What do you think?
Rate this book
Republic.com 2.0
What happens to democracy and free speech if people use the Internet to listen and speak only to the like-minded? What is the benefit of the Internet's unlimited choices if citizens narrowly filter the information they receive? Cass Sunstein first asked these questions in 2001's Republic.com . Now, in Republic.com 2.0 , Sunstein thoroughly rethinks the critical relationship between democracy and the Internet in a world where partisan Weblogs have emerged as a significant political force.
Republic.com 2.0 highlights new research on how people are using the Internet, especially the blogosphere. Sunstein warns against "information cocoons" and "echo chambers," wherein people avoid the news and opinions that they don't want to hear. He also demonstrates the need to regulate the innumerable choices made possible by technology. His proposed remedies and reforms emphasize what consumers and producers can do to help avoid the perils, and realize the promise, of the Internet.
Republic.com 2.0 highlights new research on how people are using the Internet, especially the blogosphere. Sunstein warns against "information cocoons" and "echo chambers," wherein people avoid the news and opinions that they don't want to hear. He also demonstrates the need to regulate the innumerable choices made possible by technology. His proposed remedies and reforms emphasize what consumers and producers can do to help avoid the perils, and realize the promise, of the Internet.
- GenresNonfictionPolitics
272 pages, Paperback
First published August 20, 2007
6 people are currently reading
135 people want to read
About the author
Cass R. Sunstein
166 books730 followersCass 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 4, 2008
My review from 60 Second Science: Cass Sunstein's a leading advocate of the idea of "cyberbalkanization" —the notion that the Internet may one day do in democracy. He suggests the presence of an exploding number of interest-based online communities, personalized search, personalized news, Amazon-style book recommendations, and such, which seem to offer something for everyone, will ultimately encourage Internet users to wall themselves into ever-smaller interest-based groups.
You've probably heard of this idea. It's the notion that the more personalized our information universe gets, the less likely we are to encounter points of view unlike our own, the more comfortable we'll get that we're right in everything we think, and the more fragmented and polarized our society will become. It's sort of the antidote to early Utopian visions of the Internet that painted it as the future home of perfect democracy—a place where class divisions, gender and racial stereotyping, and all other forms of prejudice would magically disappear. The real Net isn't so simple, of course, but neither does it seem to mesh so well with Sunstein's version of events. He laments the decline in influence of the mass media, saying that un-personalized sources of information are ultimately what holds us together as a democratic society, exposing Democrats to Republican arguments, cat-lovers to televised dog shows, and football fans to baseball championships.
His argument in Republic.com 2.0—a rather heavy revision of his earlier book, Republic.com—while in many ways compelling, falls short on a number of counts. First, he is rather divided in his claims about the impact of technology on people’s behavior. He seems espouse a number of different perspectives throughout the book, which are sometimes compatible, but which often clash with one another:
(1) The Internet provides unique affordances—search, filtering, information personalization, a particular ease with which misinformation spreads—that make social fragmentation more likely.
(2) The Internet has actually improved problems of social fragmentation somewhat, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be vigilant about the potential for such problems.
(3) Whether technology helps or hurts deliberative democracy depends entirely on how it’s used.
(4) The problem of social fragmentation has nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet or technology—it’s an age-old problem and the only reason the book discusses the Internet is that it happens to be written in the Internet age. Had it been written in the 1960s, it might have been titled 1-800-Republic.
There's a very old debate over whether technological development shapes people's behavior or whether it's people's behavior that shapes the development of technology. Most people take middle-positions on the issue. A lot of different takes on the subject are defensible—but as a reader, I rather wished Sunstein would pick one and stick with it.
A second difficulty with Sunstein’s argument is that, while he sees “general interest intermediaries”—the mass media—as superior to personalized media in their contribution to democracy, he assiduously avoids discussing the means by which information is produced and conveyed by the mass media. He justifies this by suggesting that his book is about the way in which people consume information, rather than how they produce it.
But such a dichotomy is increasingly difficult to draw in online activity—if it were ever possible at all. The hallmark of the Internet, after all, is its interactive nature, exemplified by the fact that the users who read the discussion boards, blogs and editorial sites of which Sunstein is so critical also contribute to them. Information production and consumption patterns online are intimately linked, and discussion of one implicates discussion of the other. Indeed, Sunstein goes on to discuss the way in which Internet users participate in online forums.
This in turn makes it difficult to draw intelligent comparisons between the democratic role of online media and mass media without discussing the conditions under which the latter are produced—conditions that Sunstein repeatedly says are outside the scope of his essay. As John Dewey, whom Sunstein quotes liberally, says, “all intelligent political criticism is comparative," and Republic.com 2.0’s tendency to vilify the obstacles posed by online media to deliberative democracy, without taking serious account of the corresponding difficulties posed by mass media, seems to me to ultimately corrupt Sunstein’s argument.
After all, less than a century ago, in the wake of World War I and its creepily-effective propaganda machines, social critics were screaming about how bad the mass media were for democracy—that they sharply limited the diversity of viewpoints people got to see and ultimately curbed the sort of free expression and outside-the-box thinking on which democracy depends. If Sunstein's arguments about the problems with blogs and personalized news sound familiar, it may be because many of the same debates occurred about radio 80 years ago.
I'm oversimplifying things here, of course—there are distinct differences between today's variegated information universe and the age of three broadcast networks. But I'd love a discussion on the topic. I'll leave you with some wise words from radio broadcaster Paul Harvey:
In times like these, it's helpful to remember that there have always been times like these.
You've probably heard of this idea. It's the notion that the more personalized our information universe gets, the less likely we are to encounter points of view unlike our own, the more comfortable we'll get that we're right in everything we think, and the more fragmented and polarized our society will become. It's sort of the antidote to early Utopian visions of the Internet that painted it as the future home of perfect democracy—a place where class divisions, gender and racial stereotyping, and all other forms of prejudice would magically disappear. The real Net isn't so simple, of course, but neither does it seem to mesh so well with Sunstein's version of events. He laments the decline in influence of the mass media, saying that un-personalized sources of information are ultimately what holds us together as a democratic society, exposing Democrats to Republican arguments, cat-lovers to televised dog shows, and football fans to baseball championships.
His argument in Republic.com 2.0—a rather heavy revision of his earlier book, Republic.com—while in many ways compelling, falls short on a number of counts. First, he is rather divided in his claims about the impact of technology on people’s behavior. He seems espouse a number of different perspectives throughout the book, which are sometimes compatible, but which often clash with one another:
(1) The Internet provides unique affordances—search, filtering, information personalization, a particular ease with which misinformation spreads—that make social fragmentation more likely.
(2) The Internet has actually improved problems of social fragmentation somewhat, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be vigilant about the potential for such problems.
(3) Whether technology helps or hurts deliberative democracy depends entirely on how it’s used.
(4) The problem of social fragmentation has nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet or technology—it’s an age-old problem and the only reason the book discusses the Internet is that it happens to be written in the Internet age. Had it been written in the 1960s, it might have been titled 1-800-Republic.
There's a very old debate over whether technological development shapes people's behavior or whether it's people's behavior that shapes the development of technology. Most people take middle-positions on the issue. A lot of different takes on the subject are defensible—but as a reader, I rather wished Sunstein would pick one and stick with it.
A second difficulty with Sunstein’s argument is that, while he sees “general interest intermediaries”—the mass media—as superior to personalized media in their contribution to democracy, he assiduously avoids discussing the means by which information is produced and conveyed by the mass media. He justifies this by suggesting that his book is about the way in which people consume information, rather than how they produce it.
But such a dichotomy is increasingly difficult to draw in online activity—if it were ever possible at all. The hallmark of the Internet, after all, is its interactive nature, exemplified by the fact that the users who read the discussion boards, blogs and editorial sites of which Sunstein is so critical also contribute to them. Information production and consumption patterns online are intimately linked, and discussion of one implicates discussion of the other. Indeed, Sunstein goes on to discuss the way in which Internet users participate in online forums.
This in turn makes it difficult to draw intelligent comparisons between the democratic role of online media and mass media without discussing the conditions under which the latter are produced—conditions that Sunstein repeatedly says are outside the scope of his essay. As John Dewey, whom Sunstein quotes liberally, says, “all intelligent political criticism is comparative," and Republic.com 2.0’s tendency to vilify the obstacles posed by online media to deliberative democracy, without taking serious account of the corresponding difficulties posed by mass media, seems to me to ultimately corrupt Sunstein’s argument.
After all, less than a century ago, in the wake of World War I and its creepily-effective propaganda machines, social critics were screaming about how bad the mass media were for democracy—that they sharply limited the diversity of viewpoints people got to see and ultimately curbed the sort of free expression and outside-the-box thinking on which democracy depends. If Sunstein's arguments about the problems with blogs and personalized news sound familiar, it may be because many of the same debates occurred about radio 80 years ago.
I'm oversimplifying things here, of course—there are distinct differences between today's variegated information universe and the age of three broadcast networks. But I'd love a discussion on the topic. I'll leave you with some wise words from radio broadcaster Paul Harvey:
In times like these, it's helpful to remember that there have always been times like these.
July 11, 2010
I'd really mark this 2.5 stars. Terribly repetitive, but not without some good points. If I recall, chapter four was the most enjoyable. Interestingly, he states that the book was inspired by Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities. It does seem clear that lack of exposure to diverse thought on the internet, which cannot be forced, is akin to the loss of shared experiences one gets when living in the suburbs. He keeps talking about public forums like parks as if they no longer exist, and that they are entirely avoidable, as if he has forgotten that people still live in cities. It seems, then, that his concerns don't apply to people who have lives outside of the internet and gated communities.
I agree that deliberative democracy is important, and echochambers are tragic. In the end, it would be sufficient to just read Jacobs and think further, projecting onto the internet.
I agree that deliberative democracy is important, and echochambers are tragic. In the end, it would be sufficient to just read Jacobs and think further, projecting onto the internet.
November 4, 2008
truly fascinating reading about how our rapidly advancing technologies are affecting the deliberative process of a republic. i only wish sunstein had expounded a little more. he raises some really interesting issues, but is constantly tempering every idea with "i'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing - just that it is." he fails to take the next step of suggesting how we proceed as country given the current state of democracy and our participation (or lack thereof) in it.
i'm writing this on election day, and it's great to think about all the young and disenfranchised people who have gotten involved this election season, but i think, realistically, we have to admit that barack obama is a once-in-a-generation kind of politician. how our country continues to engage it's citizens after the obama era is over is something to consider. this book is a good primer to get you thinking about it, but you'll have to come up with the solutions yourself.
i'm writing this on election day, and it's great to think about all the young and disenfranchised people who have gotten involved this election season, but i think, realistically, we have to admit that barack obama is a once-in-a-generation kind of politician. how our country continues to engage it's citizens after the obama era is over is something to consider. this book is a good primer to get you thinking about it, but you'll have to come up with the solutions yourself.
January 24, 2008
An interesting book, but could have used some editing-- because it sometimes feels repetitious and doesn't always push ideas as far as it might, it feels a bit as if it were rushed out. (Which is strange, considering it's an updated version of Sunstein's turn-of-the-millenium "Republic.com".) (Ugly cover, too.)
What I found most interesting, however, is Sunstein's sketch of a legal-historical framework in which to think about the ideas of free speech and democratic deliberation. His also serves as a necessary voice questioning the breathless utopianism of the Wired Magazine-types, who celebrate the always-arriving era of personal customization (cf. "The Long Tail" by Anderson).
Next step in my let's-gain-some-perspective-on-the-Internet(s) might be to check out "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage.
What I found most interesting, however, is Sunstein's sketch of a legal-historical framework in which to think about the ideas of free speech and democratic deliberation. His also serves as a necessary voice questioning the breathless utopianism of the Wired Magazine-types, who celebrate the always-arriving era of personal customization (cf. "The Long Tail" by Anderson).
Next step in my let's-gain-some-perspective-on-the-Internet(s) might be to check out "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage.
Read
January 25, 2016I have taken to heart Professor Sunstein's admonition that we need to resist the enticement of the Internet to filter out views other than those we already hold and issues other than those we are already predisposed to consider. The book caused me to examine the many ways that new technology enables us to hear only views that are an echo of our own. Nonetheless, there seems to be something quixotic about his effort to take on the Internet's ability to serve as an affiliation device and to promote the idea of government regulation as a means of causing the Internet to become more of a cyberspace public square, in which we necessarily have unexpected, and sometimes unwanted, encounters with divergent views and philosophies.
June 13, 2012
1) Too obtuse and dry for the general reader, but not specific enough for lawyers.
2) Chapters are structured so as to attack strawmen. (Who out there is really arguing that governments have NO AUTHORITY OF ANY KIND related to the internet?)
3) Argument that the internet creates echo chamber effect is hedged so much that he's barely argued that any problem exists at all.
4) Hardly any specific policy recommendations that are legal. His conclusion seems to be "if we care about democracy, we should give this some thought."
As it stands, this shouldn't be a book.
2) Chapters are structured so as to attack strawmen. (Who out there is really arguing that governments have NO AUTHORITY OF ANY KIND related to the internet?)
3) Argument that the internet creates echo chamber effect is hedged so much that he's barely argued that any problem exists at all.
4) Hardly any specific policy recommendations that are legal. His conclusion seems to be "if we care about democracy, we should give this some thought."
As it stands, this shouldn't be a book.
November 13, 2011
Assigned reading, an interesting point that Sunstein made. This novel definitely isn't light-reading and was pretty intense in many parts.
I felt like Sunstein's view was very negative, but that makes sense as he was trying to expose the negative aspects of filtering and the "daily me." However, I felt like he maybe ignored the positive.
An interesting read for those who like politics, democracy, government, internet, and technology type books.
I felt like Sunstein's view was very negative, but that makes sense as he was trying to expose the negative aspects of filtering and the "daily me." However, I felt like he maybe ignored the positive.
An interesting read for those who like politics, democracy, government, internet, and technology type books.
July 10, 2014
A decent book. Sunstein makes a lot of good points on how the personalization of the internet can fragment a democratic society and ultimately threaten its freedom. And although the internet does allow for larger deliberative enclaves and creates massive echo chambers caused more and more by cyber cascades, Sunstein seems to forget that there still does exist reasons to leave your house and interact with other locked in your same geological location in the real, physical world.
November 17, 2012
Look. I'm really glad this book exists. It is a valuable perspective and a valid concern, but I think Sunstein overstates his case, both in terms of how informed and democratic Americans have ever been, and how severe the current and potential bubble effect are.
November 20, 2013
He may be a well-regarded law professor, but his conclusions are rather perfunctory. There are several better works about the internet and its impact on American democracy, such as Hindman's "The Myth of Digital Democracy", Prior's "Post-Broadcast Democracy" and Stroud's "Niche 2.0".
November 7, 2012
Terribly repetitive, but not without some good points. Made me reflect on my media consumption and my responsibilities as a citizen of a republic.
June 2, 2008
Clear, in a Lessig-like manner.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews