#republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media

by Cass R. Sunstein

As the Internet grows more sophisticated, it is creating new threats to democracy. Social media companies such as Facebook can sort us ever more efficiently into groups of the like-minded, creating echo chambers that amplify our views. It's no accident that on some occasions, people of different political views cannot even understand each other. It's also no surprise that terrorist groups have been able to exploit social media to deadly effect.

Welcome to the age of #Republic.

In this revealing book, Cass Sunstein, the New York Times bestselling author of Nudge and The World According to Star Wars, shows how today's Internet is driving political fragmentation, polarization, and even extremism--and what can be done about it.

Thoroughly rethinking the critical relationship between democracy and the Internet, Sunstein describes how the online world creates "cybercascades," exploits "confirmation bias," and assists "polarization entrepreneurs." And he explains why online fragmentation endangers the shared conversations, experiences, and understandings that are the lifeblood of democracy.

In response, Sunstein proposes practical and legal changes to make the Internet friendlier to democratic deliberation. These changes would get us out of our information cocoons by increasing the frequency of unchosen, unplanned encounters and exposing us to people, places, things, and ideas that we would never have picked for our Twitter feed.

#Republic need not be an ironic term. As Sunstein shows, it can be a rallying cry for the kind of democracy that citizens of diverse societies most need.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, Society, Economics, Sociology, Technology

328 pages, Hardcover

First published March 7, 2017

About the author

Cass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.

Reviews

[Delaney · Rating 2 out of 5]

It definitely had interesting points that are really relevant to the emerging and increasing role of social media. However, in short, this is a 262 paged essay on how we need to diversify our feed because it is causing echo chambers and destroying democracy. The remaining pages is the acknowledgment, Works Cited pages, and index so basically the format of an essay.

It was a very dry read where at some parts I had to read it aloud to keep me awake. If it were not for the fact that I had to read this for POSC, I really would have dropped this after the first few chapters. That is literally all you need to read (the first few chapters) to know how he is just going to say the same things in the remaining pages. If you want a sum up, read the first chapter than the last, you won't miss anything.

[Diz · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book proposes that democracy cannot thrive in a fragmented society. Sunstein states that the the algorithms that filter what we see online is increasing the fragmentation in our society, and due to this fragmentation, citizens share less information and fewer experiences. This is an idea that requires more thought and discussion. Unfortunately, this book is not successful in developing this idea. It meanders through a few unrelated topics (there's a chapter on how ISIL recruited people through social media), and certain ideas seem to be repeated again and again. In the end, the recommendations that Sunstein makes seem toothless. For example, one of his solutions is for industries to self-regulate for the common good. It seems a bit idealistic to me. Another idea is for news media websites and bloggers to put links to sites with opposing viewpoints on their sites. That way, people will read about both sides of an issue. Again, it doesn't seem likely to happen or work if it did. I'd recommend finding another book if you are interested in this topic.

[Kay Spica · Rating 2 out of 5]

2/5
The premise of this long-form essay is interesting enough, but Sunstein writes in circles. His sentence structure is lackluster, he fails to realize what empirical evidence is actually relevant to his point, and his main arguments are lost within other multi-faceted arguments that do nothing to draw in a reader, whether they be reading this for class (like me) or for pleasure (like...some people, I suppose).

[Matt Cooper · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whilst this book makes a couple of good points around the dangers of a personalised internet experience and how it closes us off to contrasting standpoints, it gets lost in theory and loses its way in the middle. Then it just keeps making the same point. Worth reading the first few chapters though - it is very relevant to today's post truth and passive minds society!

[Richard]

The Economist: In praise of serendipity: Social media should encourage chance encounters, not customised experiences

It should be required reading for anyone who is concerned with the future of democracy—in Silicon Valley and beyond.

New York Journal of Books:

[Despite some criticism], #Republic is an excellent assessment of how social psychology, technology, and politics are colliding to produce the extreme and polarized discourse that has come to dominate our contemporary political environment.

­

[BT Philips · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sunstein does an okay job at providing the right approach to combating divisiveness and increasing political biases, but he could’ve made his point much quicker than he did. I get it, it takes a combined effort by the citizenry to combat self-imposed echo chambers and polarization for true deliberative democracy to take its desired effect. This doesn’t need to be said 100 times, however. Sunstein gives the reader good tidbits and stories to back up his message, but he always circles back to the same point in seemingly every chapter.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Impeccably researched, interesting, many important points. Could have been a long-form essay though or maybe an essay series - was essentially a litany of research findings, and tended to circle around and back to the same ideas. The format and repetition both got a bit wearisome.

[Niklas Laninge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cass is back

Interesting thesis, a lot of really interesting studies on polarization online and how to increase and/or decrease it. Gets a bit fluffy in the last chapters though.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Current communications systems, including social media, allow us to create a "Daily Me" by tailoring and filtering information that confirms what we already believe. This has laid bare the public square and diminished the social capital necessary for a well-functioning democracy.

[Geoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book from 2017 that seems even more relevant to today's social media landscape in 2021. The increasing influence of social media platforms on the polarisation of views, the development of 'fake news' and conspiracy theories.

[Myles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like to joke with my Facebook friends that future generations will not appreciate the catastrophe that is the Trump presidency until somebody makes a musical of it. Something like a cross between Phantom of the Opera and Evita. People shouldn't forget that America is a very advanced nation, and the boldest experiment in democracy since the Magna Carta. Cass Sunstein in "#republic" points the spotlight on a very real threat to the American Republic: the tendency of communications services to fragment the audience to the point where literally nobody is talking -- or more importantly -- listening to one another.

And Sunstein puts it so aptly, the continuity of American self-government will have less to do with "the decisions of its founders much less on the world of texts and authorities and ancestors than in the active participation and commitments of its citizens."

There is so much BS in American letters about the founding tenents of the Republic and so little compromise on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate. And the populace lets their leaders get away with it. Nothing, it seems, is more important in American society today than winning at all costs.

People live in the enclaves of their electronic worlds. They live and die by free speech, where speech is neither free nor without consequences. Just look at the appalling power of their firearms lobby.

Freedoms devoid of responsibilities.

The responsibility to take care of the citizenry.

The responsibility to care for the planet.

The responsibility to participate as a good citizen on the world stage.

The responsibility to address historical grievances.

This book is good learned debate even as people kvetch about the"eastern elites." Too much Trumpism debases and demeans learned debate. America has such terrific minds at work. Well, if they pack up and leave out of frustration, I hope they come to Canada.

We could use them.

[Ceil · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thoughtful reminder about what we lose when we engage only with people who share our views. There's nothing particularly earth shattering here, but it's a well reasoned analysis that would make a terrific resource in a college communication or government course.

[Catherine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Texas A&M selected #Republic as this year's book that everyone is supposed to read. I read it, too. As a fan of some of Sunstein's earlier work, I was quite disappointed with this book. It is a sort of rant about how the internet is ruining democracy. Sunstein bemoans the demise of social exchange in public arenas -- things like running across a demonstration in the park, or running into people on your block (as in Jane Jacobs). Chance encounters that lead to greater understanding and acceptance of different beliefs and opinions, he argues, have been replaced by online echo chambers, which are bad, and lead to people not having discussions with those who are different from them, which is necessary for deliberative democracy to survive.

It is true that trust in government and mainstream news media have been declining for a long time (since the 70s at least) and declined rather precipitously after the last presidential election. Sunstein blames this decline on social media — the fact that people only talk to their ingroups plus the fact that social media can be manipulated to take advantage of that structure.

Several things make me think that Sunstein may be overly pessimistic. First, the most recent poll results show a rebound, especially among more educated people. (Edelman Trust Barometer 2019).

Second, my experience as a faculty member, teaching folks a lot younger than me, make me hopeful. the room, I can’t help but be hopeful. In my experience younger folks, including many of you here, Maybe it's just Texas but younger folks seem more optimistic and more trusting than we cynical older folks are, and, importantly, much more savvy about navigating the information flow from social media. Technology is also developing to make this kind of fact checking much easier, including tools that are integrated into sites you might read. I'm guessing there's a lot of fact checking going on among younger consumers of social media. Maybe the increase in weird nastiness we are seeing in online communities is a short term thing.

Third, social media can also enhance trust. For example, in my world, economics recently has had a wake-up moment about gender. Initially many of my male collegues reacted skeptically, but I watched as serious, contentious discussions on facebook and twitter changed people’s minds, and led to a lot more awareness on both sides. This seems like a situation where news of a gender problem could have reduced trust, but instead has had the opposite effect. This also gives me hope.

Finally, we need like minded groups (echo chambers). I think that Sunstein also misses something important about echo chambers or like minded groups, and that is, this is where we reach consensus and make progress WITHIN a field. There is a great deal of argument on sites that are topic-specific, and a certain amount of agreed upon consensus common knowledge is critical to making progress. (Think Anti-Vax or Climate Change). Conversations between believers and non-believers often seem like a waste of time because the nonbelievers, who are actually factually incorrect, don’t care about facts. Not that we don't need to talk about our science to non-scientists, definitely we do. But discussion among scientists and science believers has its own kind of value.

I should also mention that this is the third iteration of this book first written in the early 2000s. All have Republic in the title. The ideas he proposes as solutions have not really been adopted, and I wonder if he shouldn't just accept that and move on.

[Alex Furst · Rating 1 out of 5]

Book #17 of 2023. "#republic" by Cass Sunstein. 1/5 rating. This might've been one of the biggest let-downs of all time. I heard about this book a few years ago and was so intrigued, but I finally got around to it and it was boring and barely held a throughline.

The book talks about the problem of sorting caused by social media and other institutions creating personalized everything.

Cass introduces three different problems caused by today's social (and somewhat other types of) media environments:
- The idea of serendipitous meetings, and run-ins with different ideas and views has become less and less likely in today's world. This creates problems when we are locked within our echo chamber only hearing from those with like-minded views.
- A lack of common experiences
- Regulation and policies about speech and media

Cass also talks about the problems of group polarization. This phenomena explains that when we are exposed to other people with the same ideas as us, we become more ardent believers of our ideas. Shockingly, it's not even necessary for us to discuss those ideas with them; just by seeing similar ideas, it entrenches our own.

Some quotes:
- "Their judgments appear to be a product of their values or sense of identity."
- "Discussion is a way of combining information and enlarging the range of arguments."

This book was an absolute chore to get through. I only finished it in order to give it a true rating and say that I read another book. It included waaay too much random, disparate information about things that had nothing to do with the point of the book. I enjoy non-fiction and pithy books and I hated it. I can nearly guarantee that this book would be an absolute waste of your time!!!

[Robert C · Rating 5 out of 5]

A refreshing and sensible perspective about free speech, democracy, polarisation, media and the human condition. Although mainly US focused, a lot of the principles and examples probably apply elsewhere too.

The book is well balanced, it’s well researched and the author tries to give examples across the political spectrum which in theory should make this book appeal to a wide audience. The ideas are presented in a way which demonstrate respect and understanding for the diverse and complex view points (from climate change, gun control to abortion). There is a lot to learn from the author about how to debate very difficult topics.

On the specific solutions proposed I think the author takes a sensible approach and puts forward practical solutions. Despite this, I am personally not confident that these alone will bring about the change envisioned but they are a good starting point. Self-regulating and socially conscious corporations seems like a great ideal but part of me remains sceptical. Maybe the point is that we have to start somewhere and these are the best places to start. If this fails then additional measures should be taken.

The book is also very US focused and although some of the principles can be applied elsewhere, it’s not sufficient to be convinced whether this model is needed, or if it would indeed work, in less polarised countries. Although many countries in Europe show similar patterns of polarisation, the political landscape and cultural history might require alternative solutions. Would be great to see a follow-up of this book with more international focus.

[Andrew Post · Rating 3 out of 5]

#Republic is a victim of the time it was written. In 2017, even after Trump was just sworn in, Sunstein’s balanced critique of social media, juxtaposed with optimism that viewpoint diversity and platform emphases on deliberation would cure the ills caused by social media, seemed prudent. In 2026, short-form videos, a second Trump administration, and perhaps the most polarized and propagandized population seen in decades makes Sunstein look like a Panglossian Pollyanna. The thought of TikTok or Meta self-regulating or citizens using democratic deliberation sites en masse is laughable.

Sunstein’s sunny view of people online may be informed by his intellectual capacity as a Harvard Law professor. As a Gen Zer who has the misfortune of being plugged into social media, most of the youth (and “grown-ups”) are not only incapable of participating in a better social media environment, but actively do not want it.

In any case, the nine years between #Republic’s publication and my reading of it shows that the clear solution is heavy-handed, stringent government regulation of social media sites. Unless people think that children seeing actual Nazi propaganda and racism on Instagram Reels or Hamas and Al-Qaeda defense of TikTok is a public good, we can’t afford to let Zuckerberg and co. avoid regulation so they can become trillionaires while our democracy crumbles.

[Patrick Hurley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the central premise of this book: social media and technology allow us to filter the content we see to such a degree that it ends up fragmenting and polarizing our country. Many have realized they’ve created echo chambers for themselves online, and this sort of walks you through how that works, and also how our conceptualizations of freedom should differ if we view ourselves as consumers vs as citizens. All of this is wonderful...truly enjoyed it a great deal.

And yet, I felt like the book all too often dragged. Maybe it was just some of the underlying examples or supporting points that were more laborious than others. Maybe it’s the fact that, ultimately, the book could’ve probably been half as long and still hit the necessary points the author wanted to make. It seemed like a lot of repetition, BUT the author did do well to draw links throughout the material.

So, great message overall (and weighing the cons with the pros we all recognize about advances in technology), and some absolutely genius points and wonderful quotes, but just a bit of a chore to read at points, which detracts from the overall experience.

[Adina · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I am being completely honest, I was hoping for this book to be a little more illuminating. Considering I read it for academic purposes (university coursework), I found it rather lacking in the comprehensiveness department. It is interesting if you’re looking to enhance your knowledge on filter bubbles and the online ecosphere, but incredibly repetitive and, thus, can become dull.


My main complaint is that Sunstein keeps reiterating the same principles (which I believe are her own personal beliefs) over and over and merely presenting the same perspective using different words.

I recommend the book if you’d like to gain some perspective on filter bubbles and echo chambers, but would suggest researching the topic further further. I, personally, realised how limited her book is by studying other scholarly articles on the matter, which presented it broader understanding of the online ecosphere. I fear the book merely underlines her own concerns of filter bubbles, as she promotes the very issues she talks about by not addressing the ‘other perspective’.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

There was some good information and an important discussion about the concern of people curating (or being curated) a digital self that excludes all opposing viewpoints. He stops short of encouraging legislation but encourages tech companies to adopt ideas like an "opposing view" button so that people are exposed to ideas they otherwise would not. This encourages a wide range of common experiences. There are a number of filler sections such as defending regulation as an idea, the history of the internet, property rights and copyright law as well as an excessive (though interesting in its own context) discussion of free speech law. Ultimately it was much longer than it needed to be, and could have included more substantive evidence, but had some good points to get across.

[Izzi Dennis · Rating 2 out of 5]

While this book certainly has an interesting and relevant premise the execution was less than compelling. Unfortunately many of the examples and opinions expressed are incredibly dated. Additionally it’s exhaustingly repetitive and in what I can only assume was an attempt to add length to the book, the author tangents into a range of irrelevant topics. This book would be much more compelling as an essay.

[Teri Kanefield · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with Sunstein's assessment of the problem: He argues that the greatest problem facing our democracy is the intense and bitter polarization. His solution, though (reach out to those whose views you disagree with) seems naive. It seems to me, there is too much anger and hated fueling the divide. What is the solution? I wish I knew.

[JLynne · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book has its good moments, but my IMHO, felt it was redundant. It cites some detailed studies as examples of the author's viewpoint. Provides some historical references. Overall it was an okay read, but nothing earth-shattering.

[Shawn Isaacs]

Interesting in the opening, flopped after the first chapter. Couldn’t bring myself to read the entire thing. My subconscious was telling me to scrap it.

Diversify your news feed. Don’t fall into echo chambers. The end.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are some excellent lessons on identifying bias and its contribution to group polarization on social media. Being able to identify bias helps me to be more reflective, and less reactive when I consume information, not just online, but everywhere.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important topic with tons of emerging research, but the organization and message is muddled. Furthermore, this book desperately needs figures, graphs, and images to convey the message. Books like this should draw on the powerful template of long-form journalism coupled with high-quality images.

[Minji · Rating 3 out of 5]

The idea is brilliant but it’s too simple for the author to elaborate for 270 pages. The takeaway from this book is ‘listen to other opinions instead of being stuck in your own echo chambers.’ He just keeps going on about the same idea over and over again.

[J.S. Nelson · Rating 2 out of 5]

5 stars for the intro & 1st chapter. The other 230 pages are a repeat of everything said in chapter 1 in a way that felt like filler to make it book length (reminiscent of a kid sitting in class hearing “Buehler....Buehler...Buehler....Buehler....”)

[Sarietha Engelbrecht · Rating 2 out of 5]

Could be much shorter.

[Luca Montanari · Rating 4 out of 5]

La comunicazione politica al giorno d'oggi

[sharky · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read. Sunstein makes great points that are supported by research in several fields. The argument is cohesive and I came away knowing more than I did before.