In the article “Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy?” author Cass Sunstein argues that the Internet has been a promising development for democracy, but it has also increased the “filtering” of information and has closed people off from seeing things they don’t want to see. The Internet has allowed people to learn far more than they could before, and in a much faster way. It has also transcended time and place as people are able to discuss things with others all over the world. Yet, now more than ever, people are able to “filter” what they see and personalize their world view, which limits exposure to other points of view. Sunstein argues that filtering is a “mixed blessing,” in that it gives people more individualized and unrestricted choices, but it also threatens a heterogeneous society that relies on diverse people with common experiences and exposure to materials that they wouldn’t have chosen otherwise. 

 

We are now doing what was just an imagination years ago of allowing people to filter their content to see only and exactly what they want to see. Sunstein references the emergence of the “Daily Me,” which is essentially a communication package that is personally designed. We now have much more control over the content we see and there is a decrease in the power and influence of these general interest intermediaries, which includes newspapers and magazines. This becomes a risk with a system of perfect individual control in that it can reduce the importance of the “public sphere” and of common spaces in general. I can definitely see this coming more to fruition, as newspapers and magazines are becoming a thing of the past and less popular. People today, especially the younger generation, would most likely rather turn to their personalized content on social media rather than pick up a newspaper with more general information. 

 

Sunstein references the public forum doctrine, which forbids the government from censoring speech, only with time, place and manner restrictions. Allowing people to share their views on public property has led to a more heterogenous society where people with different views are more likely to be exposed to one another. I remember learning about the “time, place and manner restrictions” in my Media Ethics and Law class last year and although it has led to some violent protests and harmful messaging in the past, especially now when everything is digital, public forums are the one place where people have access to a wide array of information. There has been a dramatic increase in the range of choices people have, and this has led to a fragmented communications market where people will cling to material that makes them feel comfortable. Sunstein refers to this as group polarization, where we move to an extreme point of view favoring one direction and these different groups are being driven even further apart. 

 

The worry is that if diverse groups are seeing and hearing different points of view, or focusing on different topics, mutual understanding might be difficult, and it might be hard for people to solve problems that society faces together. You can definitely see this today, with Fox News and MSNBC and how they can take a similar topic and blow it out of proportion to favor their side. News sites like these are causing even more polarization as like-minded people cling to one another, not necessarily in support of their own view but because of the hatred for the opposing one. In one of my other classes, we read excerpts from Ezra Klein’s book “Why We’re Polarized” and he refers to this as “negative partisanship,” which is less about positive feelings toward the party you are in but more so negative feelings toward the opposing party. To the extent that people are drawn together because they think of each other as like-minded, and as having a shared identity, group polarization is all the more likely. 

 

Sunstein worries that this political seclusion is dangerous to us as individuals and to society as a whole, leading to “cascade” effects and how we rely on information from others that we trust and often embrace that information, regardless of whether it is true or not. Sunstein gives the example of the widespread belief in African American communities that white doctors are responsible for the spread of AIDS. Sole exposure to one point of view creates this cascade effect within a community and leads to more divisiveness and an inability to work cooperatively on shared problems. 

 

In a society, shared experiences and communication are important because it brings people together who may not agree on certain issues and leads to a more heterogeneous society which is more favorable than a homogenous one. Well-functioning democracy depends on far more than restraints on official censorship of controversial ideas and opinions. It also depends on some kind of public sphere, in which a wide range of speakers have access to a diverse public. Sunstein is more optimistic that the Internet can be used as a place to promote general interest intermediaries but there is a danger and fear that it also has the power to diminish the number of common spaces. Will group polarization continue to increase because of the Internet? Would we be better off without filtering content? Is there a way to lessen this cascade effect?