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.
64 thoughts on “Deliberation and the Internet”
Comments are closed.
The New York Times article follows my own line of thinking and experience on the topic. While there were countless thinkpieces following the 2016 election on the dangers of living in digital “bubbles” where you self-filter out opposing viewpoints, my own experience online and on social media has given me a more positive view. While there is certainly an element of following and consuming opinions you most agree with, I think people tend to overlook the value of the free and open marketplace of ideas that the internet provides.
In particular, easy access to news and opinion that ranges from the far left to the far right, while it may cause you to subscribe to a particular camp, also informs a wide range of people on issues that they may have never even considered let alone formed a strong opinion about. A democracy relies on a well-informed public and nothing has expanded and democratized knowledge like the internet has. As far as social media, while there are obviously toxic elements of discourse-by-140-characters, I’ve personally found in my own social network that exposure to political opinion and news has significantly expanded the amount of people who take interest in civics who may not have otherwise. Facebook and Twitter provide mediums for mass deliberation that never existed before.
I think attempting to regulate diversity into the internet is probably a fool’s errand. As the Professor mentioned in the lecture, a light government touch may help reduce hegemony, but overreaching could just end up stifling free speech and may be attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. The NY Times article mentions a study showing that the actual consumption of media was far less partisan than assumed. Because of the openness of the internet, people are often exposed to differing views even if they don’t wish to be.
I agree that the internet has definitely increase people’s access to information and it is a necessity of democracy to have an informed public. However, often times the public can be misinformed and mislead due people’s tendency to seek out get information from the internet that may not necessarily be accurate.
I think that’s really one of the biggest problems facing democracy in the digital era. The speed at which falsehoods and hoaxes travel leading to mass dissemination of misinformation is deeply concerning. What’s just as troubling is the number of people who are misinformed as a result of the lies that were spread.
Now more than ever, I think it’s important to hold people and sources who spread falsehoods accountable for their lies by interrogating them and making them defend their lies until they no longer can. We’ve already seen some reporters challenge politicians in their interviews when their narratives or statements contradict. We can also do the same within our own circles.
I agree with you. The internet information can be changed or altered on some sites by individuals at any given time hence some information can be inaccurate at times
It’s seems true that the internet’s value is in the freedom and open marketplace of ideas that it provides. The internet gives a vast range of information to seek out views, unlike some print media such as newspapers or magazines that are limited by space and must be selective of what has priority for that issue or edition. People may be imposing self-segregation and the selection of like-mindedness but it’s not he intention of the internet. The internet is all inclusive. “Scrabby the rat” represented unfair labor practices and is another outlet where citizens can seek information as they please. My own personal media practices reflect that I like to hear all opinions and do not like to be boxed in. It’s beneficial not to be sheltered and have the option to be exposed to a variety of information which the internet offers.
I kind of agree to a certain extent that internet has open the flood gates for accessibility by all as long as one can find data connection. The flip side is that hackers and faceless persons have hijacked the internet and filled it with fake news so that it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to distinguish between authentic news and fake news. Nonetheless the internet has brought has brought in its wake lots of options for information dissemination.
I have to agree with you as much as the internet can be used for good. It has been used for evil, individuals personal information have been used without their knowledge that negatively affected them in many ways. Hackers have hacked bank information, left individuals accounts empty and many other mayhems have taken place as a direct result of not having control over individuals who seek to do others harm
I agree that hearing all opinions on a particular topic allows for broader knowledge, and not choose to be “boxed in” as you put it. People need to be more open minded to have an objective point of view, and that is what’s lacking when individuals refuse to a different opinion than their own. Yes the internet have an abundance of information but what people choose to read remains debateable
I think the end of the NY Times article raises a really valid point – people see the news differently because of their values and beliefs, not because they’re getting their news from different sources. I subscribe to theSkimm, a daily newsletter that rounds up top headlines every morning and is geared to millennial women, and after the election they published several comments on the same news story. Some commenters criticized theSkimm for being too liberal, others too conservative, and others for not taking a strong enough stance. This was all in response to the exact same article (and from people in the same demographic group).
There’s no doubt that the internet and social media have made it much easier for people to validate their beliefs, and of course, to spread fake news. I think that sites like Facebook have a moral obligation to remove fake content, or at least flag it as fake. But beyond that, I’m not sure how much more we can do to encourage people to diversify their news feeds, and I’m not sure it would be all that helpful. I will probably never see the news in the same way as a diehard conservative, because our beliefs are just too different.
I think what we can and must do is strengthen our education system so that it equips people to think critically. If you can think critically and rationally, you can recognize your own biases and at least consider whether the way you’re thinking about a particular piece of news is accurate. That won’t totally solve the problem, but it could help bring us to a more deliberative place on the internet and move us away from the status quo of either ignoring or screaming at each other online.
You bring up a great point about strengthening our education system so that people are more equip to critically think and rationalize a situation to formulate their own viewpoints. At the same time it may be difficult for teachers to avoid being bias when discussing real time political events if they have strong beliefs. I think it is important no matter how strongly you feel about sometime, it is always important to be open to hearing the other side because we can always learn something from each other even if we do not always agree.
Hi
I do agree with your suggestion about strengthening o=the education system. That as you mentioned will allow us to have a more broad and critical thinking towards issues going on around us. I think it is difficult to scape the fake news because as our society relies more in social media it gets harder to distinguish between what are facts and what is made belief. Specially when after reading something you are prompt to see more articles sealed to what you just read. In a way taking your freedom to choose and make an option based in real facts.
Strengthening our education system would be a positive reaction to establishing a criteria and foundation for critical thinking. Facebook is a site that serves an ambiguous purpose. The site entertains while also being a place to disseminate real information. A possibility could be categorizing internet sites, sources or information. I thought it might be similar to looking at the Inquirer to give the same quality as the New Yorker. The website our class reviewed at the beginning of the semester was an example of how the internet could provide fake content. how Facebook has recently been pressured to screen for content showing criminal behavior it may also be a good suggestion to flag content on social media. The task may be a tremendous undertaking but there need to be accountability on behalf of the website owners to inform the public honestly.
I definitely agree Katherine! Accountability is a huge issue on the internet. In fact, I strongly believe that much of the polarization that exists is largely due to misinformation or misinterpreted articles. Confirmation bias, however, is such a strong thing. I have never seen a philosophical or ideological argument solved on the internet. One side states their opinion, the other side states their opinion, insults are thrown in and no one leaves wiser.
I also subscribe to the Skimm and am glad you raised that point about the comments they received. I had forgotten about that. To further your arguments, social media is just the newest technology for news. There has always been somewhat of a bias in newspapers and radio as well. Because there are more media outlets now there is a potential for more diverse opinions rather than more homogeneity.
I do agree with you on the fact that Facebook has a moral obligation to remove fake content. But the algorithm it uses to keep members active in clicking and sharing makes that obligation questionable. I wrote my response about echo chamber as the result of social media’s algorithm of providing information we want to see and to continue on the clicks to read more. For example, Facebook tracks and knows your data and will provide relevant content based on what you normally click on. That’s why during the election and the political campaign, these algorithms affirm the public in our views and fail to allow us to view things from another perspective. Being deprived of the opportunities to view the world from another perspective is what drive our polarization.
because of the internet today people can attend classes irrespective of their location, a virtual campus with students from different countries. The power of the internet can not be overemphasize, in that it has forced almost all media houses to put their news online which can be read everywhere. Today one can read the New York Times, Washington Post or the Chicago Tribune in the far away Ghana in the comfort of their home.
I agree with your conclusion that education is the solution. I’ve read several articles that have analysed spread of fake news, especially the ones spread intentionally by Russian troll factories, and have concluded that the higher education levels in countries it has happened have been associated with lack of spreading of the fake news articles. Even in absence of such extreme examples, I think media literacy is one of the most important contemporary civic skills.
Elora,
I agree with you here. The variance of news sources are there, but internal allegiance ultimately wins out. The talk around Facebook stamping out “fake news” will be an interesting fight. How much man power will they employ to fact check these sorts of stories? In terms of business, it benefits them, just like the big 5 media player, to give the crowds what they want.
There will always be slant, but that comes with any opinion. What we have to depend on is the public education system and its ability to equip the average individual with the compass to decipher what is real from what is fake.
I totally agree on strengthening our education system. With knowledge comes with understanding, and people tend to fear what they do not understand, leading to negative responses. Teaching individuals to think critically leads to a debatable argument allowing for all viewpoints be heard. This as you say can change an individual way of thinking due to enlightenment.
The NY Times article closes with this statement: “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.” People’s views are not completed driven by what they see on the internet, but rather by there values and what political party they identify with. Although the internet and social media has been blamed for political polarization and often referred to as “echo chambers” I do not believe that most people do consume a variety of media outlets with opposing viewpoints. For example, during the presidential campaign, I had a diverse news-feed full of conservative, liberal, and in the middle political views. There were times where opposing viewpoints led to health political discussions and other times where heated arguments lead to strained relationships. What I did notice though is that once you clicked on a certain article, other similar articles would them be suggested to you in your new-feeds. Which leads me to believing that there needs to be more regulations in place to prevent these sites from using your search history or view history to steer to towards one viewpoint or another. I believe that the public’s private information is being sold to companies too freely and stricter regulation is needed.
Hello
You are right about the issue of privacy. With all the social media that we are surrounded by there is no more privacy or freedom to choose. Everything appears in your news based on what you have read before or your preference. Making it difficult to actually know more facts about the other side of that particular issue. Privacy is a difficult issue that i do not know if it will be solve but it actually affects our daily lives without even noticing.
You’re so right about opposing viewpoints leading to healthy discussion or heated debates at times. Often times, our families and geographic affiliation, as Professor mentioned, are what drive polarization rather than the Internet. I will give you a real-life example that happened two days ago. I had lunch with some colleagues and one of them shared about her passion in her new job providing social services to immigrants–including illegal immigrants. When I asked her how she personally reconciles the fact these immigrants have broken the law and that no one is above the law, she shared with me about her upbringing in a family without paper. So I’m definitely affirmed that where you come from says a lot about what cause you believe in and support, sometimes with a passion.
Good post and I couldn’t agree more about internet privacy. The selling of information has been going on for some time now and doesn’t look like it will stop-there is money to be made. Also a person’s view is shaped by their upbringing and society to some degree. Using the internet will not completely convince someone on political views but it can further influence them. Regardless of the type of viewpoints, consenting or dissenting, it is unlikey people with allow to change their political stance in my opinion.
I don’t think the observation that people do not choose only partisan sources of information is enough to refute Sunstein’s argument about enclaves. Sunstein, and others, also noted the social aspect of the enclaves, meaning that in the enclaves partisanship gets validated and reinforced. The material in the last lecture included the theories on how the social environment, like family is important in shaping how people digest information. Sunstein also noted that the risk in enclaves is that in placing emphasis on partisan information, mistakes and errors can happen, and even tendencies towards extremism can be emphasized. Think of pizzagate and the role alt-right rumor-mill played.
In his book the Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser shares Sunstein’s concern, but goes deeper into the technologies that drive the personalization of content. While Sunstein argued that the natural tendency of people to choose information sources that are in accordance with pre-existing preferances, Pariser plays down the role of individual choice, and replaces it with choices companies like Google and Facebook make for us, based on the mountains of data they have on everyone who uses their services. Content is thus filtered based on what algorithms think we find relevant (leaving out the irrelevant), not based on what we choose to see.
I don’t think the threat to democratic deliberation is the biggest threat however in this context. Privacy is. Both threats do share the same root, the data that Google, Facebook, and internet providers have on people, and thus solutions should look at how data should be protected, collected and used, instead,which might also be politically more feasible than solutions that force providers to make content available they don’t agree with.
I think the issue of privacy is really important one that I worry we will not collectively pay enough attention to until it is too late. The way that tech companies mine our data to build profiles of who we are and what we like is making it increasingly harder for us to be exposed to content that challenges our beliefs. It also makes it more likely that when we are exposed to different ideas, it’s easier for us to disregard them because we encounter them so infrequently and are surrounded by so many people who think the same way we do.
I really like the point you make about privacy. This is something that is left out of these readings (maybe because they’re a little outdated). It has a huge impact on the media, news, and way that we communicate in today’s age
I agree that privacy is a much larger concern than being in a media bubble, and perhaps talk of regulating viewpoint diversity is a means to divert attention from this. Gentzkow and Shaprio’s study concludes that “Internet news consumers with homogeneous news diets are rare.” They further point out that the market demands quality journalism needs to appeal to a very wide audience, so they cannot fudge facts or have an overt ideological bias.
The fact that pizzagate was a news story was weird. The news story about pizzagate was two-fold: the rumor and the fact that many people seemed to earnestly believe it. I think part of the reason it was such a big deal was people wanting to feel smart about how they know it’s a nonsense story, so they click on headlines to read about how dumb the other side is. It reinforces the idea that the alt-right, or whoever earnestly believed it, are really a basket of deplorables. The people who really bought into pizzagate might constitute one of Gentzkow and Shaprio’s groups of consumers with homogenous news diets. If they read mainstream publications they were perhaps looking for clues to validate their conspiracy.
I tend to agree with the New York Times article that we do not live in an information cocoon where we only get information from like-minded sources. I’m not quite convinced that polarization is a major issue or one that we should all be too concerned about. Most news sources – big and small, in my view, compete at an equal level playing field on the internet and social media platforms. With the vast information sources available, there’s always something for everyone. While I may get most of my news from sources I follow or I consider to be most reliable, there’s an extensive amount of news and stories from multiple sources that get through my feeds on social media that are of similar or opposing views.
The idea of displaying opposing or unwelcomed viewpoints on sites we visit seems counter-intuitive and unnecessary. Don’t those marketing ads based on your recent searches annoy you? And these ads are based on your preferences, how much more if they aren’t? Maybe the intent is good but as human beings, we’re inclined to click on articles or stories that adhere to our views and interests. I think what’s more important is our ability to think more critically and our willingness to challenge our own views by seeking information from multiple sources.
I agree with you that people are feed data in several different ways on the internet. Advertisements that pop up might be something I am interested in, or not. This is true of small organizations that uses Google ads to promote their program and do not pay careful attention to their settings, for example once a user clicks on their program, they might see ads 20 plus times- whereas 3-4 times would be more appropriate.
I do not quite understand the algorithm on Facebook to display news stories, but I imagine it works in a way to deliver news closely to outlook that it perceives us as having.
The NYTimes article and the article by Gentzkow and Shapiro (G&S) resonated most with me and my personal experiences. G&S’ point about how polarization is mostly perpetuated by our family, friends, and the people we surround ourselves with is more poignant to me than Sunstein’s arguments.
None of these articles were recent enough to cover the 2016 elections and the emergence of “fake news.” Obviously there was “fake news” before 2016 but it took hold this year in a way that we haven’t seen before. I think the internet is to blame for this phenomenon but I don’t think that it contributed necessarily to further polarization.
The cable news media seems to be the most polarizing in its coverage. On the internet, we have control over what we see and what we seek out. However, with cable news the network is in charge of who is brought on and what messages are portrayed. Cable news seemed to be more polarized and more biased than the material shared on the internet.
To go back to the G&S article, the point they make about how people seek news from multiple sources proves to be true. Most have a preferred news outlet but it seems rare that people would only seek news from one source or another. What is driving the polarization is the company that we keep. Typically, people associate with individuals of the same geographic location, race/ethnic background, educational status, and class status. Of course this is not always the case, but the G&S article proved how true it is. These factors, location, race/ethnicity, education level, and class, tend to contribute to our opinions so if we are surrounded by people similar to us it may lead to being surrounded by people with the same opinions.
Lucy I can’t agree with you more. All of these other factors – location, race, education, social and economic status are likely to play a bigger role in how our views are shaped or how we interpret information. I think our inclination to prefer a specific news outlet over the other or surround ourselves with like-minded people is rather a reflection of our views, identities and values not necessarily a result of the news or information we consume.
Totally agree! I also believe that people tend to pick and choose certain points made in an article. For example, you could have a well-balance article that addresses both sides of an issue but if someone approaches that article with confirmation bias, they may only retain the points that appeal to them. And I think we see a lot of that on the internet where articles are misquoted and key facts are left out. This all comes from biases that exist before we go online. The problem with the internet, unfortunately, is that there are no rules of engagement.
Multiple valid points and good reference to Gentzkow and Shapiro article. Our social circle has a greater impact and it always will.The polarity discussed here can not be attributed to one sources. In addition, cable companies have more power than we think, in subtle and explicit ways. It is up to us to discern the type of information that is relevant to us and the validity of it.
(continuation)
I think online social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, have really evolved to enable the public to exchange and disseminate information, mobilize grassroots conversations, rallies and groups (i.e. indivisible groups) thereby increasing civic engagement at no cost. Through Twitter hashtags (#) and user mentions (@), the amplified exposure of tweets have allowed groups and people of similar ideologies to connect. All that is great for deliberation and increasing opportunities for it. I think regulations should be in place to eradicate fake news and trolls or bots, which can have grave impact as seen in the last presidential elections. There should be regulations that specifically target trolling and mass dissemination of fake news because those are the biggest threats to a deliberative environment on the internet.
According to the dictionary, “polarization is the division into sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs.” Although we may not always exercise our freedom of choice the internet isn’t promoting polarization. That ideology is giving the internet power stronger than investing and believing in a stronger informed citizenry. In the New York Times article “Americans Don’t Live in Information Cocoons” the author agreed “the problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret the information.” Sunstein said “people seek associations, people and ideologies they already believe in and facts they are comfortable with. We seek out what Sunstein calls “the daily me. A communication package that fulfills our own needs.” He said its self-segregation and its fine that like-minded people seek a safe space together. My thoughts are it’s not the internet causing any type of isolation. The internet gives a range of choices to obtain information. The government intervening with PIPA or SOPA would take away freedom the internet offers because controls would be implemented forcing a site to link to opposing views. Beck challenged the ideas questioning if we should impose regulations on the internet in the name of democracy. Free speech actually allows the existence of the internet because of democracy.
I agree that PIPA or SOPA, at least as Glenn Beck presented it, would be taking away freedom from people on the internet. I don’t see how it could be enforced. It would also unfairly burden internet companies in a way that TV and other media wouldn’t have to worry about. I’m also unclear who would be deciding what political slant any given piece has. A liberal might view a CNN piece as centrist while a conservative might see the same piece as liberal. And there are other viewpoints besides liberal and conservative, would there have to be links to those as well?
Thanks Katherine for the post. You touched upon a good point. Internet allows free speech to be shared and be seen the public. It allows people to visit sites that shares their opinions but it does not at all promote polarization. In fact, it allows a person to see the other points of views on a topic. Polarization happens because of contrasting views and not because of the internet. Internet simply is a open forum for people to share their views and people will prefer to see news based on their values and beliefs. In any case, the citizens will be more well informed of the issues.
Before I read the New York Times article, my mind was pretty much set in thinking that our Internet and social media plays the largest role in shaping our polarizing views. But after I read it and did some research on my own, I realized this can be one of the biggest fallacies in our information obsessed society. Yes the media does provide a convenient platform for us to have access to news and information that confirm our pre-existing beliefs, and thus resulting in the widespread adoption of “echo chamber”. However, the emphasis, in my opinion, is on “pre-existing beliefs”. Most people keep a healthy sense of skepticism or else they can be viewed as extremists. A new report from the National Bureau of Economic Research throws that theory into question, as its findings seem to indicate America’s trend toward ideological extremism can’t be completely explained by the popular outlets like Facebook and Twitter:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/is-social-media-to-blame-for-political-polarization-in-america
This study, done by a group of researchers from Stanford University and Brown University, found that”older Americans – who tend to be less actively engaged online – have seen the biggest swings in ideological extremism in recent years. Those at least 75 years old saw polarization growth of 0.32 index points between 1996 and 2012, according to the study. Those between the ages of 18 and 39, meanwhile, who are significantly more likely to be engaged online, saw a polarization increase of only 0.05 index points over the same period.”
The echo chamber, however, is the result of social media’s algorithm of providing information we want to see and to continue on the clicks to read more. For example, Facebook tracks and knows your data and will provide relevant content based on what you normally click on. That’s why during the election and the political campaign, these algorithms affirm the public in our views and fail to allow us to view things from another perspective.
I believe our polarizing political standpoints also fundamentally come from our experience and where our identity lies. If we identify ourselves as a responsible citizens of this country who’s value aligns more with Republican practices, we tend to read and share Internet sources alike. Vice versa for the Democrats.
Thank you Vivian for the article about social media giants like Facebook and Twitter. The use of these algorithms, and to me, a strategic form to confine the exposure to information, is exactly why I am not a fan of social media. But as you mentioned, our standpoints derive from the value alignment of our identities and that of the information we accept as valid. Considering the wide array of identities, values, and factions that exists, and users/readers more vocal than ever, the internet can serve as a platform to deliberate more effectively than other traditional media outlets
I agree with your analysis, and that Facebook and Twitter didn’t create the problem, and it is important to keep in mind the changes in society and politics over the years that have contributed to polarization.
I agree with the Times piece that people aren’t so much filtering their news sources based on their ideology, but interpreting information from mostly credible and centrist news sources based on their ideology. The author of the Times piece used recent social science research to justify his skepticism of Sunstein’s thesis. Based on personal experience I don’t believe the internet promotes people to go into information cocoons; HOWEVER, I do believe the internet offers a new, unique opportunity for people of specific political persuasions to find each other, and it’s unclear how they would be interacting with media if it weren’t for these communities. Twitter is of course full of very partisan people. It does seem that there are plenty of like-minded political communities on Twitter. The users in these groups seem to find and follow each other, rarely interacting with people in other groups. Many Trump supporters have “Deplorable” in their screen names, and many Hillary supporters have “She persisted” in theirs. There is a similarity in writing style and twitter use among people in each of these groups and it’s fair to say they learn it from each other. Retweets and other positive interactions reinforce posting, and the most extreme news (fake news?) gets the most attention, due to the soundbite/clickbait nature of using Twitter. So if someone reposts an article from EagleFreedomBlog or whatever it will get more attention if it has an incendiary headline. The fact that articles like this get so much attention on twitter is not the same as saying we live in cocoons; its unclear how seriously these articles are taken, and if it isn’t just a widespread fantasy world where users can pretend to be fighting for freedom, but in real life interact with regular people just fine.
Excellent point in regard to the twitter names! Its clear that both “sides” learn from each other, but the problem might be that they just perceive the world differently. Twitter has been used to connect people all over the globe. I do think fake news is a bigger factor in this problem than information cocoons. Fake news is often heavily slanted and is polarizing people faster than partisan news stations or sites ever have in my opinion.
The article by the New York Times was interesting and actually describes the polarization that does exists thanks to the internet. I agree with most of the article specially when the author mentioned “The problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information” I think that summarized what is going on nowadays with the news and the way the public interprets them. It is much easier for the readers to look for information they actually like and that is compatible with their beliefs and values. They are less likely to search for news that report facts that are not in there liking because that is the nature of us as people.
According to Eli Pariser search engines and social networks filter out dissenting opinions and offer users only what they want to see. Google and Yahoo draw on a user’s past search preferences when responding to queries, meaning that over time a liberal and a conservative might receive ideologically opposite search results having entered identical information. I think that is the problem that we face when talking about polarization. As mentioned in previous post I believe that the key is in finding a way to increase privacy when using the internet as our means to get news. Since it has become more difficult to actually read both sides of a story.
The NY Times article that we were asked to read was written in 2014. Reading it today, I felt it was more apt as a eulogy of how people used to access news. There are still some people who watch the evening news, which for the most part remains centrists because the station is owned by a corporation which is profit driven. However, plenty of people get their alternative facts from alternative sources.
The author probably could not have predicted a scenario in which individuals gravitated towards news that fit their political identity, but also remain vulnerable to fake news. “Ideological Segregation Online and Offline” makes the point that people who visit sites of strong ideological leaning, tend to be more interested in politics and are exposed to a broader range of viewpoints. However, this article does not consider the propensity of light news consumers to be swayed by fake news.
The Red Media, Blue Media articles describes how conservatives have found a niche for themselves in Fox News. However, even though Fox News leans strongly to the right, it shows the current prospective of conservatives. This is valuable for deliberation on the internet, because it helps both sides understand where the other is coming from. I suppose it can be like conservatives reading Huffington Post. Even though these two news outlets have extreme leanings, by reading them, an outsider can better understand people of different political leanings, and hopeful this can lead to better deliberation.
I agree with the idea that the internet actually leads to better deliberation (hopefully at least). Just having access to such a wide variety of viewpoints, even if you are not consuming it every single day, at least gives you perspective and understanding that other opinions exist. That seems crucial to engaging in informed debate.
I do think the advent of “fake news” has repercussions this author couldn’t have predicted. In my post I wrote about a liberal person I know who reads only a few news sites. She often recounts these fantastical stories about the Trump Administration. While I’d like to believe them, I know they are false and I try to fact check her as much as possible. I agree that trying to read other sites outside our comfort zones allows us insight into opinions that differ from ours and can lead to some understanding.
Better deliberation is a result of citizens being involved and more informed. The presence of opposing views are critical and may allow polarization but not at all promoting. Users will tend to gravitate to news that fits their interests but that is not the problem. Regulating the content will hinder information thus it will hinder deliberation.
The internet, in many ways, is just a tool. I tend to agree more with Gentzkow & Shapiro’s research that the internet is just a reflection of a larger polarization that exists in our lives outside of the internet. Nyhan’s article highlights a very important point – current technology simply does not allow us to completely avoid other viewpoints and information. When something goes “viral”, anyone who is connected will most likely be exposed to it. Even though I don’t regularly follow Fox News as a source of reliable information, I have watched many of Bill O’Reilly’s rants just for the ridiculousness of it all. I agree that individuals are increasingly able to customize their own version of “The Daily Me” as Sunstein suggests, but this is only a reflection of our own ignorance and confirmation bias. I strongly believe it is human nature to seek out that which agrees with our own beliefs for the sake of being comfortable. It takes a great deal of will power and practice to regularly seek out opposing opinions or question our own beliefs. Nothing illustrated this phenomenon more recently than Donald Trump’s victory in the United States’ most recent presidential election. People were surprised that Donald Trump won because they refused to believe that his victory was a possibility. And that is more a reflection of living in our own social and political bubbles inside and outside of the internet. The biggest challenge in having an effectively deliberative experience on the internet is not the polarization of ideas, but rather the safety of anonymity. Public forums are often more delierative because people are forced to be polite and considerate when their real names and faces are attached to their opinions. On the internet, there is very little accountability because people can hide behind a screen name or fake profile. Websites can and should do a better job at verifying someone’s identity in order to enter discourse with others. If you cannot express your views respectfully with legitimate sources, then such an opinion is worth very little.
Couldn’t agree more Pedro. It may be in our nature to stay in our “comfort zone” and look to a specific source for our dose of “Daily Me”, but the internet has become on of the most strategic tools to update and advance information, to your liking or not,in record time to the largest amount of people (going viral). I also agree that accountability should be one of the first measures to be addressed in creating an effective deliberative environment, cultivating a safer environment to express a knowledgeable opinion, hence adding value to the matter at hand.
I really like your point that the internet just a tool. Blaming one source for the state of polarization that extends around the world is too simplistic. I think the current wave of partisanship is probably a trend, just as it has been historically. On the whole, the Western world has been run from a basically center-right consensus (globalization, free trade and markets, social freedoms, interventionism) for thirty-plus years, a mold that doesn’t fit everyone and people would eventually break out of. I think the rise of radical views on both sides comes more from policy than it does from technology.
The internet makes living in an information cocoon nearly impossible. When attempting to read or consume news from sources that already align with our political views, most people find it difficult to avert their eyes from the infamous Comments section. The fact that most news sites and articles allow readers to post comments, opens up the floodgates for those with opposing views to make the most extreme and opposite statements. When a person posts an antagonistic statement that is clearly on the opposite side of the political spectrum, it only intensifies the partisan divide between Americans, and the potential outcome is polarization. There should be filters for certain words and phrases, but I don’t know how much that would help because nowadays people are hacking any and everything.
Yes, I would argue that depending on the content the comment section does a better job of conveying people diverse points of view than new articles could ever.
After being presented with the material to complete this week’s, I could come to a conclusion about what my view point will be in regard to the polarization of the internet and whether or not anything should be done to encourage a better deliberative environment. Thank you, Professor Huffman, for presenting us with different perspectives on the ideas, furthermore presenting this as an example of how a standpoint can be grasped from information on the internet. As proven on the numerous studies comparing political party affiliation with media outlet preference, and how the isolation percentage is lowest in internet use versus higher percentages at work or around family, the internet serves the public as a crucial source to access information. This also provides me with the notion that, like myself, many readers analyze the content and include their ideals to reach a conclusion of their own. As it was highlighted in the NY Times article, “Americans Don’t Live in Information Cocoons”, the New York University political scientist Pablo Barberá’ s paper evidenced “that those American users who are embedded in even modestly diverse networks tend to follow a less ideologically homogeneous group of people over time. Rather than polarizing us further, encountering differing views online may encourage people to broaden their information stream.” To encourage a better deliberative environment, I agree with Professor Hoffman, in the inclusion of opposing or diverse views/articles at the end of an internet publication to provide the reader with additional, varied information to reach their own conclusion.
I agree that offering viewers different viewing opportunities of news outside of their usual source may be beneficial. I think that instead of placing a link at the bottom of the article, where people may not read it, that urls be dispersed throughout. That way, every time a fact is presented, there can be a way of further researching the fact. This could encourage people to engage outside their usual political ideology.
I do think that information polarization occurs for some people, but that overall, many Americans receive both “sides” of a political story. CNN is known as a liberal-slanted media outlet, however they’ve taken quite a bit of criticism from liberals over their treatment of the Trump Administration by letting surrogates on their air. So I see CNN as a media outlet that is attempting to share liberal viewpoints, while not necessarily quelling the talking points of conservatives. Personally, I seek out information that runs counter to my own views. A couple times a week, I go to Fox News and sometimes Brietbart. While I do not support these sites, and I’m not making an effort to try and change my political views, I find it important to see how the “other side” thinks. I believe I’m not alone in this. There are people who consume a very homogenous set of news sites. An older person I know no longer has cable, rarely watches TV, and primary seeks information from the MSN or Yahoo front page. This personal has also shared to some liberal “fake news” stories with me recently. Regardless, I do believe that the issue here is more about personality and politics than the news sites we subscribe to. It is well known that conservatives and liberals exhibit different personality traits in different magnitudes. Its a chicken and egg problem, as we may never known whether one’s personality informs their political views or vice versa.
I agree. Because media can be shared so quickly and people have so much power online I to think that news that may oppose your political ideology just finds its way to you.
I do agree with Sunstein with regards to peoples need to filtering contributing to polarization. It is a fact that people do not readily seek out media sources that oppose what they believe in or follow. For example, until recently many liberals could not even name three popular conservative media sources (with the exception of Fox). To add to Sunstein’s point there is a new trend where most people are getting their news from their social media pages. This is inherently problematic since social medial is very personal. People select there friends who more than likely share the same or similar political world view. These friends shard stories that relate to what they believe. I think this new trend takes filtering to a new level. However, I do not believe that it is the job of the government to interfere in any way with the hope that policy will improve the deliberation process. I think that it is the responsibility of the large media networks and companies to ensure that they are including a healthy does of diversity in their content. This can be done is large steps like creating new programming the in dedicated to opposing views or in small step like making hyperlink available to opposing stories. Either way I do not think that this is something that the government can successfully make happen by way of policy. In addition, I do not think that there is enough evidence to prove that we have reached a point were communities of thought have become so polarized that the government should even be considering a policy option.
There is something to be said about the NYT article’s conclusion. News consumers take in information with pre-installed filters due to allegiance to ideals, social norms and various other external factors.
Recently, news sources like NPR.com or NYT.com allowed comments under their stories. While all readers read the same “moderately liberal” slant, commenters would still assume their positions of liberal or conservative. Discourse was often crude and would usually end up devolving into troll battles, the comments section did provide a look at how stories that can be viewed by everyone in exactly the same format can be interpreted very differently.
I don’t necessarily think that the internet promotes polarization. It’s very nature is to offer a wealth of choices to the seeker. What is getting interesting is the use of algorithms to supply you with information or media based on recent trends. For example, Facebook videos, will supply you with whatever you have a tendency to watch for more than a few seconds. In regards to receiving news in a vacuum, this could potentially work to supply someone with a certain opinion more opinions that are very similar to their own and therefore keep them in their current mode of thinking.
Polarization is real and widely seen in the internet but this is only a weak reflection of what is happening in the real world. I do not believe internet is increasing polarization. Sunstein emphasized the problem of information cocoons and the need to regulate internet content in order to improve public deliberation. But the internet and the idea of self-sorting news are simply allowing polarization to happen online but it doesn’t limit users at accessing other views. When I open my news app, I get news from the same sources that I have accessed before but it does not stop me from going to another source for more information. The apps may direct the way the information is presented but the user remains in control of the information.
Trending news is an example that I have seen in all the search engines. The users are being informed of what is current and trending but it does not limit them. Internet allows access to information that would otherwise be not be easily available. To promote better deliberation, internet needs to remain open without regulation. The internet is a way of communicating ideas that may allow polarization but not all promoting.
The internet does not promote polarization. It serves as another avenue of access to information. I agree with the NYT author on some of his points. “The problem isn’t news we consume…but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information-most notably, our partisan belief.” As human being have been thought and develop morals and principals. These same morals and principals shape our views and many times don’t change. When we receive information, at times our decision about the matter is already made without fully analyzing and digesting the details. It is very natural for us to seek out “hubs” that are speaking the same language we speak, so to say. Regardless if that language needs to upgraded or completely changed for the better. For example, people will continue to indulge in FOXnews and Newtalk1290, as it may support the ideals they share. The internet gives them more accessibility to do so.
In addition little to none can be done to alter this climate. The internet is broad and open, so at some point in time readers will encounter other views contrary to theirs. Because confirmation bias is so rampant a deliberative environment may be snuffed-out. The concern of breaking free from a “one-way” kind of thinking starts from the home (and society) rather than outlets where people frequent to satisfy their type of thinking.
Political polarization is one factor that is more common with the major political actors. This is especially more common among conservatives as we listening to a lot more falsehood and exaggerations emanating from right wing media outlets such as Breitbart News according to a report published by Columbia Journal. Successfully standing up for the truthful reporting in this environment could usher in a new golden age for the fourth estates. Besides, in contrast with the partisan right wing media, mainstream journalists are dedicated to the proposition that facts should be verified and errors corrected. What is at stake here is not just asymmetrical news consumption. The left and the center avail themselves of real journalism, however flawed it may be, while the right gorges on what is essentially political propaganda
The operative word in all of this is “promoting,” so to that question I must say that the Internet does not promote polarization. It provides live documentation of the momentary condition. The Internet has long been metaphorically described as an information superhighway and it serves us well in that capacity. The information it carries is even referred to as traffic. As one observes a nearby highway, among the many average sedans and intermittent sports models, there is also a lot of junk out there. Just as the First Amendment protects our right to speak freely, equally protecting the best and the worst of our words, the Internet carries these words and a host of other information. The characteristics that make the Internet so inviting are the same characteristics that allow for the negative aspects of our discourse.
Social media sites on the Internet provide some element of anonymity. This benefit enables those who are easily intimidated to speak without the risk of physical confrontation. It also affords some element of cover for those with hateful or otherwise inflammatory comments. The Internet allows people to be vocal, to find people who are like minded, to form groups over long distances, and it allows members of these groups to share information. As Nyhan described in his article, people choose their media, the media do not choose the people.
What is problematic is that the information targeted for group members may be made visible to many. Hate groups or those with extreme opinions (liberal or conservative) use this capability to their advantage to promote their interests and to recruit. It is this activity that exaggerates our collective sense of polarization. Our society has always been very polarized but now we know to what degree and by whom. This realization has been troubling for many and the messenger got blamed.
While freedom of speech is a protected right, access to specific Internet sites is not protected. It is encouraging that sites such as Facebook are reevaluating their standards as to what is acceptable content for publication. Too few local blogs state or enforce their own standards, and the qualifications of the administrator who is assigned the enforcement and oversight tasks may be unknown or non-existent. Fortunately, Internet use leaves an electronic footprint. This footprint allows for a measure of user accountability. Holding users accountable for their content will provide the inroad to improving the Internet environment.
Is Internet promoting polarization? I have to agree that people are drawn to news based on their political views. I have a friend who refuses to watch any other station than Fox news. According to my friend Fox news is true news and it doesn’t matter if the same news is on another station with the exception of the reporting agent, my friend believes all other station are bias and choose to report news that is not true. Bottom line it is all about my friend’s political view; his worldview that makes him believes that Fox news is the only true news. Is it the same as the internet? Yes it is. People with the same political view tend to stick together which does not encourage deliberation. Not being able to argue a topic prevents an individual from understanding the opposing side, leading to polarization.
If anything should be done to encourage a more deliberative environment on the internet is posting topics that invites a more diverse group to participate. Blogs and comment sections are all great examples that invite a diverse group to debate on particular topics, such as politics. I also read a document on BigThink website that people want to be heard, it’s the only way they will take part in a debate. Also the document stated, “The true potential of the Internet will only be unleashed when digital citizens are incorporated into governance itself,” (SaalField. 2016). E-governance the ultimate solution and currently there are other country such as Korea, experimenting with e-governance. E-governance promotes democracy and wipes away partisanship.
I believe that the internet have been one of the major contributer of information to the public but as many times as it can be deemed useful some can be misleading and far from the truth in some cases.This is not to say that my generation do not think on their own and rely solely on the internet Instead, I mean that while my generation thinks, it is not now a generation of thinkers. History will not look back on Millennials as it does the Cynics, the Renaissance humanists, the followers of the Enlightenment, or even the Yippies, because we are primarily consumer commentators. This may seem to discount the explosion of creators the Internet has enabled, but I contend that this explosion has been focused on entertainment, not enlightenment. There are a thousand libraries’ worth of classical and contemporary thought available in online archives, but as of September 2014, the 15 most trafficked websites (discounting search engines) are: YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Wikipedia, Twitter and ebay.The presence of Amazon, Wikipedia, and eBay on the above list could indicate a collective desire to track down obscure literature and philosophy, but reading is not tantamount to thinking. It’s a very good start, but it is a passive and not an active process. Have you ever spent an entire day surfing the Internet and felt productive when you finally turned it off? The internet to me can be both constructive in some ways and distructive in many.