December 19, 2001
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Critics who claim that 'Internet use narrows intellectual horizons' should be brained with typewriters
I read on Samizdata of a pitiful wail from technophobe Cass Sunstein about how the internet may be narrowing its users' consumption of information. I was stewing about it all the way home.
See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Tomorrow, our power to filter promises to increase exponentially. With the advent of the Daily Me, you see only the sports highlights that concern your teams, read about only the issues that interest you, encounter in the op-ed pages only the opinions with which you agree. In all of the applause for this remarkable ascendance of personalized information, Cass Sunstein asks the questions, Is it good for democracy? Is it healthy for the republic? What does this mean for freedom of speech?
I haven't read the book so I can't say I'm giving Sunstein fair treatment but...oh screw it, I can still react - GAG ME WITH A QUILL PEN! This is complete reactionary technophobic horseshit, a 180-degree inversion of the truth.
Think about your daily interactions. You go to work and you are exposed to people with similar backgrounds and living contexts. You converse with those who need to transact business with you. You interact with the people in your community, who are likely to be much like you.
What is it about the internet, do you suppose, that Sunstein thinks actually narrows our sphere of interactions? In order for two people to interact, they have to have something in common. In the physical world they have to be in the same place at the same time, for starters. This severely limits our interactions. Speaking the same language and not self-immolating with dynamite strapped to one's chest helps as well. We probably interact more with people whose interests or worldview iverlap with ours in some significant way. If two people disagree on everything, they are unlikely to spend much time together. In the physical world we live with constrained interactions.
Similarly, we go to a newstand, we buy what's available: The New York Times, the Post, The Atlantic Monthly, etc. Our choices are constrained by the choices that are economical for the newstand. Ditto for the bookstore.
The only thing different about the internet is that it eliminates the time and space restrictions of interaction, and the economics of information are completely different. We find people whose interests overlap and interact. We seek out information, but our choices are infinitely wider. Does Sunstein think my local Pakistani-owned newstand spends much time making sure I have a diversity of news sources? I think not. Sunstein is singling out filtering technologies and a la carte news services like "My Yahoo", but he vastly overestimates the technology's capabilities. Anybody seen a filter that limits delivery of commentary to those pundits reinforcing the reader's worldview? The most effective filter I've seen for that is the New York Times editorial board.
As it happens, I consume the New York Times and Wall Street Journal largely on the web. But, thanks to its lack of geographical constraints, I also look at a variety of European and Middle Eastern news sites (Dawn, Arab News). I am linked to and link a variety of weblogs and I have a lot in common with them. But as much as we overlap, we also differ. Not only are we from all over the world, but throw military tribunals or post the absence of any guidance on foreign policy in libertarian thought and...splat...do you hear raw meat landing in front of the salivating dogs? It seems as a community, we spend a lot of time dissecting those with whom we disagree. Which, I've noticed, usually requires reading them (this post is an exception, I note with some guilt). Mr. Sunstein has potential for this list.
To interpret the removal of time and space constraints in my interactions and information gathering as "limiting" exposure to "topics and ideas they would not have chosen in advance" is ridiculous. Every time I run a search to start a blog, I find ideas that are new, and range from eye-opening to...downright revolting! In the physical world, would I have been exposed to Common Dreams, the idiot Eric Margolis, a deconstruction of Newton, The Afghan Resistance, Britney Spears does physics, The Leonard Nimoy Album page, Aussie editorials, The Waco Holocaust Museum or Anti-Lomborgians? I don't think Sunstein has spent much time on the 'net.
If Sunstein or other critics want to read paper academic journals by like-minded colleagues or pore over the Times or (hah) watch TV. and think they are getting a range of exposure, be my guest. Removing constraints with the internet exposes us to a much wider diversity of opinion.
So tap away on your Smith Corona, but don't pretend it makes you more or less well-read than the rest of us.
When I wrote this last night, I couldn't remember which weblog. I added the Samizdata link in the morning
Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at December 19, 2001 10:25 PM | Technorati inbound links