How will the
Internet and the explosion of communications options alter the capacity of
citizens to govern themselves?
What was Cass' argument in Republic 2.0 and do YOU agree with him? Provide evidence from your reading to support your response. Discuss!!!
Cass Sunstein's argument is that citizens are becoming biased and this causes our population to become fragmented instead of being together as a whole. I do agree with him because our society is becoming broken our views are being heavily influenced by biased and false information. With the Internet and the explosion of communication, this method is going against all principles of democracy. According to the article, we should be "exposed to materials" that are unplanned or unanticipated. This means that we should see all sides of the problem, but with the rise of blogs and personalized news we can choose what we want to see. Because of this, we are sheltering ourselves from other perspectives that would allow us to become a well-rounded citizen and limited our knowledge of the world.
ReplyDeleteCass' argument in 2.0 was that as a result of there being lots access to media through television and especially the internet , people tend to become one sided. They only read and watch what appeals to them so they are not more open to their opinions so it becomes difficult for everyone to understand and be on one page as a whole. Communications and blogs have a huge impact on citizens views and some of the information may be false. I agree with him because in order for a democracy to work efficiently we do need all sides of information so we can be more knowledgeable when making decisions. It will also bring us together as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Elizabeth. In order for a democracy to work efficiently, all sides must be presented. As a whole we're off making better decisions for a nation whereas individually we probably won't be so wise in decision making if we do not know more based on the topic.
DeleteCass Sunstein states that a democratic system there should be a wide range of topics and ideas with both side being presented equality for people to choose from. However due to certain blogs and information found online, they tend to be bias which highly influence on people’s beliefs and judgement. A bias ideology in certain topics people “filter” or personalize in their own interest can cause fragmentation and extremist. According to Sunstein there are two distinctive requirements in a government of free expression. The first requirement states that people should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. And the second requirement would be having a range of common experience and interest in a heterogenous society to address social problems. I agree with Sunstein, when people are only presented with one side of the story, they are unaware of the other side. I think bloggers should blog both side of the issue to prevent fragmentation.
ReplyDeleteCass Sustein's overall argument is that society is divided into different social fragments because it does not adhere to other views aside from their own. People have a mindset towards one thing and it seems as though they are not able to acknowledge something different. Media is extremely prominent and because of it people watch, read and listen to things that are at their interests as opposed to something that's the polar opposite of that. Like Sustein states: "Liberals link mostly to liberals and conservatives link mostly to conservatives." I believe there should be both sides to a situation presented rather than just one so that us as people, we can become more open-minded to different situations and not be enclosed into one specific sphere of influence.
ReplyDeleteWith specific expansion of the Internet, there are both positive and negative impacts on the population. One positive affect is that in regarding selective view its easy to point out problems/concerns in the soviet whether it's the "minority or the majority" Concerns frequently shown can possibly help solve certain problems. Another positive thing can possibly be that you are reaching more readers because some are disinterested in reading when nothing interest them with this new expansion you are having back those readers. However here's the down fall "the negative impact". How can you make desions based on one side, one point of view, everything has different a views, opinions. With that you not only seeing one side but two you gaining evidence, arguments and make your self think. Questions appear when you see more than your view. It's allows diffusion to occur.
DeleteWhen Sunstein says, "I do not suggest that government should force people" I agree things take place gradually different views will continue to appear it will take time until an opposite person we be very curious and see what's behind it.
With the Internet we are able to search up our own thoughts and we are not limited to what we want to see or read. With the Internet, we have the chance to talk to many people with the same ideas. We create new communities and we are not afraid to express our feelings at all.
ReplyDeleteI believe his argument is that with the Internet the people will rely mostly on blogs and these communities of theirs to get their info and they will only get their info from there making them just exposed to one side of the story. I agree with him cause that's what our generation is most like now.
According to Cass, the internet is making people unable to see different sides to an idea or problem. People are only seeing things through one lens: their lens. People don't want to look at other sides unless it's fed to them. If something doesn't grab a person's attention in the first few seconds, then it becomes useless and gets disregarded. People want information on the internet fast, but a few seconds aren't enough to provide all aspects of an issue.
ReplyDeleteCass argues that this problem can ultimately lead to the country's demise as a democracy, but change can start with the individual. If every blogger took the time to write at least a little on another perspective, then people will slowly begin to open up to these different ideas. They will no longer be as biased and ignorant as they used to be. I agree with him, although results won't be immediate. I feel like this process will be a series of baby steps, but at least we'll be progressing.
Cass' argument is that due to media and other sources people tend to become one sided and do not keep an open mind when it comes to an opposing view. I do agree agree with him because do to media, people become enclosed on a certain view and do not go out of their way to see a different perspective. In the article he says we should read articles outside of our interest in order to expand and become more knowledgeable but because of the Internet we are able to freely browse things in our interest making it difficult for this to become a reality.
ReplyDeleteCas makes a point in saying that the internet is dumbing down the people and in a way I do agree with him.People find their own niches on the internet that offers maybe only one side of the story. They stick to it and refuse to see the many other sides to the story. Also, on the internet, anyone can post anything especially on blogs so there is no reliability on the internet. This mindset creates stubborn people and conflicting points of views which can stagnate democracy.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is being divided. People only read for what they are interested. That being the case, they're not on the same page as Elizabeth mentioned, and they are less opened to other people's interests or perspectives. The media has a great influence on them because it tends to be on one side of an issue and it also focuses on one topic.
ReplyDeleteHis argument was that Americans are becoming bias and in turn to that they are also becoming stubborn to new points presented to them which contributes to the division of this country. Yes I do because when people search the Internet it is mostly about what interests them and no about the other factors. That is why the Internet is dumbing this country because people are only getting one side, and what's crazy about it is that they are okay with it.
ReplyDelete