Sunstein argues that while filtering online content allows individual choice, it can also fragment society and polarize groups. In a diverse society, people need exposure to unexpected ideas and shared experiences to bring them together. However, the internet allows extreme specialization and fragmentation as people choose only like-minded sites, worsening polarization over time through social cascades and groupthink. Sunstein proposes some policy options like voluntary self-regulation or subsidizing diverse public spheres to address these issues.

1. Sunstein
“ D E M O C R A C Y A N D T H E I N T E R N E T ”

2. Sunstein
“From the standpoint of democracy, filtering is
a mixed blessing …. Above all, I urge that, in a
heterogeneous society, such a [well-functioning]
system [of free expression]
requires something other than free, or publicly
unrestricted, individual choices” (94)
What does Sustein mean by “filtering?” How does
the Internet allow us to filter?
In what ways would we say that the ability to filter
is good?

3. What happened to the news?
EPIC 2015

4. Sunstein
What 2 things do people need in a heterogeneous
society (95)?
1. Unanticipated Encounters – encounters with
people and ideas we wouldn’t seek out on our own
2. Common Experiences – a shared knowledge of
events, stories, and ideas

5. Public Forum Doctrine
What is the public forum doctrine, and what
are its three functions?
1. speakers access a wide array of people
2. allows access to institutions
3. increases likelihood that people will be exposed to a
variety of views

6. General Interest Intermediaries
What are general interest intermediaries? (98)
What is their role? Why are they necessary?

7. Group Polarization
What is “group polarization?”
How does it get worse (100)?
1. Public balkanized
2. Different groups design their own preferred
communications packages
3. Group members become more polarized
4. Public becomes more balkanized
5. Rinse and Repeat

8. Specialization and Fragmentation
“People tend to choose like-minded sites and like-minded
discussion groups …. It is exceedingly rare for a
site with an identifiable point of view to provide links to
sites with opposing views; but it is very common for such
sites to provide links to like-minded sites” (99).
“The idea is that after deliberating with one another,
people are likely to move toward a more extreme point in
the direction to which they were originally inclined, as
indicated by their predeliberation judgments (99).

9. Group Polarization: Why?
1) The combination of persuasive arguments
combined with what is, and is not, heard within the
group.
2) People want to be perceived favorable by other
group members. (Think “ad populum” or
“bandwagon” fallacies.)

10. Group Polarization
“Unorganized Militia”
<link: awrm.org>

11. Social Cascades
What are social cascades? (103)
How do they work?

12. The question:
Public sphere or
enclaves?

13. What is “consumer sovereignty” (103)?
How might “consumer sovereignty” make it worse?

14. Social Cascades
“A key point here is that if you lack a great deal of
private information, you may well rely on
information provided by the statements or actions of
others” (103).
What does Sustein mean by this?

15. “Come on in – the water’s fine!”

16. “Vaccines cause autism!”

17. Shared experiences
Why do we need shared experiences?
How does the decline of traditional media cause a
problem?

18. Sustein’s Fundamental Concerns
1) The need to promote exposure to materials, topics,
and positions that people wouldn’t have chosen in
advance.
2) Value of a range of common experiences
3) The need for exposure to substantive questions of
policy and principle, combined with a wide range of
positions on such questions

19. Policy Proposals…
1) Self-regulation– Producers of communication engaging in voluntary
self-regulation. This would seek to taper competition by encouraging, but
not, regulating a code of conduct that would allow for opposing voices to
be heard and promote sound arguments rather than sensationalism.
2) Subsidy – Government subsidized programming and websites to
promote “public spheres” for diverse interactions.
3) Links – websites incorporating hyperlinks to help viewers gain
access to opposing views on a voluntary basis.
4) Public Sidewalk – The most popular websites at a given time
would offer links that help to ensure viewer exposure to diverse
ideas.

20. Small Group Discussion
Which of these policy proposals sounds the most
plausible to you?
Do any of them sound unrealistic?