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.
47 thoughts on “Deliberation and the Internet”
Comments are closed.
In the “Americans Don’t Live in Information Cocoons,” the author stated in the last paragraph 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.” This quote embodies my personal opinion on the issue of deliberation and the internet. Granted that Cass Sunstein makes some valuable points when he says that people are most likely going to receive their information from sources that provide like-minded beliefs. It is true that when you approach the average Republican, they will say they watch the news on Fox, and an average Democrat will say MsNBC. However, there are over 500 TV stations and thousands of internet blogs and sites the average person also gets their news from.
I personally watch CNN more often than any other news channel, and yes, I do have google news – where I tailor the news I receive to my personal interest. However, I am not against other opinions that are not in line with mine. I am always interested in a different perspective, because personally I think reading/hearing a different perspective helps me strengthen my personal belief. That’s why I agree with Brendan Nyhan when he said it’s not about the news you read/listen to, it’s about one’s interpretation of that news. As a Republican, you can watch MSNBC, or read the NYT – and will most likely interpret the information you absorbed to solidify your values and opinions. That’s what I agree with.
I think the internet is fine as it is with deliberation. It gives people the choice to choose what kind of information they want to be exposed to. The internet does not further polarize people’s perspectives and political party choice (Democrat or Republican).
Kristia, I partially agree with you. Let’s see if I can persuade you to agree with the following:
The internet is definitely “fine as it is.” It gives many more people a voice and a channel where to project their opinions and concerns. In fact, before the internet one was not able to measure the reaction of people in regards to a specific peace of information.
But I do believe, if not always then just sometimes, people fall into “information cocoons,” even when we don’t intend to. For instance, this week only it was very difficult to avoid silly/insignificant reports about Donald Trump (like this one http://goo.gl/tG0KsB) when in fact there is a need for serious and critical analysis of what he stands for.
Now, my personal opinion is that people’s critical thinking and reasoning skills as well as their desire to participate in a democracy are the things that need to improve to avoid the information cocoons.
Only then, a person can recognize and even feel frustration when every piece of received information is one sided.
Federico, I agree with you. I think that this references back to past discussions in this class where I had mentioned an “ideal world” where everyone is well informed and we have a well functioning society. I am not sure that it is possible today for us to wish for critical thinking and reasoning skills throughout the entire country (although, i wish that were the case). But I am in agreement with your opinion that only after that should you recognize and be frustrated by one sided information.
Yes, you are spot on here. I know I avoid the Donald at every turn I can, but it is important to engage him, if not to ridicule him.
The internet is promotion a heterogeneous amount of information that comes from millions of sources. Whether the individual is actually making an “informed” opinion is left up to that person. As Brendan Nyhan suggests, “the problem isn’t the new we consume, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information.
Social media presents quite the opposite of polarization because although you may have a list of friends who share the same views and value as you, not all of them are the same. There are different degrees of connections on social media which allows opinions to be shared even to those who don’t share the same opinions. For example, on my Facebook I have a variety of friends some who are democrats and some republicans. Although I may not agree with one side, I do process their information and recognize that the opinions I have are not absolute.
The readings mention that the fact that the internet is now able to generate links to related readings, based on which we previously read that would contain the same concepts for which we are interested in. However, in my experience, I have never focused simply on those suggestions. When reading news articles online, I always search for articles which have different opinions because I want to make sure that I am understanding of the ideas which are being discussed. The problem however, is that many are not willing to be open to alternate opinions and tend to disregard opposing views (even though the information presented to them may contain valid opinions). I think the problem that arises is whether or not the public is doing their best to be informed or not.
I agree with your final question Anuradha. The problem and what it all boils down to is how willing is the public to doing their best to be well informed. The information is there, it’s on TV channels and on the thousands of websites on the internet. The problem is the willingness of the public to want to educate themselves and look for polarizing views than theirs. I think it is interesting that you brought up social media, because that’s one aspect of the internet that the readings didn’t really discuss. Social media definitely provides a platform for a multitude of opinions.
Anuradha, you make a good point about Facebook being a good source of different opinions. I too have friends from my home in Ukraine, from my time in Kansas and Ohio, and now from the Northeast, so I am exposed to many different opinions on current events. Whether it is police brutality, terrorism, gun control, climate issues – I am able to see just how different my Facebook friends feel about each issue. Some I agree with, some I disagree with. But every now and then I read something original and well stated that makes me think differently about an issue. When people want to be well informed on a topic whether it is for school or social events, I believe they do seek out all sides of an argument from multiple sources. However, in our day to day when we have down time at work and we check on the latest news, we visit the same group of websites out of habit. And we do this everyday because we may only have 5 minutes to catch up on current events so we do not have enough time to do research, we just take what we read as fact and continue with our lives. It would be great to have this practice change but we are creatures of habit so I do not see it changing for the vast majority of the population.
Anna-your statements above are very true! I know that sometimes all I have time to check is Skimm news and the CNN notifications that pop up on my phone every 10 minutes. I am guilty of not taking the time to read different opinions and frames of the issues that are happening. I think it is interesting that i find myself in this situation when I so firmly believe that people need to take the time to be “well informed citizens.” In a perfect world…
I do agree that Facebook gives you exposure to various frames of thinking. But, I find in my case that I already have views on particular issues and love reading and sharing posts that my friends post that i think similarly about. I rarely find myself agreeing with people that post things that I don’t agree with.
Anuradh, I completely share your opinion. At the end of the day, I think it is up to the individual to decide how receptive s/he is to distinct views. It is certainly up to the individual whether s/he will remain confined to an informational bubble or if s/he actively searches for alternative views from which to learn from. I think the internet offers a ground that if taken advantage of can do good for society, it can produce educated and grounded individuals.
To me, there is one important statement from the NY Times’ article that sums up my opinion, “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 believe that to be correct because it explains how people report that they only listen to news outlets from one view or the other, but according to the reports from the article, they actually consume much more diversified news than they realize. This is because whenever we hear news, discussions or debates that pertain to our values and political opinions, we automatically apply a filter than processes everything we hear in accordance with those values. That is why if one consumes news that is somewhat right leaning, he/she unconsciously aligns what is being said with his/hers own beliefs and interprets it as such. The only thing that should change is the person consuming the content. The challenge is to try and stay truly open minded throughout the duration of a speech, interview, or article and then try to process it objectively at the end with the facts and responses that were given.
Anna, I agree with you that the challenge is for consumers to be open mind and process the information they are given objectively. As long as there is an audience for a particular brand of news the networks will strive to satisfy that audience. Human biases will always influence our decisions but it should not prevent us from analyzing issues from a broader perspective. The internet provides an avenue for a diverse information base.
Anna you are so right, that’s unfortunately how people work. It’s how we function as human beings. The general population tends to watch news or absorb information that aligns with their own personal belief. I agree that if change needs to happen, it cannot be at a political level or with any rules of restriction. Change has to start with each individual making the choice to research, broaden their horizon and look at all sides of an issue before making a conclusive decision or taking a side.
I agree with your comment and want to pose a question that maybe it is in your mind and in the mind of many more in the class.
Do you think people consume enough relevant content today?
I believe that what also affects the polarization levels in our society is the almost unbearable amounts of irrelevant information: be it cat videos, reality tv shows, entertainment weekly, pornography, the weatherman, etc. etc. This, in combination with the many more hours of media consumption by the average youngster, gets really tiering very quickly and does not allow room for a healthy reflection process and the questioning of the information we receive; one tends to continuously jump from source to source and never process the information at a deep level.
Anna, I liked the fact that you mentioned that we try to align what is being said to our beliefs and interpretations. It is important to keep and open mind which can be hard as human beings because we are unlikely to be open to something that is unfamiliar to us. We tend to associate ourselves with views that are familiar, which we understand. I think that as human beings we should be able to recognize the unfamiliar aspects of what we hear and leave an open mind until we have further researched those views to make a better decision on whether or not we should align ourselves with those views.
It is true that our values and identities shape how we interpret information. How do you identify yourself? The most important parts of our identity turns to influence the choices we make and how we interpret information. Does your identity change depending on your Race? Sex? Religion? Age? Place of origin? Who you’re with? What you’re involved in? Where you are in your life ? I personally believe these issues play a key role when it comes to choosing our source of information and how we analyze the information we receive. My immigrant back ground influences my choice of news and information. I personally turn to watch more of international news network like CNN International, BBC and Aljazeera. This is so because I relate more to the nature, scope and type of information presented even tough Aljazeera and CNN may report the same news but from completely different perspectives.
During the pre internet age television represented the primary source of news and information, newspapers and radio were distant secondary sources. The Internet changed this limited range of information choices. The internet has exponentially expanded access to information beyond recognition delivering a spectrum of social, political and cultural content which simply would never have been accessible. Even though people are mostly exposed to online content and opinions they are most likely to agree, people are bombarded from all sides by newsfeeds, posts, blogs and links from more diverse sources than they have ever previously encountered.
The internet has promoted deliberation by promoting content diversity and significantly reducing the cost of accessing information. Personal preference, time and opinions are the only restricting factors when it comes to diversity and deliberation on the internet.
Cris, I like the argument you make. Prior to the internet, we had limited information based on where we lived and what amenities where near us. It is interesting to think about this idea that the internet and technology are creating a more isolated individual since socialization occurs via email or texts rather than in person. Yet, the internet is allowing us to increase our scope on many issues and as stated in the Gentzkow and Shapiro study, it provides us with a lesser ideological segregation in comparison to our personal relationships. It is interesting to realize that although we have more information and are less segregated ideologically since we are creating virtual bonds with people who think like us, outside of the internet we are becoming a less social being.
The internet has reduced the cost of contributing one’s voice to the collection as well.
Kristia, i do agree with you that the internet is fine as it is with deliberation. Although, it does, somehow, further polarization, I think people choose what they want to search in the internet. The internet itself should not be blame for the choices we make as consumers when searching informations. And as Chris mentioned, your identity can influences choices. I agree with you that because of your immigrant background, you might be more exposed to international news network which will indeed provide different views/ perspectives on topics.
I would agree that Cass Sunstein’s point about the internet’s capacity to create information cocoons definitely has some truth to it. People who read either conservative or liberal-targeted news sites or blogs tend, in my experience, to think strictly within that framework. As the New York Times article points out; however, most people on either side of the political divide are not as extreme as Sunstein makes them out to be and tend to receive their news from a mix of centrist sources (such as the still very popular network news shows and major newspapers, all of which provide much of the online news and blog content).
I would also add that Sunstein’s wider thesis is predicted on an overly simplistic view of the whole “What is a Democracy” question. He opens his book with the statement “In a democracy, people do not live in echo chambers or information cocoons. They see and hear a wide range of topics and ideas.” Proclamations stated as fact such as this are repeated throughout the first two chapters of the book and although some vague references to Madison and the “Spirit of Democracy” are mentioned, there is little support for any of these assumptions presented in the text. This is a major issue given that many would argue (including Madison himself) that the US is a republic and not a democracy (where people literally make the laws). Even using the lighter definition of democracy, majority rule, the United States does not have this as both chambers of congress need supermajorities to get anything done. Furthermore, the history of newspapers in this country before they adopted the sell advertising for revenue model, was one of dedicated political publishing. People subscribed to the newspaper that most accurately reflected their political leanings. Was our democracy jeopardized then? He doesn’t say.
(P.s. I will add that I am somewhat sympathetic to the information bubble idea albeit not Sunstein’s conception of it. Most Americans only speak English and therefore receive zero information from outside their operating framework. Take the Iraq War for example. Had the American public been exposed via mass media to even a single first-person account of the horrors of that invasion in a language they could understand, they might have been less willing to allow their elected officials to escalate the war with the 2007 “Surge” (or maybe not). Even the “extreme polarization” of American politics cited by Sunstein isn’t all that diverse. All the major political candidates (including Sanders) are for some or all of the existing methods of government surveillance to prevent terrorism despite the fact that no matter how much money you spend on spying you’ll never get the results you want or promise. In any case, don’t think there’s much policy makers can do about this one without making it worse I would say the best defense is a healthy skepticism.)
Your example in the PS that people may have been less willing had they been able to hear stories from people on the ground and understand them is interesting. In most of the world multiple languages are taught, I think this is a great idea, it promotes cultural diversity and many other things that are positive. But we don’t in America. It seems that is possibly also a form of cocoon, is it not? I mean if America is so great, exceptional, “the Best” as Donald would say, then why bother learning other peoples languages and cultures, they are not as good and important as us. When we start to make that distinction, which I think we do in America (aggregately), then we dehumanize those who are not us, and it is easier to not care that much – if your not as human as I then I can accept things being done to you that I would not someone I see as more human [this said in the Royal sense of you/me]. I think this is an extreme example of a cocoon but I think it is an interesting corollary.
An average internet user uses the internet to share thoughts and ideas. 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.” When a person consumes information; they have their own interpretation, thus they use the internet to promote polarization. The internet has contributed to polarization to a certain extent. Whether we agree or not the media has an influence on our analysis. Human beings seek out information and opinion to like minded people. People are attracted to the news they read or share that is similar to their point of stance. As Nyhan points out, even for the same story, a person can interpret it in many different ways. The individual is already biased before they read an article or filters out their feed in social media. It is important to note that people should understand or at least listen to opposing opinions on critical issues. If people listen to one side of the argument, they will not be able to make an informed decision.
Elaine,yes the internet may promote polarization due to its ability to bring like minded people together, but it also creates exposure which leads to diversity. People are open to a variety of information and personal opinions which will not have been possible without the internet. It creates access to information from people of opposing views and it ends up in deliberations when these opposing groups try to get their messages across.
I really liked your point about how we interpret the information that we receive from the internet is very important. People usually interpret information differently based on their values, political values and their surroundings. If they are narrow-minded and unable to interpret the information correctly, then they might be misinformed and biased. To reduce baseness, I like Sustain recommendation’s about putting different point-of view in a topic. This will help the person to interpret correctly about what the sources are actually saying and be more knowledgeable. It will eventually help the individual to make right decisions regarding that issue.
Nyhan, in his article analyzes the question of whether Americans are becoming more polarized. As described in in the video lecture, it is very easy to consume materials specifically catering to one’s worldview. For instance, websites make recommendations based on your preferences, google search populate results based on your views. These instances make up our information cocoon. Polarization makes it harder to find views that differ from yours. More so, as Nyhan mentioned “ the web is not so much as a factor but rather; one’s political affiliations is what makes him/her interpret the information they consume”. I strongly believe this statement to be applicable to most people.
Nevertheless, I think the Internet is expanding access to different opinions but it seems like we can’t get to the information without extreme difficulty. On the other hand, I align with Gentzkow and Shapiro’s findings that ideological segregation is smaller online than it is within social and family networks. It seems in fact that most of us are secluded not through the internet but rather our circle.
I believe that the Internet have the potential for deliberative conversation ; I think it is great platform to engage discussions. Besides, it is- in my opinion- the best source of information. Thus, in that sense, I’m inclined to agree with Sunstein’s approach to create various viewpoints to news through the use of links in order to fight extreme polarization. Although, on the other hand, I can only partly agree with his analysis on the topic in the Republic.
The internet is amazing in the magnitude of information available with just one click. As expressed in the NYT article, the choices we make in what we choose to read, highly depends on our values and beliefs. This idea that the internet is segregating us and promoting polarization is a little extreme seeing that it is much very human nature to be attracted to interact with people who are and think similarly to you. As expressed in the Gentzkow and Shapiro study, we experience a higher ideological segregation with our personal relationships –families, neighborhoods, social networks— than we do with what we encounter on the internet.
Personally, I like to believe that I am open to reading articles that I can agree with, articles that ignite a little of frustration, but also articles that I can learn from. The one thing that I sort of agree with Mr. Sunstein, in terms of the regulations that he suggests, is that websites and articles should link to other sources that provide an opposite side to the view at hand. This shouldn’t be mandated but I think it would be effective to provide the reader with the option of attaining distinct points of view. To an extend we already see this on websites like Facebook, where you click to read a link and then you are provided with other links that relate to original one, and also in other websites where you are given a list of other articles under the “you might also be interest in” category.
At the end of the day, if you approach the internet with an open mind and willingness to use it to expand your knowledge and/or ideologies, the internet is a great way to decrease that ideological segregation that can exist in our mundane daily life.
Shareny, I agree with your comment that people seek out other people similar to them. If you look a certain way, dress a certain way, have certain values, you will want to surround yourself with like-minded people. As you stated, that is human nature. The idea of websites and articles linking to other sources that provide an opposite side to the view at hand is great in theory. If there is an objective source putting out one side and linking to the other, then I can see it happening. But for web traffic, ad sales, etc. websites will not want to deflect readers to alternative views and sources as it can hurt their reader base. I made a similar statement in my post that relates to your last paragraph. It falls on the reader (us) to seek outside sources. It is our responsibility to research both points of view from multiple sources so we can obtain all of the facts, pros, and cons to make a justified stance on issues. Unfortunately, I would say that most of us by default get caught migrating to the same outlets to get our news.
Shareny you mention the “you might also be interested in” category. I like Amazon’s recommendations for related books when some of the strangest stuff shows up. It expands my thinking. Netflix’ recommendations always strike me as predictable and and disappointing — I want them to have a better algorithm. Maybe that it is the key to regulating customization. Require the algorithm to present a “healthy” mix of what you might like and what you can stretch with.
Nice post, Shareny. I also believe that Sunstein’s stance is a little too extreme. Like you mentioned, there are stronger societal bonds (family, friends, communities) that override one’s acquisition of information from the internet in order to shape their politics. And although the internet segregates ideologies to a degree, it also provides more options for readers. This access is elemental to a healthy functioning liberal democracy.
I also like your take on Sunstein’s regulation regarding how “websites and articles should link to other sources that provide an opposite side to the view at hand.” You make the point that companies like Facebook and society in general are voluntarily adding this aspect to the deliberative political sphere. I think it’s smart not to have the government mandate a policy of this kind because it could snowball into something dangerous that infringes on our free speech rights.
According to Cass Sunstein, we are more susceptible to personalize and customize our selection of communication to meet our needs via the internet. Moreover, he fears that individuals may filter out unwelcome viewpoints from the information they consume, potentially creating a more extreme and misinformed citizenry. Although I do not agree with Sunstein’s argument, I am concerned how fast information spreads online and the potential dangers of not checking the credibility of the source. If online readers/viewers are not skeptical of information that is published online, they may easily be misinformed about the content they are reading. That said, it is important to remind readers/viewers the importance of doing their own research and not take what is published online at face value. Previously throughout the semester, we had read about Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO). What would’ve happened if we just read the article online and not conduct our own research? Would we not discover that DHMO is water? How do our views and attitudes change with this new information?
Agree Nickiesha – at some point, we need to stop blaming the Internet for less deliberation. Whether it exists or not, if someone wants to reaffirm they’re partisan view, they’ll find the sources. Instead, we need to better educate people how to use the Internet and filter out sources that are not accurate or correct. Because things do move fast on the Internet, people need to adopt a more critical eye and learn to visit more credible sites. We cannot expect the Internet to do that for us.
True Nickiesha. There is a wealth of information out there and information does spread quickly, but it is very important that the credibility of the sources are verified.
I really liked your agreement about checking the credibility of the sources for the information. Otherwise, people might be misinformed which can lead to biasses. Last monthly, I was searching for the Syrian Refugee crisis and I got very confused about the credibility of many sources. I was confused whether these sources are only representing the facts for the refugee crisis or they are misguiding for the donations. Therefore, in this situation, I agree with the fact that I should creamy look at the credibility of each sources to get the unbiased information.
As Brendan Nyhan rightfully mentioned, the problem isn’t the news we consume but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information. Even though we do have the option to select news, movies etc that are congenial with our own views as stated by Cass Sunstein, I don’t believe that someone can live in information cacoons. I think it’s extremely hard to eliminate all influences/ views that are not similar to yours. For instance, your cable provider gives you the option to select the channels you want to watch. This is what Sunstein is referring to, that you can tailor what you want to consume. However, if you change the settings from the comfort of your home to the office, you cannot so easily avoid opposing views. If you were to have a staff meeting, you will hear different opinions and as a professional you have to listen and respect all views. As far as the internet is concerned, I believe it does a good job with deliberation. Again the issue isn’t the information we consume but the values people hold. The information consumed might be unbiased but people will select pieces of the information give to affirm what they already believe.
I agree Sharita. As you stated, you can insulate yourself at home to what programming you want to listen to, but you will still be exposed to other views when you interact socially, be it at work or social gatherings with friends, etc. And, it is not so much the filtering of information on the Internet, it is the values people hold.
Well said!
Cass Sunstein highlights a very pertinent issue in media and political studies: how the internet (and somewhat new selective TV cable packages i.e. NetFlix, Hulu, etc.) shapes political deliberation. These sources of media form political opinions and, in turn, voting outcomes. But to what degree? The research that followed Sunsetin’s “Republic.com” claimed that the internet does not form political opinion as much as newspapers or radio, which therefore lessens the impact of Sunstein’s feared ideological “enclaves”. That is not to say that the internet does not increase political polarization at all, though. In my opinion, the internet is a crucial element for younger citizens.
I believe the internet is a powerful tool for younger generations who grew up with this technology, and not with the ubiquity of newspapers as the most popular media medium. The internet does promote polarization that undoubtedly will affect how our political landscape will look like, but I do not think it is the government’s role to infringe on how media websites conduct their business, as Sunstein suggests. Actually, Sunstein’s corrective recommendations would do more to harm free speech rights than help them. In other words, too much democracy is a good problem to have, and we should modify this fact without sufficient research.
So, what should be done? Although I believe it is not the government’s role to control the internet, our citizenry has to have the courage and presence of mind to reject the absurdities and incendiary polemics that can routinely be found in internet media. I hate to disagree with media critic Marshall McLuhan, but in this instance, the medium is not the message. People have the power to filter out misinformation. Have we come to comfortable in our like-minded, womb-like islands? I hope not.
In the Preface to Sunstein’s Republic.com 2.0 he quotes Supreme Court Justice Brandeis saying, “The greatest threat to freedom is an inert people.” With this in mind, the question whether the internet increases polarization of views or not is an interesting one. The goal is an active and engaged population. While mainstream tv, radio, internet media outlets – CNN, Fox, NPR, MSNBC – cater to one end of the political spectrum or the other, the many additional voices that blogs and social media provide is a space for innumerable points of view. Sunstein refers to these “niche” markets. More voices can be heard than the mainstream media and this helps the cause of engaging the public. People don’t need to leave their houses and they can choose to customize their “daily me.” But at least the venue where they are doing that is the same place that the many voices exist. Spend enough time there and the chance encounters with something new do exist.
I agree Maureen – you have to be caught in a pretty deep partisan rabbit hole to avoid seeing anything with a view that opposes your own. Between the amount of sponsored content, hyperlinks in each article and even the number of articles shown in Google news, most people have to see something that catches their eye with a different view. Thus, we need to applaud the Internet for being a home for so many viewpoints, and trust that people will have some interest in clicking content that might be different…even if its by mistake.
I agree with the main takeaway of the New York Times article – the Internet is really only making it easier for people who want to live in an information cocoon; its not forcing people into one. There is reason most people actually identify as political independents, or that centrist news outlets like Good Morning America or USA Today have the highest ratings and circulation, respectively. People actually do want objective opinions. Personally, I think the problem is that we’re still not that good at the Internet.
Its unbelievable to think that the Internet is not that old, and there are still a lot of people who don’t have access or know how to use it very well. Thus, that allows the more extreme elements of the political spectrum to be active on it or have their ‘news’ appeal to people who may not know any better.
When the printing press was first invented, there were a lot of new books out there. However, just because something was in print, doesn’t mean it was very accurate. Eventually, society figured out how to filter those out. The same thing will happen on the Internet. Facebook and Twitter are great at connecting people; soon they’ll figure out how to allow for smart deliberation to happen. Not just one-sided debate.
Based on my own experience, it is nice to have the option to select at any given time the types of programming I prefer to view or listen to. However, I still maintain the intellectual curiosity to find out about what is transpiring outside of my desired programming. It depends on the intellectual curiosity of the individuals. The internet presents a world of information when conducting research or browsing. One could easily be conducting a search for a specific topic and could be confronted with broader topics remotely associated with your original search. This can allow the reader to delve into and acquire a wealth of knowledge.
I do not agree that the Internet is promoting polarization. According to the New York Times article “Partisans from both sides were most likely to consume news from outlets that were estimated to be relatively centrist, such as network morning shows and evening news broadcasts.” Additionally, as indicated in the article, ideology is segregated at the zip code levels rather than the news sites we visit. I would further add that there is also segregation at the mental health level, as well. Sunstein states “When society is fragmented in this way, diverse groups will tend to polarize in a way that can breed extremism and even hatred and violence.” I believe that this type of polarization occurred even before the Internet became widely popular. Diverse groups prior to the widespread use of the Internet have demonstrated hatred and violence on people of diverse races, ethnicities and ideologies. The Internet is just an advanced mechanism where manifesto(s) can be broadly shared instantaneously in an attempt to influence individuals. Additionally, Gentzkow and Shapiro found no evidence to support that the Internet is becoming more segregated over time.
Lastly, I believe the ability to filter information on one’s personal downtime can be used as a way to protect one’s emotional and psychological well-being after being subjected daily to the very harsh realities of everyday life.
Well said Doug! I concur with you in every point you’ve made in your article. It is true that the internet is still young ; it is true that a lot of people still lack access. Therefore, if we were to consider polarization we would have to take into account that this concept mostly applies to industrialized countries who have free access to internet.
More so, as you mentioned , the internet serves a mean to make it easier for people who want to live an information cocoon. Thus, people should stop blaming the internet for it doesn’t force one into it. The internet can still be a great platform for effective deliberation.
The internet – on its own – is not promoting polarization. If anything, it is just part of a trend that began when people started accessing many more channels on their cable subscriptions.
It is true that “information cocoon” do exist and they may be larger than in the past, but what really promotes polarization is a growing sense of apathy among people and in some groups, a certain level of ignorance that does not allow for a needed evaluation and questioning of the information we consume. There are facts, scientific corroborated information that should not be part of political conversations, and yet, individuals are seen arguing about the age of the planet or whether climate change is a thing; those are not political opinions.
Now, the internet may be an aiding factor and a channel to express people’s polarization and frustration, but there are many other ones that play a role in favor and against, where one lives and whom one interacts with, being two of them.
I also agree with your point that internet is not solely polarizing our views. Although information cocoon still exist, there are various factors that are causing that polarization. Therefore, we cannot solely blame on the internet. I also agree with Sustein’s argument that we try to look for those information that supports our views only. Political ideology become an important factor regarding how we look for information. Majority of the people try to look different point of views to get unbiased information , however, filtering the right information gets very trick in this situation. Therefore, its very hard for government to reduce internet polarization.
Really great angle, Federico. I agree that some sort of information overload, or like you said an increased volume of access to channels, leads to apathy and an acquiescence to the strongest opinion, which in turn yields a more polarized political landscape. The internet provides content both in long form and bite-sized sound clips, so as you mentioned, people are experiencing an apathy that has been around before and will be around after the internet.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-09-03/how-voters-can-escape-from-information-cocoonshttp://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-09-03/how-voters-can-escape-from-information-cocoons
The article “How Voters can Escape from Information Cocoon” shows that how polarization is a critical issue in now a days especially in our political culture. People seem to judge others based on their political viewpoints. They think that who-ever has different point-of-views, they must be evil or bad. In this situation, Internet plays a big source for political formation in individual’s life. If the person cannot filter the information he or she is getting from the Internet correctly, then they can be misguided and misinformed. For example, recently, Donald Trump claims that Muslims should not enter the United States. If the individual does not filter the information correctly and looking at only Trump’s reaction about Muslims, then he or she can assumes that Muslims are bad and we should kill this people now. This situation is very risky for our society.
Moreover, now a days Google track our search history engines and usually they recommend only those website that has similar point of views. Therefore, it gets very hard to get the unbiased information. Therefore in this situation, I would agree with Cass Sustein that websites should provide different point-of views as a forum, then it will give the opportunity to get the corrected information and make them less biased.
However, I also agree with Brendan Nyhan’s argument that information from the Internet is not only source that is polarizing our views. Besides Internet, how we live, where we live, our surrounding and values are promoting polarization on the Internet searches. Therefore, we cannot solely blame on Internet for polarization. In this situation, I would again recommend again the creation of public forum to reduce polarization for information.
I agree with the findings that people tend to get their news from specific news sources. I particularly tend to look at a few outlets regularly and do not have a desire to visit other sites. However, I don’t think that this doesn’t allow me to hear different opinions on issues. I am exposed to a variety of opinions about things through conversations and social media posts from friends, discussions at work, and informational articles that site both sides to stories. I find that my friends, families, and co-workers often provide me with a variety of opinions regarding issues that I have read articles about from news sources of my choice. I think this promotes deliberation in our society. I can certainly understand the thought behind believing that the internet promotes polarization, but, I don’t think there is significant proof that we are only exposed to certain viewpoints on issues. I know that an argument against that is that we usually surround ourselves with people that share our views. In my experience, that is true about friends, but that doesn’t limit your exposure. I have many family members and coworkers who have completely opposite thoughts and beliefs on social and political issues and I cannot (necessarily) control my exposure to their opinions. I think that the approaches for regulating the internet such as mandating sites cover a variety of issues and cite the opposition would hurt our society. This would highly involve the government in regulating free speech and opinions. If anything, I think that a campaign effort to promote educating the public fully on issues (although I’m not sure how this would be executed) would be the most helpful.
Yes, we do select our news sources. The internet has made that really easy – and lets be honest, watching Fox news should just make you want to hurl chunks. My objection here is what we are calling news. Should partisan “news” be news. When in a recent study (I don’t know the citation off the top of my head) found that Fox news was factual 25% of the time, MSNBC 35-40% and CNN a whopping 50% (rough numbers) is the news. News is supposed to present factual things for the public to consume and remunerate on. Can we call what we have news when it is, at best, factual half the time. So yes, we are in cocoons, whether we realize it or not. Maybe they are partisan cocoons, but I would say we live in cocoons of fact-less-ness. The internet is not much better. There are some good sources out there, but they are far and few between. This is why I am not all that good with corporate ownership of the media. Agendas get pushed, ideologies entrenched, and we get to a point where we are unwilling to hear the other side and engage in debate of facts because its no longer about fact but how it will play to the base on their cocoon station of choice.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree that the internet is promoting polarization. Although it is certainly possible and much easier to filter out information one doesn’t want to hear or read about on the internet, as compared to the information one would be exposed to in a public forum or by flipping through a newspaper, it can also be argued that the internet enables and empowers individuals to access information and perspectives they otherwise would never have had access to. Additionally, it’s just as easy to ignore information that doesn’t agree with one’s ideology by walking away from a public forum or skipping a newspaper article as it would be to avoid contrasting viewpoints on the internet. On the other hand, I think the internet provides people with the opportunity to explore different viewpoints with the distinct advantage of anonymity – an important factor that was not previously possible. Gentzkow and Shapiro found that people are more likely to be ideologically segregated based on where they live more so than by the news sites they visit. In the NYTimes article, “Americans Don’t Live in Information Cocoons,” Nyhan argues 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.” If people tend to be more ideologically similar to family, friends and neighbors, it is harder to explore and express opposing views in person than it would be under the cloak of anonymity which the internet provides. People are more likely to consider opposing views which they are actively seeking than they are to consider opposing views that are being imposed upon them.
People are more likely to express themselves and their ideologies more honestly online than they would in person, as there are no consequences and they feel free to share their views since there will always be a group of like-minded individuals who share those same views. However, in order to have a truly effective and productive online deliberative environment, in which the exchange of ideas and views is done in such a way that it can actually persuade others to reconsider their viewpoints, there needs to be more respect given to participants among message boards. The level of incivility across online message boards results in an environment wherein people of varying ideologies are visiting a particular site and reading the same news, but because of the disrespect and the attacks expressed in the message boards, it fosters a need for self-defense of one’s ideologies rather than the consideration of other viewpoints. This supports Nyhan’s argument that it’s our partisan beliefs, and not the news we consume, that shape how we interpret information. I think the internet is in desperate need of a lesson in deliberative etiquette. Perhaps, as the world moves further into a more digital environment, where we spend many hours communicating with one another across the world through various digital platforms, it’s time for such etiquette and deliberative technique to be taught in schools.