Points to Keep in Mind:
There is great polarization on blogs that can be seen by links and blog rolls that encourage polarized communities that contribute to the echo-effect.
Regulation of free speech on the Internet, as in all spheres, is necessary. The issue is of what kind of regulation there will be. The concern should not be of government regulation- it should be of government regulation that lessens the freedoms that we had before. Government regulation of speech, at least in the form of property rights that shut out would be speakers, is a pervasive part of a system of freedom that respects, and therefore creates, rights of exclusion for owners of communications outlets.
Sunstein makes the strong point that freedom of speech is not absolute. The first amendment is not based on the idea of consumer sovereignty, but political sovereignty. The court lacks constitutional answers for
governmental efforts to make the speech market work effectively with new technologies.
Policy Proposals:
- Deliberative Domains: This would be a public website that would provide opportunities of people with diverse views to discuss and hopefully increase citizen engagement and understanding. Sunstein sketches out the details of what such a space would look like on page 193.
- Disclosure of relevant conduct by networks and other large producers of communication: This simple regulatory tool would allow people to disclose what they are doing to the general public. It may or may not influence behavior, but Sunstein says this is not very practical for websites that may provide voluntary warnings about their content already.
- Voluntary self-regulation: This could be used to break harmful effects intact now without violating free speech rights. Sunstein envisions that this could potentially avoid sensationalist political coverage and provide coverage to public issues.
- Economic subsidies, including publicly subsidized programming and websites: This would require taxpayer money to support nonprofit, nongovernmental spaces online. Sunstein proposes this as a neo-PBS model for a new communications system.
- Must-carry policies to promote education and attention to public issues: The requirement of coverage of issues, as Sunstein sees it, would have no place online.
- Creative use of links to draw people’s attention to multiple views: Sunstein says that the freedom of information is funded for the public by advertisers that are buying brief access to people's attentions. Sunstein proposes to assemble public-interest actors to engage public interest by using links and icons for social benefit, but recognizes that this would violate the first amendment.
He then briefly discusses the tyranny of the status quo and its implications for the potential for future change, in that the idea that the present is best hinders future advancements on Internet regulation for the greater sake of the Republic.
Wrapping up, Sunstein takes his discussion back to the issue of the Republic and the undermining of democratic ideals. He stresses the risks associated with such a polarization provided by Internet usage of citizens, with disclaimers about his ideas, which we will pay particular attention to:
“I do not mean to say that this is the usual pattern or that this is what most people are mostly doing... But clustering is nonetheless common, and group polarization is a significant risk even if only a relatively small proportion of people chooses to listen and speak with those who are like-minded” (Sunstein 213).
“The internet is hardly an enemy here. It holds out far more promise than risk... But to the extent that people are using the Internet to create echo chambers and to wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would prefer to avoid, they are creating serious dangers” (Sunstein 222-223).
No comments:
Post a Comment