cass R. Sunstein is Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago. His most recent book is Republic.com.

Cass R. Sunstein: The Daily We - The Diigo Meta page

Would you like to comment?

Top Tags

Check out another URL