As a result of many social, economic, and political forces, democratic discourse was on a steady decline for generations before the advent of the Internet, with less and less interest from (largely uninformed) citizens as time went on and increasingly limited platforms for unmediated speech. But since its inception, the Internet has provided many new possibilities for participatory politics, although this sudden new freedom of expression and global reach has not been all good; it brings with it other worrisome issues that could not have been foreseen.
In “Fragmentation and Cybercascades” Cass Sunstein expresses his concern with digital technology’s tendency to facilitate what he calls “group polarization”. The idea is that the sheer magnitude of the Internet and the information it provides requires a narrowing of search criteria that serves ultimately to reinforce existing political and social views instead of encouraging the exploration of new ones. I agree with Sunstein about the problem of polarization in that it is most certainly facilitated by the Internet. But I also think that these relatively few and far-between cases are simply collateral damage sustained for the price of digital democracy, and more importantly, that polarization to some degree occurs in social life with or without the Internet.
Because it gives us the unprecedented ability to share our opinions and discover those of other ordinary citizens on a global scale, the incredible power of the Internet – and its paradox – is that it becomes whatever we choose to make it. The question comes down to: do the ends justify the means? Is the risk of group polarization worth the freedom of expression the Internet affords us? My opinion is yes. Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, and while sometimes the characteristics of society reflected on the Internet can be unsavory, this is the cost of these liberties. The greatest virtue of democracy is that it cannot be exclusive, and the digital democracy is no different.
While I understand that Sunstein is trying to make a cohesive, focused argument, and acknowledge that he does so with success, I do not think that he did enough to balance it out by addressing the possible (and factually proven) benefits that are at the other end of the spectrum in terms of the Internet’s social effects. Sunstein’s point is valid, but it is just one small part of a much bigger set of implications that necessarily come with a communications system as free and open as the Internet. Any attempt to eliminate the possibility of hate groups mobilizing via the Internet would also damage the positive potential that comes with digital communication.
The First Amendment does carry over to the Internet but in many cases, its exceptions no longer seem to apply. For example, the “fighting words doctrine” was introduced in U.S. courts in 1942, defining fighting words as those "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" (Hodges and Worona), and were punishable by law. But “a crucial aspect of the fighting-words doctrine is a face-to-face confrontation. It is thus highly unlikely that the courts will extend this doctrine to cyberspace” (Hodges and Worona). Since these types of statements are not visibly aimed at one particular person, freedom of speech overrides any potential legal sanctions. This does make it easier for hate groups to spread their messages online, but it also ensures freedom of speech as an unwavering right for Internet participants. To begin to impose regulations would be to necessarily negate one of the fundamental principles of free speech, the slope from there on out is a slippery one.
Any possible Internet regulations would have to be drawn along federal lines. In the case of the United States, the body that would impose these regulations is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which incidentally is headed by Sunstein. There has not been extensive discussion of Internet regulations as of yet due to the novelty of the problems that the web presents, but Sunstein did propose one idea for encouraging a diverse web environment. The plan, which he ended up reneging, was to mandate the presence of links on popular or partisan websites that would take the user to another site with opposing views. The idea, of course, was to prevent group polarization, but many critics felt that this was an elitist viewpoint that presupposed the right of the government to define the public interest and imposed a paternalistic intrusion on what was supposed to be a platform for free speech, partisan or not. The idea simply wasn’t viable.
Instead of focusing solely on the damage that can be done by unrestricted free speech, we could look to the many benefits it provides for us. Sunstein writes that “the Internet is playing a crucial role in permitting people who would otherwise feel isolated, or who might move on to something else, to band together and to spread rumors, many of them paranoid and hateful” (Sunstein 250). This may be true, but so is the opposite. The Internet has also been able to mobilize similarly far-flung but equally passionate fringe groups whose efforts have resulted in good. Some examples are the famous protests in Seattle and Quebec City in 1999 and 2001, respectively.
The reason that Sunstein believes group polarization occurs via the Internet is that “new technologies reduce the “friction” of ordinary life and permit people, which increasing ease, to devise a communications universe of their choosing” (Sunstein 247). But on a practical level, place-based communities don’t necessarily allow for such “friction”, including candid and extensive public discourse. And physical coexistence does not necessarily indicate that there isn’t still at least some level of self-imposed segregation. Sunstein seems to assume that place-based (as opposed to decentralized web-based) communities are these shining beacons of democracy, but I don’t think that is true. People still seek out and associate with people whose interests and opinions mirror their own. And the problem of narrow-minded information seeking isn’t limited to the Internet. For example, literature, TV, and other media that share their viewpoints, the only difference is that with TV, the only opinion available is that of the profit-oriented broadcasters. Sunstein writes that “filtering, often in the form of narrowing, is inevitable to avoid overload, to impose some order on an overwhelming number of sources of information” (Sunstein 247). Is this not also true of, say, a visit to the library or the act of making social alliances? The world is large and chaotic, and filtering of some kind is necessary whether we are surfing the Internet or navigating the cafeteria at work.
Cass Sunstein raises a valid and important concern in the age of digital communication, but comes up against the limitations of his arguments in that they constitute just one part of a much more complex and co-constitutive system of electronic democracy. Most positive social developments come with risks and result in unforeseen and perhaps unwanted consequences, but this is no reason to do away with them altogether, as the pros in this case most definitely outweigh the cons.
Works Cited
Sunstein, Cass R. "Fragmentation and Cybercascades." Living in the Information Age: a New Media Reader. By E. Page Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2005. 245-54. Print.
Worona, Steven L., and Marjorie W. Hodges. "The First Amendment in Cyberspace."
EduCause. Cornell University. Web. 8 Mar. 2011. <http://net.educause.edu/ir/libr
ary/html/cem/cem97/cem9732.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment