Modern Democracy: An Online Chaos? In Cass Sunstein’s book Rupublic.com 2.0, he discusses advances in modern technologies and communications and the affect each have on our democratic society. Sunstein makes reasonable arguments supporting both the positive influences on our nation of these steps forward as well as the detrimental issues they have caused. Though Sunstein does recognize that the modern media is a blessing for society as a whole, he makes the argument that one must be careful with it if the United States wishes to maintain a fair democratic form of government. Cass Sunstein is not wrong to be concerned with the power and changes that the advances in technology, especially the Internet, have caused. However, Sunstein has an overly radical view of what must be done, an unrealistic view of the true good, and how that good outweighs the cons brought by this new digital world. The discussion begins with a firm statement of Sunstein’s concerns about the negative affects of the Internet on the liberal democracy intended by America’s Founding Fathers. His principle concerns are the momentous increase in the availability of personalized filtering and the decrease in general-interest intermediaries such as national newspapers and news networks. Both of these concerns are plausible ones, for they truly have changed the way democracy functions and the way that ideas flow in the United States. Filtering today is different than it used to be in the past. Before the Internet and the miraculous capabilities that it introduced, filtering was mostly done by the producers of mass media. The editors decided what information to include or exclude before sharing it with the country. As such, a fair balance between different viewpoints (such as those of the liberal and those of the more conservative) was more likely to be displayed. However, now that Americans depend so heavily on the Internet to receive information, individuals are able to personally control their exposure to forms of information. Individuals may choose whether to be informed only on sports, or to receive political information which is consistent with the views with which they already agree. One may ask, “What is wrong with this?” When it comes to consumer convenience and efficiency, this model works very well. In fact, it makes it easier, faster, and cheaper for consumers to find products (whether goods or information) which match their needs and likes. However, as Sunstein said, "we should evaluate new communications technologies, including the Internet, by asking how they affect us as citizens and not by asking how they affect us as consumers." (p. 119) Thus, when it comes to ideas and ways of seeing the world, this personal filtering may become a problem. The ability of consumers to filter and limit incoming streams of information to those that interest them, coupled with their habit of choosing information that agrees with their current viewpoint, can cause polarization that stands as a threat to modern democracy. A study was conducted in Colorado (receiving the name “the Colorado Experiment”) where people of different political thought were grouped with different people who shared their same views. It was found that when people were surrounded by people of their own thought, they became more firm believers in their ideas and more confident in defending these ideas. This imposes a problem with personal filtering as people are choosing to “weed out” any view that differs from their own, thus becoming more polarized to their own view. These self-imposed filters tend to eliminate the other side of the argument. There are many examples of personal filtering in my life. I have completely abandoned the general-interest intermediaries such as newspaper and television to obtain information. Instead, I have switched to a personalized home page on my computer which organizes information streaming from the Internet. This homepage shows me only what I set it to show me- those items of information which are of interest to me. While I feel very informed on information related to American pop-culture, international affairs, and what is going on in the lives of my friends, I choose to ignore political commentary here in my own country. Consequently, I have fairly liberally biased filters in my life, which results from the fact that most topics related to pop-culture and international affairs are skewed to the liberal viewpoint. Thus, the “Daily Me” that Sunstein criticizes is a reality in my life. I do believe that receiving my information on narrow, common issues from consistent sources does cause me to become more confident and polarized in my views. Do I see this as great a danger as Sunstein? No. While I completely agree that people do become more partial to their own likes when surrounded by “people like them” (the Colorado Experiment), I don’t believe that personal filtering has such a significant affect. People have always been inclined to search out people who are “like them,” including searching for media and information that agrees with their own points of view. I believe that individuals tend to find information sources with which they agree, with or without personal filtering. For example, I will not necessarily become convinced by a certain politician’s viewpoint simply because I read about him or her in the newspaper, nor am I going to become interested in sports just because an abundance of sports coverage is available in my life. As Brooke Gladstone argued several weeks ago in an episode of On The Media, “the Internet does not change who we are, it only makes us become more of who we are.” Whether people receive their information from “unbiased” general-interest intermediaries, or from personal filtering, their views will be the same. As the statement by Gladstone illustrates, it will only help them become more informed on their view, and thus better able to make decisions. Can the public make good decisions based on their personally-filtered media? I believe so, as the information is only fueling the views that they already hold. As an example, let’s say that someone believes that affirmative action is an inefficient and poor way of dealing with the problem of discrimination. This person, hearing the opposite view (that affirmative action is a great program that allows people to be treated fairly), is not going to change his or her opinion. It will likely further their passion towards their own view. Personal filtering does polarize people to their own tastes and viewpoints, but no more than getting their information from “unbiased” general-interest intermediaries. If anything, these filters help the people stay interested in taking part in the current democracy rather that becoming overwhelmed with too much information that does not interest them or that could even frustrate them. In the “marketplace of ideas” there is an availability of all viewpoints and variations of opinion. In an echo chamber, people are surrounded with “people like them.” Clay Shirky posted on a blog discussing the echo chamber his own research on the phenomena. He says, “on a three-judge panel, a Republican-appointed judge is often far more likely to vote conservatively when sitting with two other Republican appointees than when sitting with at least one Democratic appointee. The same is true for Democratic judges, whose liberal tendencies are dramatically amplified when they sit on all-Democratic panels.” (http://many.corante.com) This study is a perfect illustration and application of an echo chamber. Like-minded people, when only surrounded by one another, typically wind up having a more acute adaptation of what they thought prior to being grouped together. I live in a large echo chamber. Brigham Young University is a large, echo chamber-like society. I am here with over 30,000 people who more or less have the same political views. My first year at BYU, after coming from a fairly liberal community in Atlanta, I found myself for the first time around people who shared my views. I became more confident and informed, more aware and able, after sharing ideas and opinions with “people like me.” Are echo chambers a danger to society? Yes, they can be. Just because the people around you share the same idea or opinion about a certain topic, does not mean that the idea is the right idea or opinion. I had a conversation the other day that illustrates this idea in a menial way. As I was talking with a friend of mine, she mentioned to me “mashed potatoes are disgusting.” I did not agree with this statement in the least because I love mashed potatoes and think that everyone should like potatoes. I told her that I would ask everyone in the restaurant where we were their opinion on this subject, and that if more than 80% of these people (mostly our peers) agreed with me, then she would be wrong. She then expressed to me how my logic was inaccurate. Just because I find myself with people who share my opinion, that does not mean it is right. Even if 100% of our peers had agreed that mashed potatoes are delicious, that would not change my friend’s tastes, and would therefore not necessarily be right. Though this experience took place with a silly discussion about food, the same idea can apply to important issues such as ethics, politics and international affairs. Sunstein’s Republic.com 2.0 is a helpful, thoughtful book that illustrates the power that new media progress has had on our democratic nation. Sunstein’s arguments are intelligent and provoking, though they do not always represent the entirety of the issues. Yes, the Internet is changing things sometimes in a seemingly negative way, but the advantages it gives prove to overpower any negative outcomes. Though Sunstein focuses throughout the book on the dangers presented by the nation’s online lifestyle, he does also acknowledge the great promise that the Internet information stream presents. He intelligently states, “Everything depends on what people seek to do with the new opportunities they have." (p. 93) Sunstein’s arguments and views on communication issues concerning the Internet are informative, educated, and even somewhat moving, but as he himself even recognizes, the Internet offers just as much good as it does bad. His optimistic statement summarizes my overall view of what the Internet is doing for our nation: "things are getting better, not worse." (p. 7)