|
TIME MAGAZINE, JUNE 4, 2001, VOL.157 NO.22
Boycott the Daily Me!
Yes, the Net is empowering. But it also encourages extremism—and that's bad for democracy
By CASS R. SUNSTEIN
 |
RELATED |
Getting Out the Message
Technology is tipping the political balance away from the state and toward activists who can now mobilize instantly
Multimedia Feature
Our Interactive World, an hour-long special hosted by CNN's Michael Holmes and Tumi Makgabo, featuring luminaries from the world of information technology
|
For most of human history, people's interactions have been shaped by geography. We lived and talked with those who were nearby. More than anything else, the Internet is fundamentally changing that.
All over the world, new communities are forming, based not on shared spaces but on shared interests. Religious fundamentalists in Brazil exchange ideas with religious fundamentalists in Russia. Survivors of cancer in Tokyo offer moral support and helpful information to survivors of cancer in France. Environmentalists in America, concerned about global warming and destruction of the rain forests, speak on a daily basis with environmentalists in Germany and South Africa.
From the standpoint of democracy, this seems to be a wonderful development. As a result of the Internet, people can learn far more than they could before and learn it much faster. If they distrust the mass media and want to bypass it and discuss issues with like-minded people, they can do that. With the declining importance of geography, people need not depend on the daily newspaper or the local library. And if they want to send information to a wide range of people, they can do so via e-mail or websites. People are even able to create what has been called the Daily Me—a newspaper that includes those topics and points of view they wish to encounter and that excludes material they find boring or irritating.
In many ways, these developments contain a great deal of promise for self-government. But there is a dark side, too. For democracy to work, people must be exposed to ideas they would not have chosen in advance. Democracy depends on unanticipated encounters. It is also important for diverse citizens to have common experiences, which provide a kind of social glue and help them to see they are engaged in a common endeavor. A world where people only read news they preselect creates a risk of social fragmentation.
Until now, this danger was diminished by general-interest newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. When reading the local newspaper, you may come across stories about technological innovations in Berlin or crime in Los Angeles or new business practices in Tokyo—stories that you might read but which you might not have placed in your Daily Me. When the evening news comes on, a story about an earthquake in India might catch your attention; maybe you will even help with relief efforts, even though you would never have chosen to know about the tragedy in advance. You may believe that the problem of global warming is overinflated, a threat manufactured by radical environmentalists; but a persuasive article might engage your attention and even change your mind.
These unchosen, unanticipated encounters are important, even crucial, for democratic self-government. And while the increased power of individual choice can expand our horizons, it can also narrow them if many people end up in communications universes of their own specific design. For democracy, there is a special problem. Social scientists have long known that when like-minded people are deliberating together they tend to end up thinking the same thing they thought before—but in more extreme form. Those who believe tax rates are too high will, after talking together, come to think that large, immediate tax reductions are a really good idea. People who think the world economy is in trouble are likely, after discussion, to fear economic catastrophe.
This phenomenon carries a stern warning about the effects of social interactions on the Internet. If the public is fragmented and if members of different groups design their own preferred news packages, the consequence might well be greater fragmentation as group members move one another toward more extreme positions. Extremists will become even more extreme. In fact, hate groups are flourishing on the Internet simply because their members are able to interact with others having similar prejudices, thus fortifying attitudes that would otherwise tend to dissipate.
Does this mean the Internet is bad for democracy? Not at all. Tyrants are less likely to prosper when dissidents can exchange information with democrats from all over the world. More than ever before, citizens can avoid the limitations of space and form communities around ideas. This is healthy for the exchange of information; it can even breed political engagement. But good citizenship requires far more than countless editions of the Daily Me. Democracy is undermined when people choose to live in echo chambers of their own design.
Cass R. Sunstein is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He is the author of Republic.com
Related Sites
Cass Sunstein
Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by Time Inc.
More Politics Stories
Basque Conflict Spreads to Web
Political debate thrives on the Internet as those for and against the ETA post their opinions
Boycott the Daily Me!
Yes, the Net is empowering. But it also encourages extremism—and that's bad for democracy
Getting Out the Message
Technology is tipping the political balance away from the state and toward activists who can now mobilize instantly
Europe Tests Waters of e-Politics
"Britain is not ready for a Net election," says Mo Mowlam, a plain-speaking British politician
E-innovation, Estonian-style
Some countries have an e-minister. Cutting-edge Estonia has an e-Cabinet
|
advertisement
|
|
Libraries
Full Contents: all of the stories in one simple list
Multimedia:   the home of our video, audio and interactive features
Video: CNN circles the globe for how technology is changing our lives
Toolbox: software you may need for this site
|
|
|
Subscribe to TIME
Magazine
Stories from this week's issue
Ethics
Big Brother is watching the Net. Do you care?
Living
Talk to your thermostat, surf from the toilet, phone your fridge
Entertainment
Music mixing as easy as logging on to a website and typing on a keyboard
|
|
Specials
CNN's hour-long special program on Our Interactive World, hosted by Michael Holmes and Tumi Makgabo, featuring luminaries from the world of information technology
Brian Bennett, reporter for TIME magazine, interviews MTV Asia's LiLi, a virtual veejay
Lili on her life and work: chat transcript from May 31, 2001
|
|
|
U.S. | Asia | Europe | Current Issue
U.S. | Asia | Europe | Sci-Tech
[an error occurred while processing this directive] | You are