Taking into consideration material from the lecture, the readings (including “Americans Don’t Live in Information Cocoons”), and your own experience, offer an informed opinion about whether the internet is promoting polarization and what if anything should be done to encourage a better deliberative environment on the internet.
67 thoughts on “Deliberation and the Internet”
Comments are closed.
I think that Nyhan hits the nail on the head when he concludes his NY Times piece by saying, “The problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information — most notably, our partisan beliefs. In other words, Democrats and Republicans don’t see the world so differently because they see different news; rather, they see the news differently because they’re Democrats and Republicans in the first place.”
I do believe that Sunstein has a point when he says that we seek out knowledge that supports our own beliefs, or fits ideologically with a point that we are trying to prove. For example, I don’t watch Fox news because I don’t identify as a conservative and often disagree with the way that their news stories are framed. I think that we all fall into this trap of selecting sources that are in line with our beliefs and politics. However, there is evidence that people are less impacted by the internet, and more impacted by the influence they receive in their day to day lives. Putting restrictions and requirements on internet content is a little dangerous considering how close it is to limiting free speech. Plus, simply links to the different information does not necessarily mean we consume it. My cable subscription, for instance, includes Fox, but I choose not to read their news.
Relating to Nyhan’s statement, it isn’t necessarily the news and the internet that are furthering polarization. The polarization is already there, and even if we see other news and other points of view, there is not a guarantee that this will change. We will continue to interpret it within our own frames and personal context, which are more shaped from our personal lives than from the news stories we see or read. There definitely needs to be more conversation between conservatives and liberals so that even if agreement is not reached there can be some kind of mutual understanding. However, I do not believe that regulating the internet is the most effective way of getting this to happen.
I agree with you katie. Often times its how we interpret news that are transmitted to us. We choose to listen to different type of news based on our beliefs and preference. Limiting internet does not help the process and I also believes that it could be dangerous in regards to expressing one’s self.
I agree with the points you have made. It is not that polarization is solely the creation of information cocoons, which is a dubious theory to begin with. But, it is that we as individuals are already biased or slightly polarized to begin with. Our biases play into our selection of news coverage and a certain framing for a issue. However, as you mentioned, we tend to get more exposure to certain view points from face-to-face interaction as opposed to the internet. Though the internet may influence our polarization, it is certainly not the main driving force behind it.
I totally agree with your point of view but I do watch fox news on occasion as I scroll through the different channels. I like hearing the different rhetoric and arguments. I can honestly say that I usually don’t agree with the conservative commentary but I enjoy it none the less.
I agree with Sunstein, on the issue of seeking out information that is in line with your own beliefs. There was one time I was arguing with a friend over something, so I looked it up, and said I told you so. He then said he was going to look up his own facts. It’s funny, but sad at the same time, that we live in a partisan society, where the two opposing sides hate each other so much, that they even have their own “facts” to support their claims. The internet is filled with so much junk, that is is easy to find your own “facts”, when I question people on where they received their information from, all too many say the internet, or even worse, I read it on Facebook. Fortunately, like the authors concluded, the role of the internet in increasing polarization is not as serves as we think. It must just be that crazy people that previously were limited to their circle of friends, can now express their ideas to the world. Just because more people are hearing them, does not mean more people are listening.
Kate, I agree with your point . Polarization exists and it will not change. We interpret any news with our personal schema anyway. Secondly, limiting internet is not a effective way to overcome this issue
I cannot agree with you more on the statement that it is not that internet it promoting polarization, but that it already exist. On a daily basis, i usually will turn to CNN for news and break down of situations rather than FOX. Because i already haven chosen which political side i am on. Knowing that FOX tend to frame stories in a conservative way drives me away from them. However, from time to time, i do watch FOX for opposing views.
I also like Nyhan’s last point, and thought that it was very true. It seems that being exposed to articles that express a different viewpoint won’t help polarization because people will just interpret them in a way that reflects their own biases. With that being said, how can we help stop polarization? It seems that political biases can never be erased and the best that we can do is try to approach differing viewpoints with an open mind.
Republicans and democrats are not able to see the world in different manner because they view different news. They view and see the news differently because they are republicans and Democrats first. From my point of view there is no issue with polarized media. As human beings and like-minded individuals we seek out information, which confirms our beliefs. It is as similar as, we do not enjoy with the individuals to whom we are not attracted and we don’t enjoy with the people who constantly challenge our belief. This definitely does not mean that for our belief we don’t want challenges, but it tells us that we are humans, which we cannot deny.
Above mentioned points also goes for media and news. Polarization is inevitable I agree to it but it is dangerous when it goes too far. In organizations such as: Bill O’Reilys and Glen Becks people even refuse to acknowledge even the faintest bit of credibility for other people belief or opinion on local, state or national issues. It will be better if the government mandate critical thinking seminar in schools and university, instead of balancing view points on the internet by implementing regulations. Hence adolescents will able to learn that new that is shown comes from a variety of sources and most of time it have ulterior agendas.
It is important for all of us to think outside our own preferences and many a times it happens that we explore views, which we don’t agree, and we want to see how others may process the particular issue.
References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/upshot/americans-dont-live-in-information-cocoons.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
I think you made an excellent point about promoting critical thinking. This goes back to the strength of our education system. If people are challenged to think about things critically, and understand the importance of multiple viewpoints, then they may be more open to hearing and reading about other viewpoints.
I believe your two main points are excellent. First, you are correct that an individual is either Liberal or Conservative in their view points first, and then the news comes second to them. They look at the news through their view points, because that is how humans are hardwired.
Your second point is also correct though, and one in which Sustein would agree with you. Too much polarization to the point where you completely block out opposing view points is dangerous for democracy. However, as Nyhan points out, many individuals get news from not just slanted news sources, but also more centrist options such as a nightly news broadcast.
you make great points about media polarization and the benefit of critical thinking. I think it would be extremely beneficial to understand and at least listen to differing opinions on critical issues. Often when i am trying to get an idea on a particular issue, I review multiple media sources with differing standpoints in an attempt to understand the issue from different perspectives. Presenting and listening to just one side of the story only reinforces ones previously believed ideas and prevents from moving forward.
I agree that it is natural for humans to be attracted to things that they prefer The problem with the media, is when some new outlets are extremely biased and disingenuous. When individuals receive information primarily from these news sources, there is a problem. For example i listen to talk radio, all the time in traffic, and the vast majority of the pundits are extremely conservative. I disagree with most of what they say, but am interested in understanding their thought process (this is will never understand), in some of their commentary they leave out entire facts, or frame it in a way that fits their arguments. This is good for ratings, but it terrible for deliberation, the internet has only expanded the problem. Regulating who talks is a dangerous situation, which I believe most of us are firmly against. The only real solution is to educate the youth on how to evaluate information. i think your proposal would be great for the deliberative process.
I agree with you, that implementing critical thinking in the education system would be more helpful in combating the polarization because, through education, we can help overcome some of the prejudices that we have and that could translate in the content that we view on a daily basis.
I believe Brendan Nyhan’s article “Americans Don’t Live in Information Cocoons” covers fairly well the idea of how America’s get their news coverage and information. His best quote is, “The problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information — most notably, our partisan beliefs. In other words, Democrats and Republicans don’t see the world so differently because they see different news; rather, they see the news differently because they’re Democrats and Republicans in the first place.” Essentially, what Nyhan is saying is that it is not so much who we as individuals get our news sources from, but the ideals in which that individual owns that shapes their views of that news source. Nyhan is also able to back up this information with studies that show Americans do take in a steady diet of centrist news stations, even if the also do watch or listen to news media that is considered partisan or politically slanted.
The one issue I have with his piece is that he does not discuss or examine the idea that maybe the media we do take in strengthens an individuals already deeply held beliefs or political ideology. In this sense, it does act an a reinforcement mechanism, even if a person does get news coverage from a nightly news show. I think this is the point in which Sustein tries to make in his books. This is exactly the issue that Sustein is afraid of. The problem is I am not sure his reforms would be an effective corrective measure for this issue, especially since, as Nyhan has pointed out, that Americas do indeed receive news coverage from more centrist news sources.
Exactly, people have more controlled interactions and only reinforce what they already believe!! Excellent point!
I agree with your point the the media we consume strengthens our views. Whether or not we agree with the media we’re consuming, it is having an influence on our overall views. In thinking about myself, if I’m reading something from a news source I know typically opposes my views, I tend to read the article skeptically, and look for flaws in facts or any other information that would support an argument I feel strongly about. I try to seek out information from a variety of sources, but I do typically tend to look for information in those sources that will support my opinions.
I really like your last point. That is definitely an issue that Nyhan doesn’t consider that needs to be explored. I think that in many ways the media we take in does strengthen our ideology. If you have a certain opinion, and see a few articles where people share that opinion, you will have the validity you need to know that what you believe is correct (even if other articles say otherwise.) If we know that other people think the same thing, I think we are much more likely to not change our opinion. The internet could in fact be aiding in polarization in this regard.
While Nyhan’s raises an excellent point that the news is basically used to support already preconceived ideals, I do understand Sunstein’s polarized warnings. I think social media has become an outlet for people only to socialize with like minded folk.
Furthermore, Sustein also made a good point that chance encounters with people who are drastically different than you maybe have been reduced. I happen to agree with the social aspect of Sustein’s argument and not so much the media aspect. I can see people constantly texting and talking on the phone. I have friends that go to concerts and take pictures of the performers in a effort to capture the moment. My question is if you are taking pictures and recording a performance are you really enjoying the moment? There is also the issue of childhood obesity that has increased drastically that I indirectly blame on the internet. I believe that more children are staying indoors on the internet at the expense of going outdoors to play. There has to be a healthy medium.
I have been on several websites that attempted to send me media based on previous searches. I found this preference selection and streaming annoying because I have a tendency to browse things that I want or need information on in the moment. Even when I am shopping on the internet I know I’m being tracked because the website remembers my previous selections and makes computer generated recommendations (cookies). I personally do not like being hounded and assaulted with images of products that I may have purchased at one point. The majority of the people on the internet are being tracked by one company or another.
Unfortunately, I cannot live without the internet and enjoy shopping, researching, and connecting with other people.
I actually see a lot of different posts on my social media from different viewpoints. Some of my friends on facebook express conservative views that I actually have debated with them via posts. My cousin posted this to her wall the other day and I love her point:
“I have decided that I am no longer going to unfriend people who post narrow minded posts. I am just going to stop receiving their posts because it is important that they see my #prowomen #problack #proenvironment etc. posts. If they don’t see it on their timeline they may never see these things at all.”
Now, she probably should be open to listening to other viewpoints, but she raises a point about the importance of sharing her beliefs rather than cutting off ties with people completely. There is always room for people to grow and learn, but they have to be exposed to new information.
I like your cousin’s viewpoint. When I see posts I do not agree with, I tend to want to block the information. Recently however, I’m trying to be more open with others opinions. I genuinely want to know how they arrived at feeling so strongly about an opposite opinion of mine.
I completely agree with you’re statements regarding online tracking. The web browsers we use, the apps we download and the social media we use are all tracking and recording the information we search in an attempt to understand our preferences and dislikes. This type of monitoring can be helpful and time saving but also restricts the information available to us and pushes us further into our thought cocoon.
Nyhan raises many good points about the balance of media among both Democrats and Republicans, moving away from previous notions of polarization. However, with the increase in technology and not necessarily media outlets, there seems to be a shifting movement toward information cocoons. As the example from Republic.com suggests, new technology has created a way for unwelcome viewpoints and supporting arguments to be filtered in and out of our information stream. This is not necessarily being controlled by the news programs individuals choose to watch or even by the individuals themselves but rather the technology platforms we interact with to retrieve information. Popular technology companies such as Facebook and Google use result filtering technology, suggesting results it believes best fit your browser history, posts you’ve liked or read, and even who you’re friends with.
This type of technology does not allow individuals to form their own opinions based on both sides of an issue but rather suggests one side that it believes are in line with your beliefs. This point reflects Nyhan’s statement that “The problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information — most notably, our partisan beliefs.” Unfortunately, new technology does not allow individuals to make their own decisions about the information presented but projects the ideas you are believed to support back on to you.
This issue begs the question, “how are we as a society supposed to move forward from thinking like Democrats and Republicans if it’s done for us, without our conscious knowledge?” As the New York Times article suggests, the information received by Democrats and Republicans alike is more heterogeneous than previously believed. However, this type of filtering through search engines and social media pulls society even further back towards polarized thinking and away from thinking on issues away from party lines.
The filtering that is being done without our knowledge or explicit consent is what seems most troubling to me. I assume that someplace in all those pages of fine print that I just click “accept” on it must tell me that I’m agreeing to their filter process but that hardly seems fair. While facebook or google may claim that their filters make it so you see less bothersome material, in actuality they are just shielding us from confronting potential flaws in our own beliefs.
I absolutely agree with you, Chris, that increase in how news are being shown by companies like Facebook that usually suggest news to you just base on your browsing history makes matter worse. By filtering out what you haven’t browsed, it creates a isolating environment.
Facebook also allows us to get news from our friends and family and with our “likes” different news sources will pop up on our feed. I certainly have been guilty of unfriending someone who posted bigoted articles or just articles that don’t really align with my beliefs. Is this good or bad? On the one hand it saves me from scrolling through Pro- Trump articles all day but it also keeps that side of the argument out of my sight and out of my mind.
I think that the internet has made it easier for people to find opinions and articles that relate closely to their own viewpoints so the idea that it promotes polarization has grown. Before information was able to be spread so rapidly you would never know your uncles political stance or where a kid who moved away in third grade currently stands on immigration. The internet, and social media specifically, allow us to glimpse into the minds of people we might not correspond with on a daily basis and that can be frightening but also enlightening. Having the ability to see what other people are using as informational outlets and then having the ability to parse through our own “trusted” outlets presents the option for a discussion that can be buoyed by facts and debated in earnest. The larger problem to me seems that on the internet these debates too often cast aside the human element and devolve into name calling rather quickly. It can be disheartening that in an age when we have access to more information than ever before we are using it to drive ourselves further apart. It should not be the job of the government to regulate or decide how discourse should happen, it should be something that we all realize is a healthy and natural way to solve problems. Disagreeing about policies is natural and should be expected in a democracy where the people have the power to vocalize change and demand action. Polarization comes when we stop thinking of the other side of an argument as people and double down on the feeling that only they are correct. Politicians have gotten away from reaching across the aisle because the public has turned that from an action of hope to an act of cowardice, which has hurt discourse in this country greatly.
Matt, I believe that you’ve made some valid points. With that being said, one comment that caught my attention was when you mentioned social media as a glimpse into the mind of other people (which can be enlightening or frightening). You know, I’ve rarely though of social media in that context – I often think of it as a way to stay connected with people. But, you are right, is essentially a front row seat to someone’s life and their thoughts. I tend to classify formally news sources as resources of information, but forget that social media is also a very prominent source of information. Likewise, as we build our social media platforms with various networks, these are also ideal diverse sources of information and a public (even if not face-to-face) atmosphere for deliberation.
Very good point Matt. I often read the NY Times room for debate section because it’s an excellent way to present two different points of views and that way, the reader is informed and understands the issues. People should not be concerned about being right or wrong but about presenting valid arguments to promote public discourse.
I agree that social media has not only changed the way we view information, but the we deliberate amongst each other as well. I have also been on a social media website like Facebook, and have viewed a long lost acquaintance post their opinion on a certain matter. What is interesting is that whether I agree or disagree, if the topic is interesting I will look at their source or article. I would definitely agree with you that this availability of opinions has also led to online bullying.
I believe that the internet is increasing polarization, but it is not a major issue that needs to be addressed through any kind of policy changes. The current structure of the internet naturally lends itself to polarization, the way google uses its search algorithms encourages new information based on previous searches. In undergrad I took a library information class, and one of the major focuses was the echo chamber of the information age. The professor, like the author of the NY Times article concluded that it was not the information that was causing people to become more polarized it was the people that were choosing the information. This problem has always existed, it is just more pronounced because now there is so much more information due to the internet. In the past the problem was limited to what newspaper someone read, now it can extend to all the websites a person receives information from. There is no doubt that the internet has contributed to polarization, but is a minor cause to the problem compared to the political structure, which is driving the issue. If we want to roll back polarization in America, we need to put an end to the gerrymandering of elections, and reform the primary system which encourages partisan politics that do not reflect the vast majority of Americans values. Regulating the internet to promote deliberation is a nice idea, but in actuality it would be very difficult to implement, and will lend itself to abuse by the people in charge, because of that I am against most well intended proposals that seek to create a more deliberative internet.
One very important statement stands out to me in the article. Nyhan states that, “the problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the value and identities that shape how we interpret that information.” This statement points out that it is not the internet that promotes polarizations. It is the people who consumes the information, then interprets in their own way, and use the internet as a place to promote polarization. One of the classmate also mentioned the human element and its relationship with internet and the idea of it promoting polarization. I think it is very important to consider this as well. Humans are social beings, and as social beings we tend to look to associate with other human beings that have the same mind set. The same idea can be seen on the internet. The internet offers another way for people to find larger groups of people with the same mind set. Thus, by searching for a particular story, they are bond to find others who potentially have the same interest as them. This is not to say that people ignore opposing views. Just like the article had mentioned, Nyhan mentioned that the study done by economists Gentzkow and Shapiro found that most people tend to visits a balanced set of websites. Therefore, I think before forming an opinion, most people will look at different opinions before reach their own. Lastly, on the other hand, there is an overwhelming sense of information overload by the internet. With this information overload, the internet becomes a perfect place for polarization to take place.
Jocelyn, I completely agree with your viewpoint that people have always, and will continue to just naturally gravitate toward others that share their same viewpoints. The internet has just become another way to do so, and although it may seem that the ease with which the internet allows us to filter out those whose opinions we don’t want to hear might increase polarization, it was very interesting to see that actual statistics showing otherwise.
I agree that the internet has given people an outlet to discuss only the issues they want to hear or talk about. Before the internet and even cable you had a small amount of outlets to get media (basic cable news and newspapers) so therefore you took in what ever info was available. But now we can censor ourselves and only read blogs or news sites that align with our thoughts.
To some degree, I do agree with Sunstein in that the Internet makes it easier for us to immerse ourselves in opinions that coincide with our own. During friendly debates with friends or family, I myself am guilty of going to certain Internet sources that I feel will support my opinion. However, I disagree with Sunstein in that during the course of a normal day I do look at many conflicting opinions, and I believe many people do the same. I would state that polarization may be a small problem inherent within Internet users, but the Internet itself is not designed for polarization.
As mentioned in the lecture, there should be best practices implemented for Internet news sources. John Dewey stated, an informed public is necessary for effective deliberation and democracy. If a person is satisfied by only relying on one news source, I believe they are representing the uninformed public. The Internet is just like a tool in that if it is used in the right way, it can build a tremendous body of knowledge. If used incorrectly, it can create a weak information base. Either way, you hold the user accountable, not the tool.
It is more important for the public to understand how to recognize framing and polarization as opposed to regulating the Internet. I believe Sunstein’s point that author’s should have to reference an opposing article is valid, but impossible to implement. The greatest aspect of the Internet is the availability of information so quickly. Having to research not only your point but find an opposing view may dissuade authors from publishing certain articles. While I don’t think it is the worst thing in the world to stop people from publishing articles without a second thought, if it stops real journalists from doing their job, it is not worth it.
The readings this week give mixed ideas about whether the Internet promotes polarization in the political views. Sunstein (2007) made very strong argument that personalized filtering enabled by the Internet further allows fragmentation, which further leads to political polarization. Iyengar and Hahn (2009) supports this view point provides some quite convincing explanations. Some of them I like most include the information overload in the new media making readers only select the news that are most aligned with their partisan beliefs, and also today’s competition forcing newspapers to target their audience by injecting even more political bias into the news. However, Gentzkow and Shapiro (2011) refutes Sunstein’s viewpoints. They find that ideological segregation of online news is low in absolute terms, and also find no evidence that the Internet is becoming more segregation over time. They argue that though the Internet allow consumers to filter news, but it has not change the fact that reporting or writing stories that are tailored to a particular point is costly. But Nyhan (2014) brings up a critical point: even for the same story, different readers can have their own interpretation shaped by their own partisan beliefs.
In my opinion, filtering is unavoidable due to the information overload nowadays. But it does not necessarily lead to political polarization. To promote a more deliberative environment on the Internet, first of all, the consumers of news need to know how to filter content, information and knowledge. Consumers should acknowledge that even the most reliable news sources could be biased and they should not just rely on the news sources they most favor to get information. The stories presented by both red media and blue media are valuable in shaping an informed opinion of a particular issue.
Knowing how to filter content and information on the internet may not be enough to correct for its echo-chamber effect, since it might be difficult to know what is good and bad news. Even as informed, educated readers, it is sometimes difficult to identify the slant and misinformation of some of the most reliable sources online.
I agree with you Shawn. I think critical thinking skills come in very handy in helping one understand how to filter out content and information. Most information is skewed so it’s important to seek out differing perspectives that allows one to understand the issue and make an informed decision.
I agree with your stance that amount of information within the internet leads to filtering. Because so many people can contribute, it is easy for a user to log on and find an article that coincides with their opinion. I also agree with your point that consumers should be held accountable as well. It is important that people know how to recognize a credible source.
I agree that consumer should not filter news based on their preference but on content and information and for that critical thinking and some outside knowledge is important because it lets you develop your own views on the story without being brought under the liberal or conservative camp. By outside information, I mean sources that just present the news as it is and not inject their opinions into the news. AP would be one good example of this outside information.
I think that Brendan Nyhan makes an interesting argument that the information we get from the internet is due to our values and identity and to some degree, Sunstein supports this view. The internet does not promote polarization but offers people the chance to hear other views but due to our beliefs, we tend to seek sources of media that we agree with. The internet does not promote polarization due to the variety of sources available to us but due to what Sunstein calls a “me” culture, we ignore those sources and choose to focus only on views that we agree with. Even though many of us look at sources that we agree with, different views do show up in URLs’ we go to. For example, YouTube is a great example of how different views show up in our daily searches. Trending videos is one example of how views that differ from ours pop up in our searches. Trending videos don’t have to be views that we agree with but time and again, they are there and we cannot hide from them.
To better encourage a deliberative environment on the internet is a hard task due to the freedom of choice, one of the basic rights for all beings. An informed public is important but that cannot happen on the internet due to the biases we already bring to the table when we are exposed to the internet. I would suggest promoting deliberation and critical thinking at a young age on public network programs such as PBS which would in some ways help children to listen and accept or reject views that differ from theirs later in life. The internet is not the best place for encouraging deliberation because people go on the internet to escape reality, connect with other like minded people, not for deliberation.
On a side note an interesting article on Slate titled “Why Google Search Results Favor Democrats”
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/12/why_google_search_results_favor_democrats.html
Tenzing, I think you make a lot of good points. I really like your example of YouTube. I think that site is a great source of diverse information. I know for me, as of recently, I’ve use a lot more YouTube videos in work. I’ve used them to find quick and concise information about different nonprofits as well as their mission, the impact they are making, and ways to get involved. I think the videos have been very helpful and over the last few months. Additionally, I’ve researched a variety of organizations because of the suggestions I received online or through YouTube. The internet has definitely made it easier for me to acquire knowledge on a variety of topics, from diverse sources, in an instant.
I agree with some of your points and admit that the people should make better use of the Internet. It is not just a place for relaxing but also a potential platform for deliberation if it is being used properly. Your comments remind me of what many people write in the forums on the Internet. There are so many cyber bullying and nonsense comments everywhere on the Internet. I am quite sure of that many of the posters behind the computer are intelligent and able to deliver good deliberation. But they choose not to. Early intervention is necessary and educators should teach our children how to use the Internet properly. Nowadays even a 3-year old kid knows how to surf online, but not many teachers and parents teach our kids how to behave properly even behind the computer.
After reviewing the information above, I do not think the internet is promoting polarization. I agree with Sustain, to a certain extent, that some people are in “information coons”. I feel like certain people screen out the information they do not want to hear, and solely receive information from people or sources that have the same interests as them. However, with that being said, I do not think that it a great deal of people (who choose this lifestyle) nor do I think that these people are representative of society as a whole. In terms of polarization, I agree with Nyhan. I believe that people naturally think in the mindset of their political views, and that is what drives them to the information sources they choose to view. Still, I do not think the internet has purposely elevated polarization and driven people only limited sources of information.
It terms of better deliberative environments, I believe government regulated policies are a bit extreme. Nonetheless, I as an alternative, I think we should encourage forums of deliberation, with varying sources of information. As Sustain mentioned, people need to be exposed to diverse individuals with unpredictable opinions or viewpoints. When you meet people with diverse options, it challenges you to consider your opponent and their views. Likewise, we need to continue to participate in more public deliberation in parks, street, or social settings. In these settings, we need to be away from our phones and other forms of technology and have actual face-to-face interactions. This interactions can be with like mind individuals as well as people with diverse opinions.
Additionally, this article was recommended to me from a friend. It encourages people to stop texting, web searching, or hiding behind a computer screen and have a real face to face conversation.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/stop-googling-lets-talk.html?_r=0
kayla, i like your recommendation that inspiring forums of deliberation, and checking the information source . Also, you have mentioned that we should interact with real people in front of us instead of not addicted to technology .
Kayla, your idea for encouraging more forums of deliberation is a great one! I also thoroughly agree that today’s citizenry does way too much hiding behind screens and would be curious to see how many people would say out loud, to other people face-to-face, the same exact things they have posted on the internet. I think it would be an interesting experiment and I’m confident the results would show that in-person interactions facilitate a much healthier form of deliberation than the internet does.
I agree that there needs to be a renewal of public deliberation in parks and other settings. This seems unlikely though, considering the direction we are going with technology, in which people constantly tune out the outside world. But deliberative forums online, such as Twitter, which are run by the public, seem to be great opportunities to engage in discussion in a public format.
I think the idea of talks in parks, libraries, and classrooms as ways to get people back to interacting and having meaningful discourse. It is interesting because you think that places like political debates would be opportune times for knowledgable repartee but often times they devolve into the mudslinging and accusations. I guess I just prefer the English parliament style of debating where people are just as rude, but do it with clever language that is centered around the topic at large.
Jerin Choudhury
From my point of view, I think the argument that the internet is promoting polarization is valid for both sides. Many journalist and scholars claims that internet has remarkable power to polarize our society. Internet makes it easy for readers to confirm their prejudices by relying on web sites that share their viewpoints. Many economists suggest the extreme sites are common than extreme readers. The most common sites are not the most ideological ones. Very few people gets news from one source, but in current era most of the readers find news on Yahoo or AOL web. Political polarization happen in a so-called ‘echo chamber’ environment, in which people are showed to only information and communities that support their own viewpoints, while ignoring opposing outlooks and perception . In such isolating and self-reinforcing conditions, ideas can become more impressed and severe due to lack of interaction with contradictory views and the altercation that could follow as a result. Political polarization has been found among political blogs, for instance. American researchers claim that liberal and conservative bloggers in the U.S. are tend to connect with other bloggers who has similar political belief. However, some research suggest that increase usage of Internet increases political polarization. People often look those websites which are related to their ideological belief. Furthermore, they also their keep their eyes on different political interpretations. As a consequence, greater sensitivity and empathy for alternative viewpoints could hypothetically succeed, refining the likelihood for political negotiation –even on a modest scale that would otherwise not have been reachable without this heightened consciousness and dispute.
Jerin Choudhury
From my point of view, I think the argument that the internet is promoting polarization is valid for both sides. Many journalist and scholars claim that internet has remarkable power to polarize our society. Internet makes it easy for readers to confirm their prejudices by relying on web sites that share their viewpoints. Many economists suggest the extreme sites are common than extreme readers. The most common sites are not the most ideological ones. Very few people gets news from one source, but in current era most of the readers find news on Yahoo or AOL web. Political polarization happen in a so-called ‘echo chamber’ environment, in which people are showed to only information and communities that support their own viewpoints, while ignoring opposing outlooks and perception . In such isolating and self-reinforcing conditions, ideas can become more impressed and severe due to lack of interaction with contradictory views and the altercation that could follow as a result. Political polarization has been found among political blogs, for instance. American researchers claim that liberal and conservative bloggers in the U.S. are tend to connect with other bloggers who has similar political belief. However, some research suggest that increase usage of Internet increases political polarization. People often look those websites which are related to their ideological belief. Furthermore, they also their keep their eyes on different political interpretations. As a consequence, greater sensitivity and empathy for alternative viewpoints could hypothetically succeed, refining the likelihood for political negotiation –even on a modest scale that would otherwise not have been reachable without this heightened consciousness and dispute.
As I grew up just on the edge of technology as we know it today (dial-up was the extent of my stone-age technological times), I know very little of a time when the internet wasn’t used as a primary information source. Not knowing first-hand what newsgathering was like even 10 years ago, I tend to disagree with Nyhan’s argument that we don’t live in information cocoons, and lean towards Sunstein in the argument that the internet can foster polarization. While we may all seek out as many sources as we can, that’s not the action of the average internet user.
I think the problem isn’t whether or not we seek out information from sources that support our views, but rather that the internet has created the perfect opportunity for spreading misinformation. Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/) is a site dedicated to fact-checking analysts, bloggers, media and politicians. It seems like we’re in an advanced enough society where fact-checking news sources or leaders shouldn’t be necessary. As I see it, the internet fosters polarization because there’s “support” for every possible argument. It may not be accurate, and it may even be totally bogus (for example Donald Trump recently sharing erroneous statistics from a fake “Crime Statistics Bureau”) but the information is spread quickly. Even if false information is retracted, the update is discreetly made, and certainly isn’t shared as widely. The internet supports polarization and allows users to sit in information cocoons because there’s information available for every opinion.
The internet is a great place for deliberation, but I see the problem being that deliberation online is often founded on incorrect facts, misinformation, or deliberately pieced together information to push an agenda.
I like that you bring out the problem of misinformation and that fact that every fact can be supported in some what or another. The internet provides a huge platform for deliberation, but how much value is there in deliberating facts that do not exist, and may in fact cause people to believe an idea when they otherwise would not.
This is true. Misinformation, fake facts, and bogus statistics are just as available on the internet as the most reliable information. Uninformed people will latch onto these things to reinforce their perspectives, but this again existed before the internet. Yes, the internet has made it easier, but the internet has made everything easier! Humanity is simply adapting to the rapid advance of technology and the lightning speed by which we can exchange information.
I love your idea of checking the “facts” presented to us. When the information is overload, consumers tend to trust what they receive because they have been so tired of doing even further step to check if it is true. People are so credulous as the life style is so fast paced. People should sometimes slow down to think more seriously about what are presented. Otherwise there is no critical thinking, no analysis and thus no ground for a good deliberation.
I don’t believe the internet is necessarily promoting polarization. I believe polarization has existed as long as man, and it is just that the internet has made this more apparent to us due to how readily available “facts” are(in quotation marks because so much on the internet is misrepresented as fact when it really is just theory/an individual’s belief). Every person now has a metaphorical bullhorn with which they can spew their beliefs for the entire world to see, which is why it may seem as though polarization has increased with the advent of the internet, but the internet is just allowing these things to be thrown in our face daily with no filter.
As the Gentzgow/Shapiro article states, the data collected regarding polarization of the information being consumed via the internet shows that it is actually a very small percentage of readers that are getting their news from “extremist” websites/articles. As corroborated by the NYT article, most people are actually getting their news from centrist outlets. The main takeaway from this article was that in the end, people are going to interpret the same piece of material in different ways, particularly in a way that suits their ideology and predetermined arguments.
I believe that people who stay warm and cozy inside their “information cocoons” have been and always will be closed-minded, regardless of what day and age they are living in and regardless of whether their information is being obtained from the radio, television, newspaper, or internet. There was a point at which Google was modifying search results of each individual based on that users past searches and the results that were congruent with what Google had determined to be that particular users interests and ideologies were being displayed first, and I believe Facebook had, or possibly still is, engaging in that practice. When I found out about this I was infuriated because I believe that to be truly knowledgeable about any topic you have to be informed of opposing viewpoints, and even be open to acknowledging their merit. If a person is intent on being correct despite evidence pointing to the contrary, they will find a way to support their stance and disprove any other, staying in their comfortable information cocoon, and this is a way of being that existed long before the internet did. Polarization of beliefs is just an aspect of the human condition and if democracy within the public forum has existed thus far, I don’t think it is in danger of being compromised anytime soon.
I believe that the internet does promote polarization, but that it is not causing polarization, and that a better deliberative environment on the internet is possible. The Pew Research’s findings on main outlets of information and readers’ correlated political views is unsurprising, given the similar trend in television media outlet and their watchers. But this does not mean that people are becoming more polarized simply because people tune go to sites that correlate with their political views. This is a correlation, not causation. And indeed, for those that do go online for their news, they may be “embedded in even modestly diverse networks” and “follow a less ideologically homogeneous group of people over time” (NYT, 2014). Hence, it is important to recognize the plausibility that people go online with their slants already in mind, meaning that they look for partisan sources of information.
The internet therefore is the exact platform that is needed for people to discuss their partisan views. Blogs and other sources of posting are meaningful ways in which people can espouse their views, but are not necessarily seen as reliable sources of information by other readers and writers. Admittedly, as Sustein notes, people can “screen in and screen out” (xi) when navigating the internet. Ideally, it would be helpful for news sites to explicitly recognize their bias and be more transparent, but at minimum, posters can often call out these sites on their slants—something that cannot be done when watching television, for instance. This a great strength of deliberation on the internet. In order to stem the tide of polarization, we would need to look to politicians’ use of polarizing stances on issues.
I find it really fascinating that you mentioned internet may promote polarization but not causing it. This is really critical to make people understand the difference. What would be a better platform that expose an user to different view points, or logic which may oppose his beliefs? We by nature are biased to chose our preference and comfort zone. If I am a democratic supporter i would be more inclined to look for materials in the Internet which are in favor of the Democratic political view. Definitely this is an example of polarization, but Internet has less to do with it rather it is my freedom to choose from options as I have the privilege to ignore opposing views which in cased can be the right ones. If we restrict democratic or republican supporter from using Internet, and expose them to other media like television, radio, newspaper etc. will that change their political view? I don’t think so. As Nyhan mentioned in his article, “In other words, Democrats and Republicans don’t see the world so differently because they see different news; rather, they see the news differently because they’re Democrats and Republicans in the first place.”
I think you pointed out an valuable and interesting idea by distinguishing between promoting polarization and causing polarization. I think that many of these studies do not take into consideration our cognizant decision to actively seek out information, and that we are doing so fully aware that the information we are receiving is skewed to one perspective or another.
You’re exactly right. Societies have been “polarized” since the only information available was etched in a stone tablet. The only thing that would be achieved by regulating the internet would be destroying a unique and wonderful platform for democracy and free expression. The best way to promote “town square” style discourse on the internet would be through a dedicated website that engages people in that manner. It’s success or lack thereof would be determined by its appeal, and whether or not people even desire such a space. Again, I think people like us (students of public policy) might be drawn to such a place, but regular folks might not find it so appealing.
In my opinion, the internet is not promoting polarization. I agree with Sustein that our consumption can be personalized by news outlets, Reddit or even Netflix however, if one seeks a differing perspective of an issue or debate, they can find it on the internet. I am also in agreement with Nyhan that Americans don’t live in information cocoons. It’s easy to box Americans as either Red Media or Blue Media (in reference to the article) consumers but that is not an accurate. People gravitate toward new shows and articles that are well written and researched. In the Gentzkow and Shapiro reading, they highlight that a significant share of consumers get their news from multiple sources. I also agree that the most extreme tend to seek out news relevant to their views.
I certainly agree that that the internet is promoting polarization. I think it can be argued each way that not only does the internet keep politicians accountable for their actions because every vote, every quote and everything about their personal lives are now at the click of a button but it also prevents politicians from “reaching” across the isle and therefore promoting polarization. You look at what Grover Nordquivst has done to the Republican party where, he has formed a movement that forces politicians to promise to never raise taxes and if they ever vote to increase taxation in any way they are immediately ostracized by their own party on every outlet of social media and has caused some to lose their positions.
Also with the wide variety of new sources we can choose to listen to media that support our own belief and therefore never hear the other side of the story.
I very much agree with Nyhan’s article “Americans Don’t Live in Information Cocoons.” I don’t believe that the internet is promoting polarization; in fact it is doing just the opposite. One point that I think is really interesting, and one that I hadn’t thought about before, is that we are more segregated in ideology by where we live than by what news sites we visit. I believe that this couldn’t be more true. Our thoughts and opinions are shaped by what’s around us and we tend to surround ourselves by like-minded people. A community in NYC is very likely to have different views than a community in the rural south of the country. The internet is a way for us to be exposed to different ideas (in many ways leave home without leaving home), even if we do turn to biased sources.
I think that the internet has made me exposed to differing viewpoints that I wouldn’t have sought out on my own. Conservative Facebook friends will sometimes post their viewpoints regarding a certain issue or post a link to an article. While most of the time I don’t agree with these viewpoints, I am being exposed to them when I otherwise wouldn’t have been. Nyhan’s last sentence states: “Democrats and Republicans don’t see the world so differently because they see different news; rather, they see the news differently because they’re Democrats and Republicans in the first place.” The polarization is already there, and it seems that the internet may in fact be making us less polarized.
We see what we want to see, we believe in things what comforts us. As a user, it is true on both sides, about any matter, I have to see both the supporting and opposing materials. Internet kind of opens the door of diversification which prevents polarization. But again, people abuse internet. It doesn’t matter whether i support a right or wrong assumption, it is always easier to find facts and materials to support my view points, which can make things really confusing and judgment cloudy.
It is always very easy to divide people into two groups. Polarization is harmful when people refuse to accept the fact that others on the opposite side of the pole may also be right. The problem is undoubtedly with the mindset. If we hold to a particular point of view, we will find facts to support that instead of analyze the self standpoint neutrally. I like the comment made by Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, “We are entering to the age of transparency”. If this will happen, it would be a new era for the human civilization. Can internet be that solution? Question remains whether we are mixing polarization with Internet or should we consider these separately? My discussion will support and oppose both view points; Sunsteins facts described in his book republic 2.0 that Internet promotes polarization and Nyhan’s article “Americans don’t live in information cocoon”.
In his book, Sunstein points out that people tend to collect news about the topics of interest which they want. They even select the source of information. This way people are getting separated from opposing and diversified views and that eventually leads to extreme polarization. He has also proposed in chapter 9 of his book, few solutions to solve the potential polarization and enclaves caused by Internet such as (shortened) deliberative domains, disclosure of relevant conduct, voluntary self-regulation, economic subsidies, must-carry policies and the creative use of links. At this point, I disagree with Sunstein that Internet is solely responsible for polarization. If a driver committed an accident by his ford made car, his driving license can be suspended in the extreme causalities. But will it be a wise decision to penalize Ford for manufacturing the car that was involved in the accident? In my opinion, same is true with polarization and the Internet. Internet is the vehicle and the people in the dirver’s seat are responsible for the polarization not the Internet. In some way, I fear that Sunstein’s proposal to reduce polarization will increase the polarization instead. Saying that, I also agree with Sunstein’s concern that people are getting isolated from the public spots to exercise the freedom of speech. But like any new technology, I believe Internet is still new and there will be means to make it a platform to exercise freedom of speech more accurately. People are biased by nature, they mix with the likeminded people, and share opinions with which keep them in their comfort zone. I believe in the potential, bright and effective future Internet offers.
In his article, Nyhan has opposed the polarization fact by referring to few researches like study by University of California to establish the fact that Democrats and Republicans had similar patterns of media slant, analysis by economist Mathew Gentzkow and M. Shapiro to show that most people tend to visit relatively balanced and centrist set of websites, a paper by Pablo Barbera to show that even social media eventually balance out polarization. Undoubtedly, these are strong evidence but on that note, the question popped up in my mind, Can Internet not be abused to promote biased material to influence people? I believe, Internet can be abused like any other deliberation tool. Here I slightly disagree with Mr. Nyhan, Internet can be a tool for polarization partially even if not fully. I believe, it is Internet that can also offer solution. As it is the easiest and fastest media to reach people, it would be the responsibility of the policy makers, scholars and the authority to encourage users to practice diversification, come up with a tool that will enlighten people against any biased media propaganda and create awareness to hold the basic respect for the opposing views.
As the NY Times article suggests, our polarized environment was very much in place before the addition of the internet. People largely have their own viewpoints and beliefs set in their minds, which they use as a lense to view any piece of news or any information that may come up. Naturally, as human beings, they ultimately seek out and gravitate towards sources of information that confirm their preconceived notions. In fact,according to a study, they will reject any information they come across that challenges their worldview, even if it is 100 percent fact.
However, I do believe that the internet has worked to worsen polarization. It is now far easierfor one to seek out news and information that conforms to your worldview, and block out any person, group or source that challenges your beliefs. That’s not to mention the fact that there are algorithms on the internet that filter out things depending on user preferences, giving internet users what they want to see. This is not a particularly healthy development for democracy, with no easy answers in terms of solving the issue.
Along with many of my classmates, I agree with much of what Nyhan stated in his NYT’s article: “The problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information—most notably, our partisan beliefs.” I think Nyhan makes a valid point, and I agree that we view the world according to our views, not necessarily our news.
However, I think Nyhan should have dove deeper into the idea that, by limiting our news intake to best align with our beliefs, we are strengthening those beliefs without obtaining unbiased knowledge of the other side. So for example, a person may have started off leaning slightly left but by only reading/watching MSNBC, they become an extreme leftist, when their views might have been different had they obtained news from a variety of sources.
I think the problem with the Internet then becomes an issue of filtering by media platforms without the knowledge of users. For example, if I Google item X and then go on Facebook, an advertisement for item X (or something similar to it) magically appears on the right side of my screen. It is technology such as this that I believe limits the information we receive and places us into “echo chambers.”
This is a tricky question. On the one hand, I think Cass Sunstein makes excellent point in “Republic.com.” It is clearly the case that the internet has made available more nitches of media to everyone and every viewpoint. Even the most hateful, uninformed, or just plain crazy perspectives get fair play on the internet. Yet the irony of all this discursive diversity is that it actually spawns the creation of information and opinion silos, or “cocoons.”
My feeling is that the latter phenomenon is more the result of timeless human nature, rather than a product of the internet. It is, like so many other policy issues we discuss, another case of correlation vs. causation. The internet is the greatest democratic space in human history; a forum of unprecedented power and scope. Yet it is user driven, so those coming to the internet will find what they are seeking rather than being exposed to a multitude of ideas. Even online ads are geared towards products and services you already like or are likely to like, making your internet experience increasingly unique to you. These facts are not however the internet’s fault, it’s what people are inclined to do anyway. Outside of the clique of policy examiners like ourselves, most people prefer to surrounded by like-minded people and ideas that mesh with their identity. For most Americans in fact, I would argue that any mandatory exposure to alternate viewpoints can be highly stressful and pose and unwanted challenge to a person’s perspectives.
This is why I ultimately disagree with Cass Sunstein’s prescription. The internet is open, democratic, and free. Let’s keep it that way. The government cannot, and should not mitigate the risk out of everything in our lives, and it should stop trying. Good ideas and consensus on the issues that matter will always emerge in US politics, and I do not believe that that process will be endangered by the internet. So while cocoons may indeed exist, they predate the internet and we shouldn’t fret about them too much.
Personally, I am a conservative who gets most of his news from NPR, The New York Times, and CBS. I never watch Fox and don’t care for conservative blogs, yet I am nonetheless ideological and quite certain in my beliefs. This is of course anecdotal, but I offer it as evidence that the internet isn’t the cause of polarization, but rather just another tool people will use to gather information and more often than not support their own belief system.