Ursula Bollini's Welcome Message: Princeton University Press is pleased to welcome you to this message forum. Our guest is Professor Cass Sunstein, author of _Republic.com_, published by the Press in March. In the spirit of that book, we welcome your comments and questions and look forward to an engaging discussion. Professor Sunstein, in _Republic.com_ you make the argument that in addition to the obvious benefits of the Internet, there is a danger. Specifically, we can so tailor what we see and read on the Internet that this opportunity of direct communication with like-minded folk also threatens to isolate us. If we hear only opinions that echo our own, we run the risk not only of missing other sides of a debate, but we could actually run the risk of developing extreme views. My question is this: aren't you underestimating the majority of Internet users? More than one third of Americans have Internet access--I believe that we are now close to 40%. Isn't it safe to assume that the majority of these aren't extremists and won't become so? And if it is true that we run the risk of isolating ourselves through careful tailoring of what we see and read, what would you propose? Subject: Re: Welcome Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=52&t=40&admview=1 The real focus of my argument is the requirements of a good democracy, not the evils of the Internet. The sky really isn't falling. Also, the Internet is, on balance, an excellent step for democracy. But we should see some risks. A democracy requires shared experiences and unanticipated, unchosen exposures to topics and points of view. One risk is that if people enclose themselves in little enclaves, they'll become more extreme -- not necessarily "extremists," but more extreme, less able to speak with their fellow citizens. What you say is true, but This is hardly fanciful in the current environment. We can see this happening quite outside the Internet, as a result of a more specialized, fragmented world of communications (eg magazines and radio). In the Clinton impeachment and Bush v. Gore, we saw a lot of extremism and too much fragmentation; the new world of communications, and the Internet, were not helpful here and in some ways they were harmful. The most important thing is to see the risks from a situation in which like-minded people talk to one another -- and the advantages of public spaces, involving many different people and ideas. It would be great if we could figure out ways to continue to have those advantages, through private means if possible. Subject: Re: Welcome Author: Jack Sarfatti Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=53&t=40&admview=1 This seems to be an argument for forcible imprinting of "shared information"? Who will decide? Seems to me that a completely free meme market is the best idea. It's good to give the mega-media corporations some competition. Subject: Re: Welcome Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=54&t=40&admview=1 No argument here for "forcible" anything. To say that shared experiences are important is not to argue for any use of force. But a democratic society usually benefits from open spaces, like streets and parks, that tend to promote shared experiences. Subject: open Internet spaces Author: Megan J. Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=55&t=40&admview=1 Hello Mr.Sunstein, In the book you suggest privatized Internet sites where all views on many different topics can be displayed and discussed, like an electronic version of the open spaces ("streets and parks") that harbor quality communication in real life. You also admit that filtering makes our lives easier. I feel that the time-saving "Daily Me" is a real blessing for busy people who want to stay informed of the information they need without having to wade through all the garbage that's prevalant on the Internet. How would the busy working men/women of today be persuaded to attend these unfiltered town hall-type sites? Because the real benefit of an open site would be including everyone's opinion, correct? Also, I realize you choose in Republic.com not to discuss the phenomenon of the "digital divide" in great depth, but wouldn't that disparity have an impact on that specific solution as well? If not everyone has access, many important opinions would go unrepresented. Subject: Do guns kill people? Author: Robert R. Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=56&t=40&admview=1 The issues raised in the first chapter of this book have left me facinated, I must say. It seems to me to be very clever and alert of Mr. Sunstein to warn us of the possible implications of our community's use of new vehicles for communication. I honestly haven't thought about the possible consequences of comunication through new technology under a light like this before. However, my question for Mr. Sunstein is to wonder where would be the best place to look for solutions to the situations raised in this first chapter. It seems to me that the internet and computers in general are tools for communication and nothing more. If the people of a democracy are chosing to filter what information they make available to themselves, then the souce of the problem may not be the tool with which they filter, but instead the attitude through which they desire to filter. In the way that bullits don't themselves jump into a gun barrel, the internet, while allowing people to censor the information presented to them, doesn't appear to force anyone to put blinders on what information they are exposed to. So then, Mr. Sunstein (and anyone else who wishes to reply), I ask if you would agree that the most proper place to look for solutions to the possible problems arising from the people of a democracy over-censoring what they view on the internet would be the very attitudes that cause people to ever want to completely close themselves to the opinions of others in the first place. Or is this being too quixotic? Robert Subject: Re: Welcome Author: J. Donald White Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=57&t=40&admview=1 In response to the prospect of the internet further enclosing people in their own ideas and making people less likely to be exposed to different views and opinions, I am compelled to argue that the people who are likely to be so affected would be doing so regardless of the presence of the internet. There are individuals who are interested only in their own opinions and speak only to others who share those opinions. They choose not to read opinions of others and put no stock in competing ideas. For a person of this mindset, I believe the internet is their best and only chance at branching out, and the possibility of the internet becoming a vehicle for the creation of extremists is certainly worth risk. These "tunnel minded" individuals are almost forced to be exposed to new information and ideas through the internet, which offers the best chance (with the exception of personal interactions with others, which have long been removed from our society) of branching out that one could hope for. There is indeed, however, an inherant danger in creating a system which would allow an angry racist from NJ speak easily to an angry racist in CA. This is a danger, which before "Republic.com," I had not considered, but one which I see quite clearly now. However, despite this possibility, I believe the information on the internet creates the greatest available likelyhood for individuals to branch out and read and learn about other opinions and ideas. (Except of course for the sixty percent of people who do not have internet access, who's ideas must be excluded from the cyber forum.....) Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=58&t=40&admview=1 Many thanks; excellent points here. You're certainly right about the effects of the digital divide. But busy working people generally read the newspaper, and many watch the evening news, and even though they have to filter some, these institutions ensure that they see a spectrum of views and topics. The question is whether we're losing some of this and if so, whether we can and should do something about it. It doesn't take a lot of time to get a quick sense of the Daily Us rather than the Daily Me. Subject: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Edward Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=59&t=59&admview=1 I'd like to thank professor Sunstein for raising some serious issues concerning the way the almost infinite tailorability of Internet access may reduce rather than enlarge a discourse commons. Mr Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, in CODE AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, makes the theoretical point that cyberspace to be useful has to point outside of cyberspace and in your book you make the point that opinion cascades can convince large numbers of like-minded people of false propositions. Their zone of "cyberspace" contains no reality check. There is real evidence for the phenomena you identify. Opinion cascades not only include false opinions such as promulgated in UFO groups and certain neo-Secessionist groups (which portray the Confederacy as willing to free slaves when the constitution of the Confederacy incorporated slavery) but also false meta-opinions about the relative importance of various facts. A good example of a false meta-opinion is documented by Jeffery Toobin in his book on the Clinton impeachment, for the Internet personality (Matt Drudge) who released the (true) story concerning Monica Lewinsky. This was a story that Newsweek refused to carry...because under traditional law, private, consensual conduct is not relevant to charges of harassment such as Clinton was undergoing. Matt Drudge was "empowered" to make an irrelevant story highly relevant by the Internet (and also by recent changes to rules of evidence, which Clinton, ironically, supported.) This grievously harmed innocent people including Monica and her mother, not to mention the office of the Presidency. But if the physical isolation of newsgroup "posters" means that for them, as for Derrida, "there is nothing but the text", does this not mean that further textual efforts to restore balance in situations of cascading nonsense and triviality are self-defeating? The very textual egalitarianism of the Internet, the reduction to bits, tends to create an epistemology in which my false or irrevelant story is just as good as yours...because if all stories are texts there is no independent authority. Derrida, of course, was no Internet libertarian, and Derrida said "there is nothing but the text" in the course of expounding our inescapable responsibilities to truth beyond the presented text; but perhaps the average Webhead dislikes Derrida (assuming he knows who Derrida is) because the catchphrase raises inescapable questions about the whole. In enforcing Net standards, there are problems not encountered except in theoretical computer science, for the recent history of Napster shows that texts can be encoded to defeat legal standards and an incident I identified recently in an Amazon review of Dr Lessig's book (in which a scanner for Politically Incorrect keywords would fail its own rules of necessity) problems at the limit of computability seem to arise. Does this not mean that requiring Web sites to conform to textual rules would be easily duped, say by setting up links to opposing sites that "time out" after the audit is completed? The rather childish attitude expressed by John Perry Barlow, "leave us alone", is one that has a certain cynicism about openness, and a willingness to defeat monitoring using encryption. In a weary moment, the computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra said "in the university, we learned that only Truth matters; in business, we learned that only Secrets matter." Libertarianism, identified by Prof. Lessig as the default political philosophy of the digerati, exults in secrecy and in cleverly defeating what it regards as "the Nanny state." My experience has been that libertarianism, empowered by advances in computation, defeats well-intentioned liberalism all the time. The lives of ordinary people are today more structured by ATMs, it seems, than by the ACLU. Do we not need to address the Internet as a phenomenon in its entirety? Rather than "naturalizing" the Internet, and treating it as inevitable, don't we need to ask why the Internet is so very useful...and to whom? Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=60&t=59&admview=1 You raise many large issues. Many thanks. A first try at a response: The libertarian program depends on a lot of government regulation in order to work at all. The state has to create and protect property rights, contract rights, rights against torts and criminal invasions. So some of the rhetorical force of the libertarian position is undermined just by showing that libertarians aren't really against government regulation. They need it and depend on it, no less than anyone else. (Anarchists are another matter, but libertarians aren't anarchists.) On whether government should respond to the problems you emphasize: I'm not sure. Libertarians have some good criticisms of any responses, along the lines you describe. The important step seems to me to see the potential problem. Once we do that, we might consider private responses, as through links among sites, voluntarily chosen. Why shouldn't the National Review and the New Republic offer links to one another's sites? Wouldn't they both gain? This wouldn't be a panacea, but it would do more good than harm. And sometimes hearings are better than laws. Here's a suggestion: A subcommittee of the Senate should hold a hearing about the nature of fragmentation on the Internet, just to find out what's going on there. My hunch is that all by itself, the hearings would spur some private responses. I don't think libertarians could object to that. Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Tim S. Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=61&t=59&admview=1 First, thank you for this book. I think that it raises an issue at the heart of the continued health of our republic: can a republic experience such fragmentation and still remain vital? Does the Net sound the death knell of the great experiment? And thank you for the clear language with which you present your ideas. I have some contradictory points to make here (that is, my first and second points come at this from completely different angles). Clearly, and the book makes this point, such fragmentation is not the result of the Net but rather it is simply exacerbated by the Net—and by users’ proclivities. That is, even without Daily Me’s, personalized news services, “Favorites,” and such, we are plenty fragmented. Those living on the Left Coast had little in common with those in the Heartland, who have little in common with cosmopolitans abutting the Atlantic. Of course, such labels are largely artificial, but they do contain some kernel of truth (otherwise the “LA vs. NYC” jokes that still remain hugely popular with comics [see Steve Martin’s Pure Drivel for a recent {and very funny}example] wouldn’t have been funny in the least [although, I suppose, some would argue that they, in fact, are not funny]). Other, more driving fragmentations persist as well: class, race, gender, rural vs. urban, naturalized vs. natural-born, intellectuals vs. working class. Poll results, neatly divided into a variety of groupings, illustrate this regularly; network news anchors on the evening of November 7 (and long after) told the nation exactly how it was divided and what other “similar” citizens thought. Such poll results immediately allowed the viewer to place him- or herself in opposition to other groups based on the categories I mention above or to fit comfortably with, for instance other “white males who make over $35,000, aged 25-35, with a college education.” If the nation was already divided before the advent of the Net, and people (citizens) seemed to like it that way, then I’m not sure that the suggestions you offer in chapters 8 and 9 would be effective. My gut reaction is that any one or even all of you “solutions” (which I place in quotation marks not indicate some kind of ironic disagreement but rather to indicate that you don’t market them as solutions at all) would fall on deaf ears. You certainly can’t make people visit a site with an opposing view (even if you provide a link) or a deliberativedemocarcy.org website. Even more pointedly, if deliberativedemocarcy.org were organized like other such ventures, I can’t imagine that it would be at all appealing (think of the average viewer’s reaction to C-SPAN; as scintillating as “Book Notes” can be, most folks drift off, or, more to the point, never watch in the first place). Consider too forums already extant that offer an outlet to partisan discussion. Most participants talk past rather than to one another; visit Salon.com’s “Red vs. Blue” to get some sense of this. Could a website such as you suggest do any better than provide a place for folks to shout about the current “hot topic”? Would issues of real importance be discussed or would the topics focus on those generated by the broadcast media and politicians’ soundbites? Would any real deliberation take place? And, as the initiator of this thread suggests, some netizens (like the libertarian programmers mentioned above) are by nature contrarians. On a completely different note, such communitarianists as Amitai Etzioni argue that we (that is, we citizens) are in fact more like each other than it at first appears. We are a “monochrome society”, more homogenous in our outlooks, opinions, and views than heterogenous (despite outward appearances). Further, they argue that the most effective sources for the building of bonds come from the community, not from the state. If all of this is in fact true, then do we need to even worry about surface differences? If so, is it the state that should become involved in regulating the information to which we have access? Subject: Re: Welcome Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=62&t=40&admview=1 What you say sounds right to me. The Internet does allow people to branch out, more than ever before in the history of the world. It's more an enemy of tunnel vision than a friend--at least for people who are curious. But note that the Internet also allows specialization, and that people who would otherwise see a fair number of topics, and of ideas, are now willing and able to restrict themselves to just a few. People who like to specialize had a harder time doing so in a world of general interest newspapers and tv stations and such. Their eyes would come across new topics and points of view, even if they didn't select them. That's changing, at least for many people. Subject: Re: Do guns kill people? Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=63&t=40&admview=1 Great questions. I'm not sure that there is a solution. If there is, one possibility would be to do whatever we can to produce norms of civility and curiosity, so that people don't restrict themselves to isolated enclaves. The great judge Learned Hand once wrote, "the spirit of liberty is that spirit which is not too sure that it is right," and I think the book should have used that quotation a bit more -- To the extent that other approaches are desirable, they might lie in *architecture.* A secret inspiration for the book: Jane Jacobs's work on American cities. How we architect the internet, or a city, is up to us (see Lawrence Lessig's book on this, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace), and we could do a lot, privately and through government, to produce better architecture. Links and hyperlinks could produce something common spaces, as chapter 6 discusses. Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=64&t=59&admview=1 Professor Sunstein, thank you for your thoughtful reply. The libertarian answer to the criticism that the resources he uses are government-funded would be to refer back to a social contract, apparently made by John Locke-reading frontiersmen in the 17th century. We do need to remind him that this is merely theory whereas the creation of Arpanet on the taxpayer's dime is a reality. The problem is that the media now contains (*pace* the story of left-wing media) a bias shown by the polarity between National Review and The New Republic; for whereas The National Review is hard right, The New Republic is centrist. I'd have hoped you'd mentioned The Nation. Also, the libertarian does not see the distinction you make between word and action. For example, in recent bankruptcy legislation, efforts to legislate verbal controls and warnings against the excessive use of credit by college students were defeated by the Right. The lesson of the defeat of the old fairness doctrine, and the way in which the tobacco industry long prevented anti-smoking ads from appearing, along with cries of "government regulation" used against efforts to fund mere speech, shows us that conservatives and libertarians may fear funded speech more than physical regulation. This is not to say that the efforts you recommend aren't worthwhile. I only would add that the Internet is a tough neighborhood where words become fighting words very quickly and where anything resembling the old fairness doctrine would be met with cries of "regulation." Subject: Quest for community on internet Author: Carl Lebeck Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=65&t=59&admview=1 Professor Sunstein raises important points when it comes to questions like sustainment of communities. As a European, I may not have these, what I see as quite American concerns about civicness but it seems to me that such quests for community also depend on some conception of morality that regards not just suffrage, contract, legality etc but assumes that democratic decisions based on a high degree of deliberation are more legitimate than democratic decisions based on just formally correct procedures. Professor Sunstein takes the example if Nat Rev and New Republic (and why not Chronicles and The Nation?) should exchange links to their websites. I cannot se why they would not benefit from it, however as there are private proprietors of all these publications it seems debatable if parts of their rights should be infringed in order to enhance "a democratic community" or something like that. That is of course not to say that all publications on the net benefit from copy-rights law, tort law, penal & criminal law and constitutional law as their rights are defined through these parts of the legal system. The quest is to which extent and for which reasons rights are to be limited. (Does the idea that law restricts rights imply some kind of natural rights perspective?) A question also, is this really a problem? If you look at pages like Yahoo.com the possibilities for links to different political groups seem not small, at least in Sweden most political parties in the Parliament have links to political adversaries etc etc. Another problem may be how great parts of the society are supposed to become parts of this greater democratic community? What about people who prefer to enjoy their private life rather than being exposed to unexpected (and perhaps unwished) views on the Internet? They are to be exposed to some form or views that they do not necessary hold when they are primarily acting as consumers. There are filteringprogrammes and other technical devices that can be regarded as instruments to reduce costs of information. Sunstein's point seems to imply that the government should burden owners of websites as well as users of Internet with costs for the sake of deliberative democracy. Even if not looking at the question from the perspective of rights it is still debatable to which extent the government should act to enhance (if it would?) public deliberation when also imposing costs upon users. Carl Lebeck Subject: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=66&t=66&admview=1 Title: REPUBLIC.COM Author: Cass Sunstein Princeton University Press Cloth $19.95 ISBN: 0-691-07025-3 224 pages. 5 x 7. (2001) US Pub. Date: March 19, 2001 Foreign Pub. Date: April 11, 2001 *** Read the first chapter online for free, click here: http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7014.html Cass Sunstein is the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and Department of Political Science. A former law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, he has worked for the Office of Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice. His former works include: "Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech" (1993), which won the Goldsmith Prize from Harvard for the best book on free speech in that year. "After the Rights Revolution" (1990), "The Partial Constitution" (1993), "Free Markets and Social Justice" (1997), and "One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court" (1999). His writings have appeared in the New York Times, and the New Republic. He has also appeared on ABC's Nightline, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, NBC and CBS evening news and other programming. In "Republic.Com" Cass Sunstein makes the point that in cyberspace individuals now have the ability to filter out everything they don't want to read or see and filter in only those whose opinions they agree with. He calls this the "Daily Me", the ability to filter only the issues that concern you, read only the op-eds that only share your point of view. In short he fears that the Internet will bring about a lack of diversity and will amplify extremism and hate groups (Whatever that means). He writes of "cybercascades" that brings groups of people together who share similar viewpoints that in turn causes group polarization and radicalization. Here's how he says it works: "Thus, for example, a group whose members lean against gun control will, in discussion, provide a wide range of arguments against gun control, and the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker. The group's members, to the extent that they shift, will shift toward a more extreme position against gun control. And the group as a whole, if a group decision is required, will move not to the median position, but to a more extreme point." (Chapter 3, pages 67 68) He does his argument great damage by using as an example of a hate and extremist group the usual left wing target, The National Rifle Association (NRA) He trots out the usual suspects such as Skinheads and the KKK and fails to mention any of the other hate groups such as American supporters of Peru's shining path, environmental terrorists who spike logging areas, World Trade Organization protestors/rioters or other left wing extremists. In Chapter three Sunstein speaks of the gun rights movement alongside the KKK, God Hates Fags, and other hate groups in what can only be considered as an attempt of guilt by association. In Chapter seven, Sunstein writes: "FREE SPEECH IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE" his caps not mine. In fact he mentions this line several times throughout the book. He continues: "We can identify some flaws in the emerging view of the First Amendment by investigating the idea that the free speech guarantee is "an absolute", in the specific sense that government may not regulate speech at all. This view plays a large role in public debate, and in some ways it is a salutary myth." He mentions the usual examples of child pornography, copyright and threats to assassinate the President as examples of the government restricting speech. He creates what I consider a straw man argument by prefacing these remarks for his "Policies and Proposals" in Chapter eight. He laments the fact that in the past the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in a four station universe had a significant voice. But with the advent of programming with hundreds of choices the justification for PBS is diluted. As a partial solution he endorses Andrew Shapiro's suggestion from the book "The Control Revolution" that the government should support a public website, Public.Net. Sunstein writes: "Public.Net would provide an icon, visible on your home computer. You would be under no obligation to click on it; indeed in a free society perhaps you should be permitted to remove the icon if you really do not like it." He envisions Public.Net to include sections on the "environment, civil rights, gun control, foreign affairs, and so forth." (Chapter 8, page 181) But what I find most troubling is his idea to require websites to maintain hyperlinks to those with differing viewpoints. His example on page 188: " We might easily imagine a situation in which textual references to organizations or institutions are hyperlinks, so that if, for example, a conservative magazine such as the "National Review" refers to the World Wildlife Fund or Environmental Defence, it also allows readers instant access to their sites." Sunstein continues: "To the extent that sites do not do this, voluntary self regulation through cooperative agreements might do the job. If these routes do not work, it would be worthwhile considering content-neutral regulation, designed to ensure more in the way of both links and hyperlinks." Princeton sent me a free review copy of Republic.Com, which I'm glad they did as I would have been highly upset to have paid money for it. I can understand why Professor Sunstein makes the suggestions he does. In my opinion it has less to do with wanting to expand free and open discourse and more to do with control. Who gets to decide which links get to be included as "opposing viewpoints"? I did note that many of Sunstein's examples involved a right wing organization being forced to carry left wing links. The celebrated civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view -- even those that are "bad" or socially harmful -- should be represented in the "marketplace of ideas." And the Internet is an incredibly free and eclectic smorgasbord of ideas. And just as we have freedom to choose which sites we visit or what print magazines or books we read, it would be the end of freedom as we know it if the government forced us to read or watch what they want, even if it were only a link. Thanks, but no thanks to Republic.Com. Regards, Matthew Gaylor- Cass Sunstein's Homepage: http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/ [Which I might add carries no links to opposing viewpoints.] Name: Cass R. Sunstein Work Address: University of Chicago Law School, 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60637 Telephone: 773-702-9498 (business) Fax: 773-702-0730 (business) email: Cass_Sunstein@law.uchicago.edu E-mail: csunstei@midway.uchicago.edu ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** Subject: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=67&t=67&admview=1 Professor Sunstein argues in http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7014.html [Assume] "The market for news, entertainment, and information has finally been perfected." ... PERSONALIZATION AND DEMOCRACY "Our communications market is rapidly moving in the direction of this apparently utopian picture ..." And essentially the rest of the book examines this. However, I would like to take issue with this basic assumption. In fact, I do not think it is true at all. Yes, there are many media changes, and the effects of these are much-argued. But I simply don't see anything along the sort of perfect AI-like revolution which he takes as a given. The particular technical effect he postulates seems to me to be somewhere from trivial to wrong. The particular examples he gives above seem to be quotes from marketing and public-relations releases of the companies involved. These are notorious for sizzle over substance. I believe we are imputing far greater "Artificial Intelligence" advances than are real. It's a class of article that I mentally think of as running: "Assume we had a perfect Artificial Intelligence. Then ". But we don't have that, are very far from it, so the speculation isn't very relevant. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer Subject: Why Not Practice What You Preach? Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=68&t=68&admview=1 Professor Sunstein, I noticed that your web page located at: http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/ has no links to opposing viewpoints. Doesn't that lessen the validity of your arguments and make you guilty of contributing to the ill effects of cybercascades? Given that you've written op-eds extolling the virtues of paying income taxes, wouldn’t it be reasonable, based on your theories in Republic.Com for you to add links to lets say The National Taxpayers Union or similar group? Regards, Matt- Subject: Re:Welcome Author: T.K. Wilson Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=69&t=40&admview=1 Citizen Sunstein, An underlying assumption to your argument is that you, or some other party or parties, are more qualified ( by whom?) than some other adult humans, to make decisions for those humans than they are themselves Your argument re: "cybercascades" also presumes that people in general are unable, or possibly unfit, to decide what they themselves will consider worthwhile of what they themselves choose to examine. What it presumes is the existence of an enlightened class of people and it also assumes that those people somehow ended up in government service. Most humans have historically chosen to isolate themselves into enclaves of likeminded people (see "Religion") with or without the internet. This would certainly include academics. Being truly open in regards to actively seeking outside criticism or (or information in conflict with) your own beliefs is not only painful, it's a learned ability that must be consciously exercised. Most don't; academia is famous for castigating it's own members for doing so (see "Newton, Issac"). In fact, the First amendment is primarily about not being crushed by the mob (or the State) for saying or believing what you want to, and assosciating with whom you like. A priori prohibitions against anticipated behaviours, in the absense of any harm to others, is the hallmark of the Facist state. It is the presumption of guilt over innocence. It's modern Amerika. Thanks for the Forum, TK Wilson Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=70&t=40&admview=1 The notion that filitering choices on the Internet mean that people will never confront messages and opinions they disagree with is an embarrassingly uninformed one. It's the kind of thing that a law professor with relatively little experience in the richness and diversity of online discourse might cook up. (There are potential social harms associated with filtering -- notably when it's government-imposed, or built into the design and structure of the Internet -- but Sunstein doesn't seem to care what they actually are.) The unsupported psychological assumption behind Sunstein's thesis is that people generally choose only expose themselves to opinions they agree with. Had Professor Sunstein spent more time on Usenet, he'd have seen the folly of this assumption. And even if it were true that Internet filtering made "the Daily Me" possible, it is indisputable that even the most obsessive Internet user exposes himself to the real world (full of tumultous personalities and diverse opinions) when he leaves his terminal. We ought to be looking at another medium that actually has achieved the kind of "Daily Me" phenomenon that Sunstein worries about -- books. There's no question that, once one is beyond school, one need only read the books one chooses to read, and one can dismiss many more books without reading them, based on one's preferences and prejudices. Doesn't this scary phenomenon require increased government regulation? Where's Professor Sunstein now that we need him? And why stop with books? I find the paternalistic contempt for individual choice in Republic.com appalling. But even if there were a social problem that needed to be addressed by government regulation, the last person I would ask to come up with recommendations for a solution would be the author of this shallow, misconceived book. --Mike Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=71&t=59&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > I only would add that the Internet is a tough > neighborhood where words become fighting words very quickly Not in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire sense, they don't. "Fighting words" has a very specific meaning in constitutional law -- it has to do with actual violence or the likelihood of triggering it -- that is inapplicable in the context of heated exchanges on the Net. What Nilges criticizes the Libertarians for -- a purported confusion of words and actions -- is just what he engages in here. --Mike Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=72&t=59&admview=1 Mike Godwin writes: >Edward G. Nilges wrote: >> I only would add that the Internet is a tough >> neighborhood where words become fighting words very quickly >Not in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire sense, they don't. "Fighting words" has a very specific >meaning in constitutional law -- it has to do with actual violence or the likelihood of triggering it -- >that is inapplicable in the context of heated exchanges on the Net. Inapplicable? Hardly. It is true that fighting words cannot cause remote posters to IMMEDIATELY start fighting, physically. However, fighting words that cause a poster to start, illegally, a plan to physically retaliate against the person of his opponent could occur. Now, it might be thought that these type of fighting words are fully and Constitutionally protected under Chaplinsky v New Hampshire and other decisions. If, in Constitutional times, Tom Paine sent an insulting letter to Alexander Hancock, questioning his parentage, it is thought by libertarians and other political *naifs* that Paine would enjoy full Constitutional protection, whereas if Paine called Hancock a whoreson knave on the street, the libertarian would concede that Paine was NOT protected. But in actual practice, this is a libertarian fantasy and what a Galbraith would call "recreational" political philosophy. John Kenneth Galbraith was once moved to describe the discussions of political relations at the JFK School and Princeton's Woodrow as "recreational" when he had some real experience in the tough realities as ambassador to India; by analogy, I contrast actual praxis with the Rosy Scenarios of the libertarian, and I am moved to call the Lockean calculus and precedents of the lib equally "recreational." Actual people on the Net have indeed been called to account for "anti-commercial" speech in which they have set up a Web site making claims against former employers, polluters, and other commercial entities. Their words HAVE been interpreted as "fighting words" although their words do not take place in physical proximity to the person harmed. In one case, a woman who felt she was harmed by an employer set up a Web site naming the harm and was jailed on a municipal charge of telephonic harassment. The libertarian would like us to imagine that all speech falls into two categories: tavern speech, and speech written with a quill pen. He hasn't learned that free speech doctrine changed with each technical advance including the phone, and each technical advance has in many ways REDUCED the ability of ordinary people to exercise First Amendment rights. Furthermore, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is not definitive; it is a precedent, along with Dred Scott, Slaughterhouse, and, for all I know, Ladie's Delight and the Amistad. Feminist legal scholars persist in seeing harm in "speech" that consists of actual women forced through economic circumstance to exhibit themselves on the Web, and the FBI persists in seeing harm in "speech" that consists in child pornography. >What Nilges criticizes the Libertarians for -- a purported confusion of words and actions -- is just >what he engages in here. The confusion is in the real continuum which is not definable for all time by a precedent. Stanley Fish has explored the artificiality of the distinction between word and action. The confusion is in the libertarian's desire to ensure that the law is not changed when the technology changes, and to read old doctrines literally in order to ensure a freedom of speech...which as far as I can determine, has debased and lowered discourse standards. It might be thought that the libertarian is on the side of the little guy when ensuring that the law remains unchanged when the technology changes. However, the "recreational" nature of libertarian thought, its fundamental lack of seriousness, means that the small individual is not really assisted by the libertarian free speech crusader. As Fish points out, free speech by itself is useless and there are (I would add) societies with a lot of free speech that nonetheless score low on overall well-being, and freedom. Prior to a 1997 crackdown, Milosevic's Serbia enjoyed a lot of freedom of speech. In an antebellum political ontology, freedom of speech assisted the well being of all because all the players were pretty much equal before freedom of speech was added. Need I say that in an Internet ontology populated, not only by individuals, but also by various thrones, dominations, and powers in the form of corporations, leveling the playing field may not advantage the ordinary citizen? If I am presenting to students in an inner-city university information on a Web site in a classroom situation, my civil rights and those of my students are violated by the accidental appearance of racist sites. By reducing all words to a common currency we find that the Web makes such transitions very easy. The libertarian response is to "hear no evil." The libertarian promise was that all posters would act like university educated, polite, middle and upper middle class libertarians from the same socioeconomic group as the original Arpanet developers. The reality is Matt Drudge. Anyway, it's good to hear from you again, Mike, after all these years, and once again have the opportunity to discuss issues. Edward Nilges --Mike Subject: Re: Quest for community on internet Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=73&t=59&admview=1 Carl Lebeck, you raise some good points which are also raised by Amartya Sen in his critique of a related oversimplification. In the context of the growing tech recession, increasing number of disenchanted American technologists are asking "what were we thinking of?" when in 1989 we fantasized that the relative politeness and restraint of the Internet as it existed then would persist. A society needs MORE than core agreement on a few principles, and a defect of the American system is in the paucity of its agreement. Some of us believe in government assistance to families and no death penalty: others do not, and the bias in the system is in negation because of a tradition of mistrust of government. The Internet exports a cultural and even philosophical model, and it is no accident that libertarianism (social liberalism with fiscal conservatism) is the common or default political philosophy of the digerati. Anglo-American philosophy at midcentury was after all informed by now-discredited metaphysics which reduced reality to collections of observable facts and the inescapably digital nature of computation since the death of the analog computer incorporates a world-view hostile to monism and complexity, and in favor of a brutal simplicity and reductionism. For this reason, Prof. Sunstein's recommendations, although they have to do with words and not physical limitations to Web site operators, will be perceived as an unneeded complexity. I prefer much harsher regimes including an end to unmoderated groups (or a growth in moderated groups, with Peter J. Neumann's heroic work in comp.risks being the stellar example) and perhaps a form of licensing for users of the Internet. And my mention of Peter Neumann is apposite. For to the extent that we have what I think is the courage to admit that physical controls are important to ending such nauseating phenomena as child porn and "alt.flame-the-n*s", note that ordinary people and their willingness to engage, such as Peter Neumann, become foregrounded and once again important. Poet Robert Bly has seen how the "freedom" of the Internet is a form of out-of-control sibling rivalry, and not only vicious children need adults...adults need to be adults. When I first started sending book reviews to Amazon, I found that my postings were carefully and professionally edited. For example, I sent an overly wordy review of a philosophy textbook, and the editor, amusingly, cut it down to my most important question, "was Theodore Adorno a schnook or a good guy?", making me sound like Yogi Berra, a man whom I admire. Later on, owing probably to Amazon cutbacks, I found that the editor disappeared. I would prefer, however, to be part of a discourse community which includes editors...despite the fact that I do not always listen to editors. For in a society with no critique, there is no listening. This is why my main problem is with Prof Sunstein's ability to make a distinction between types of controls. Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=74&t=66&admview=1 Well, Matt, you do a thorough job of presenting Cass Sunstein's arguments, but then you make a one paragraph argument, irrevelant to Sunstein's case: that it would not be very nice for the government to tell us what to watch. To call ideas a "smorgasbord" is to beg the question at a deep level, for the whole case that nonlibertarians make is that ideas are not physical objects, or food. This is a technician's metaphor, used for convenience in technical work. It assigns a minimal positive value to any idea (such as the ideas of racists) and even to nonsense texts. By virtue of occupying some bytes, "green ideas sleep furiously" becomes a textual citizen. If I am what the British navy called "Sparks", sending a message in Morse code, I will send "green ideas sleep furiously" without complaint. Today, if I am a computer programmer, I will allow the same text to be a person's name un a data base UNLESS directed otherwise. Theodore Roszak has deconstructed this confusion which comes from the technical success of information theory, which is completely silent on the meaning of "green ideas sleep furiously." The confusion may be materially assisted in a trivial way by vernacular American postmodernism which thinks that Derrida approves of equating Madonna, and Michelangelo (he doesn't.) As it happens, Matt, a few small corporations, which are rapidly becoming multinational crypto-governments, tell us what to watch, and a site such as Prof. Sunstein describes would be as refreshing as were certain Works Progress Administration (WPA) sites were in the Great Depression. Somehow, capitalism never delivered Diego Rivera's murals (although it will resell them.) Many people might be able to do without Diego Rivera's murals, but not without Raphael, and it is questionable whether Raphael could or would make Web sites today. To call ideas a "smorgasbord" conceals, under the image of Scandinavian abundance, a scarcity model in which the actual Scandinavian peasant or worker gazes through the window pane at the bourgeois brunch, and resolves either to move to America, or stay at home and build a welfare state. But in actuality, the Open Source movement is right, and more so than it knows. For not only does information want to be free, it wants to be nondenumerably infinite. This means that even governmental and physical limitation (far harsher than what Prof Sunstein so mildly suggests) can coexist with an open society. The BBC programming was of high quality in 1972 when it was quite limited compared to today's international programming, yet the news of British misbehavior in Derry was nonetheless revealed. For it is a technician's confusion that social relations don't have any sway. Subject: Re: Why Not Practice What You Preach? Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=75&t=68&admview=1 Thanks much. My little webpage was created by the university here, and I think it consists mostly of a cv with links to some academic papers, and I'd be really surprised if many people were interested in looking at it. With the links idea, I'm thinking about sites where people really get a set of identifible opinions, eg, the New Republic, National Review, the Sierra Club, the Weekly Standard. I'm not sure if it's important for professors to be linking to one another's sites (though I certainly wouldn't mind!). Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=76&t=67&admview=1 The book is mostly about the prerequisites for democracy, and the thought experiment about complete personalization is used to try to get at those prerequisites. The real aim is to show that a world of gated communities, of whatever sort, isn't very good for democracy. With respect to the Internet, all I mean to say is that a lot of people are using it to personalize -- to filter in and to filter out -- in a way that for many, means that horizons are being narrowed. (Of course many, many people are curious and do nothing of this sort.) I do think it's true that there's been a dramatic increase in the power to specialize; consider magazines, radio, and television. The power to specialize has many benefits, and is on balance a good thing. But there's a risk, which is what the book tries to describe. Take a look, for example, at the book's discussion of hate sites. Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=77&t=66&admview=1 I'm very grateful for the review, but the book isn't mostly about the need for government regulation. The chapter on reforms is very brief and very tentative, and most of what I discuss is intended for the private sector, not government. I'm pretty sure I say that private solutions are favored and that government solutions should be disfavored. I also think I say that the regulatory options should be "considered," without specifically endorsing any one.(I didn't mean to endorse Shapiro's proposal, and don't think that I did, though I do think it's worth considering.) Anyway that's not what the book is really about. It's much more focussed on the idea of citizenship and the value of public spaces and exposure to a range of topics and ideas. Of course it's reasonable to be nervous about government's role here. Subject: Re: Quest for community on internet Author: Carl Lebeck Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=79&t=59&admview=1 Mr Nilges' point seems to be about the same as Joseph Brodsky's "the greatest sin against art is not burning books but not listening". However, if I like to make comments on books like professor Sunstein's republic.com there's no reason why I should look for the state to compel other people to listen to my comments. My concerns with Sunstein's point is mainly following: which burdens are acceptable to put on the shoulders of the citizen in a polity for enhancing public deliberation or something else that representatives of the majority regards as valuable (but not necessarily - although very often so - the majority itself, remember social choice). If burdening with costs for gathering information that can be a restraint on people's choice of consumption. Even if a society needs this or that in the sense that a society is getting better with this or that, such a statement does not answer questions about priorities. Another more practical problem with Sunstein's approach to this seems to be governmental misuse of this "nofiltering-duty of internet suppliers(?)". Why should government in the long run enhance pluralism through internet and not just choosing a quite narrow set of ideas supported by a coalition of interests. Filtering X is ok, but ny Z and Y etc. Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=80&t=40&admview=1 I think we agree on many points here. Certainly I agree that many, many people are using the internet to confront new opinions and new topics. Actually I don't think I ever say that most people are using the internet to narrow their horizons; actually I think exactly the opposite. (Probably I should have been clearer on that, and will try to be in the paperback, if I get a chance to fix this.) But even as we celebrate the internet, partly because of the range of choices it creates, we might want to have some sense of what a good democracy requires, and to see that problems will emerge if people end up in echo chambers of their own choosing. Any disagreement there? Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=81&t=40&admview=1 Thanks to T.K. Wilson. Agreed, absolutely no one is qualified to make these decisions for individual human beings. Agreed, entirely, about academics too. The question is whether as citizens of a democracy, we might be able to ensure that the internet works as well as it possibly can. Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=82&t=59&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > Mike Godwin writes: > > >Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > >> I only would add that the Internet is a tough > >> neighborhood where words become fighting words very quickly Edward Nilges writes: > >Not in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire sense, they don't. > "Fighting words" has a very specific >meaning in > constitutional law -- it has to do with actual violence or > the likelihood of triggering it -- >that is inapplicable in > the context of heated exchanges on the Net. > > Inapplicable? Hardly. It is clear that you don't understand Chaplinsky doctrine. "Fighting words" doctrine, to the extent it has any meaning at all in current jurisprudence, refers to words that by their nature cause imminent violence (or, at the broadest reading, are likely to cause imminent violence). > It is true that fighting words cannot cause remote posters to > IMMEDIATELY start fighting, physically. Hence, Chaplinsky is wholly inapplicable. Reread the case and the commentary. > However, fighting > words that cause a poster to start, illegally, a plan to > physically retaliate against the person of his opponent could > occur. That's an event that falls under Brandenberg analysis, not Chaplinsky analysis. You've got your paradigms confused. > Anyway, it's good to hear from you again, Mike, after all > these years, and once again have the opportunity to discuss > issues. Thanks. --Mike Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=83&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > But even as we > celebrate the internet, partly because of the range of > choices it creates, we might want to have some sense of what > a good democracy requires, and to see that problems will > emerge if people end up in echo chambers of their own > choosing. Any disagreement there? There certainly is disagreement. First of all, I don't think the problem you're proposing a cure for actually exists. I think it's a problem invented so that the author can then propose what he imagines is a provocative solution. Secondly, even if it does exist, it is not a product of the Internet -- which is to say, if people are cocooning themselves now, they probably always have done so, and nothing about the Internet makes that more or less likely. (Although pegging a theory on the Internet does increase one's chances of getting a book contract.) Third, if some subset of people want to put themselves into echo chambers, it is paternalism to insist that they not do so, or try to structure society to prevent them from doing so. That kind of pseudocommunitarianism is just authoritarianism with a Happy Face. It's one thing to tell citizens that it's a good idea for them to eat their greens. It's quite another for the government to structure society so that every one has to eat greens. Let's get back to the idea of books. I note that my book disagrees substantially with Professor Sunstein's. I think that, pursuant to Professor Sunstein's discussion, it is appropriate for Sunstein's book to include text from mine, so as to minimize the risk that someone will read Republic.com and come away with a one-sided sense of what the issues are. Isn't book-reading just as echo-chambery as the Internet, if not moreso? --Mike Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=84&t=40&admview=1 Mike Godwin wrote: > (There are potential social harms associated with filtering -- notably > when it's government-imposed, or built into the design and structure of > the Internet -- but Sunstein doesn't seem to care what they actually are.) Another aspect of Republic.com that I thought, well, unhelpful, was the use of the word "filtering" to describe what is better termed "personalization". I believe it is good for discussion and thinking to very carefully distinguish between: 1) software which tries to find what a person wants (personalization) and 2) software which tries to prevent a person from reading what an authority forbids (censorware) These are extremely different technical problems. But using the same word to describe them tends to blur and conflate many issues. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=85&t=67&admview=1 But you write "In reality, we are not so very far from complete personalization of the system of communications." I simply do not see how this statement is accurate. The claim that the Internet has an effect which means, quote: "for many, means that horizons are being narrowed" is hardly proved by basing this on speculative Artificial Intelligence ideas. I'm reminded of world-of-the-future articles from popular magazines, which talked about how we'd have personal helicopters and electricity too cheap to meter. The fact that a company sends out a press release, or a technology pundit-impresario promises the sky, doesn't make it true. Only about a year ago, there was a manic flood of stories about how technology stocks were going to enrich everyone who participated. It may be a thought experiment, but it's a thought experiment based on claims which are, in my view, incorrect. And if they in fact were correct, the implications would be so profound as to thoroughly revamp society. I don't see at all there's been a *dramatic* *increase* in the power to specialize. Rather, there's been an arguable increase in certain niche markets, which is hardly the same. One of the easiest things in the world is to ignore newspapers. I don't see how the Internet affects this. If anything I'd say the effect is positive, as it's much easier to find the New York Times website than the New York Times paper. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=86&t=66&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: "To the extent that sites do not do this, voluntary self regulation through cooperative agreements might do the job. If these routes do not work, it would be worthwhile considering content-neutral regulation, designed to ensure more in the way of both links and hyperlinks." The phrase "would be worthwhile considering" does appear to advocate government meddling in the form of forced links and hyperlinks. Also could you please explain in greater detail what content-neutral regulations are? Cass Sunstein wrote: “It's much more focussed on the idea of citizenship and the value of public spaces and exposure to a range of topics and ideas. Of course it's reasonable to be nervous about government's role here.” How’s that different than going to a public library and just choosing to go to the Jewish studies area? Wouldn’t your proposal be akin to forcing library patrons to view material against their wishes if for example a patron only wanted to read Jewish history? You’re not advocating that the patron be forced to view pro-Palestine material or Holocaust revisionist literature, even if it were only a cite or a sign posted on each book with directions to the opposing information? How do you know that the exposure to such opposing viewpoints might not lead to more radicalism and extremism not less. I don’t think you’ve properly thought this through. Also wouldn’t your theory actually limit intellectual exploration, by forcing free inquiry down a state approved path? Which incidently is one of the reasons I oppose (CIPA), The Children’s Internet Protection Act. I realize of course that your “daily me” is different than the filtering (censorware) software that schools and libraries must install if they accept Federal money. But what is your opinion of CIPA? Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Why Not Practice What You Preach? Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=87&t=68&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > > Thanks much. My little webpage was created by the > university here, and I think it consists mostly of a cv with > links to some academic papers, and I'd be really surprised if > many people were interested in looking at it. With the links > idea, I'm thinking about sites where people really get a set > of identifible opinions, eg, the New Republic, National > Review, the Sierra Club, the Weekly Standard. I'm not sure if > it's important for professors to be linking to one another's > sites (though I certainly wouldn't mind!). I don’t see why acedemia should get a pass while opinion journals don’t. Besides, based on your theory, wouldn’t the no linkage to opposing viewpoints on accedemic sites such as yours lead to an Intellectual Potemkin village? But if it doesn’t why doesn’t it? And since in your book you mention “FREE SPEECH IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE” why should your site be allowed unfettered speech, but the New Republic and National Review not? You don’t seem very consistent. So if you really don't mind placing opposing viewpoints on your site, when can I expect to see them? You would after all be setting a good example. Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=88&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > But even as we > celebrate the internet, partly because of the range of > choices it creates, we might want to have some sense of what > a good democracy requires, and to see that problems will > emerge if people end up in echo chambers of their own > choosing. Any disagreement there? Yes- Much disagreement. And what happens if people don’t specialize, or become obsessive and fanatical? Isn’t most art and much of worthwhile literature produced by such individuals? I’d even worry about the state of political ideology. Melba toast may be palatable, but it doesn’t really satisfy. I understand your concern over zealots, but really isn’t that how political movements, or just about anything is created? Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=89&t=66&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > Well, Matt, you do a thorough job of presenting Cass > Sunstein's arguments, but then you make a one paragraph > argument, irrevelant to Sunstein's case: that it would not be > very nice for the government to tell us what to watch. > > To call ideas a "smorgasbord" is to beg the question at a > deep level... It would indeed not be nice for the government to force links down our proverbial throats. Would you really want someone like Orin Hatch or Jesse Helms deciding which links get chosen to be opposing viewpoints. Or even if you could get the perfect neutral party to administer the links, what happens after their gone? Are you saying that the Internet doesn’t offer a "smorgasbord” of ideas, in a way magnified many times over a local library? I meant it in that sense. Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=90&t=40&admview=1 Just to be clear, the word "personalization" is used in the text. But there's also passages such as Unlimited filtering may seem quite strange, perhaps even the stuff of science fiction. But it is not entirely different from what has come before. Filtering is inevitable, a fact of life. It is as old as humanity itself. No one can see, hear, or read everything. In the course of any hour, let alone any day, every one of us engages in massive filtering, simply to make life manageable and coherent. This use - "filtering, filtering, filtering ...", creates a severe linguistic problem when the word "filter" is also used, too commonly, to describe programs which are designed and optimized to STOP people from what they want to see, hear, or read, because an authority deems that material is harmful (censorware). Note as far as I know, Republic.com is not concerned with censorware. However, again, wording such as the above is unhelpful. I wish passages like that had talked of sorting or selection instead. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: T.K. Wilson Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=91&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: >But even as we celebrate the internet, partly because of the range of > choices it creates, we might want to have some sense of what > a good democracy requires, and to see that problems will > emerge if people end up in echo chambers of their own > choosing. Any disagreement there? Dr. Sunstein, I certainly appreciate the initiative required to put ones ideas and opinions on public display and to invite as broad a public criticism of them as possible. Prior to the advent of the internet, my interaction with you; or certainly even my awareness, would have been non existant. I have to agree with Mike Godwin (in substance, not tone) that people have an inalienable right to end up where ever they choose (be it an echo chamber or a wind tunnel) and that no one has the right to regulate that in any way and that any "regulation" of such choice is absolutely intolerable. What occurs to me is that similar sentiments to yours were probably voiced at the advent of the telegraph, then radio, then television and now the internet. What regulation has brought us is quite clear when turning on either the radio or the television. Radio is possibly the most egregious example of this in that an unelected government bureaucracy (FCC) aided by congressmen with greed in their hearts has declared the air to be government property which it litterally holds hostage, giving away "pieces" of air to whoever has the most money and sending bands of armed men to attack anyone who might dare challenge their authority. And this is "democracy"? This is what you would protect and continue with more regulation? I think you need to back clear up and start over and not just ammend what you've written. Of course I, like you, think it would be best if you saw things my way. That, though, is not an idea I would want to see "regulated" in either of our favors. In short; what is needed is dialogue on the relavance of governance itself, in any form, to freedom of speech and assosciation. What is needed is dialouge on the regulation of government. We do have a serious problem and it is not, in my view, the internet, although the internet may well prove to be a bloodless solution, unless we allow our "democratically elected" government to get a stranglehold here too. I have to go now; there's a knocking on the door. Thanks, TK Wilson "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Dr. Jack Sarfatti Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=92&t=40&admview=1 What evidence is there that "people end up in echo chambers of their own choosing"? Some do, some don't. It's a matter of character, intelligence and mental stability. Some people I know who are intelligent are like Tristram Shandy's Uncle Toby on a hobby horse stuck in an obsessive compulsive deep attractor on their "mental landscape" (ref. "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann). These people tend to be fanatics attracted to cults, militias, terrorist organizations and fundamentalist simplistic beliefs generally whether on the left or on the right -- very dangerous people to be sure. The Internet I would think would tend to awaken them from their dogmatic slumbers? There is a famous classic sci fi story about this from either the 30's or the 40's. I read it as a kid. I forget the name. Of course the idea is already in H.G. Wells's "The Time Machine". PS Indeed, Marie Antoinette expressed it succinctly in "Let them eat cake." :-) Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Eugenia Macer-Story Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=93&t=40&admview=1 Hi Jack-- As regards your comments,. I think that the Internet--like all tools of communication--has a distinctive modality which has to be learned. At first--having been provoked onto the Interet by edoitors demanding email contact--I was stiff and literary (still can be) in correspondence. It's from all that Victorian literaturte I read as a youth.:-) Then Adam GoRightly--a journalist who has interviewed me for Magonia and continues to be actively interested in my stuff (actually sending me a fee last week for a consultation on his career...:-))--got in touch with me by snail mail and prodded me to get on the Net, be up to date...and so on...GoRightly is abpout ten to fifteen years younger than I...Like the proverbial Old Guy courting a heart attack with a younger admirer, I got onto the Net, began corresponding with GoRightly & young punk gang friends like Richard Metzger of disinfo.com...then realized I was addressing a "limited audience" and--after a telephone call from Devin--Brother Blue about my stuff-from the "outside world"-started the "broadcast" style of email/website Magick Mirror I have been using ever since...but it was an evolution. I had to learn not to mistake an email list for the cosmos at my fingertips. A natural mistake in those used to film & TV and looking at a monitor. Or...IS the cosmos at my fingertips. Jack? What do you think? BTW:I am very grateful to GoRightly, the folks at Elfis.net (publishers of my recent OPERATION ABJECT article) and so on for promoting my work...me, a woman old enough to be the mother of Elfis.com...but that makes it twice as interesting, eh? Best--Eugenia Macer-Story Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=94&t=40&admview=1 "Dr. Jack Sarfatti" wrote: "Some people I know who are intelligent are like Tristram Shandy's Uncle Toby on a hobby horse stuck in an obsessive compulsive deep attractor on their "mental landscape" (ref. "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann). These people tend to be fanatics attracted to cults, militias, terrorist organizations and fundamentalist simplistic beliefs generally whether on the left or on the right -- very dangerous people to be sure. The Internet I would think would tend to awaken them from their dogmatic slumbers?" So what? Why look at the freedom of the Internet as a negative? Isn’t most decent art or worthwhile literature created by fanatics and obsessives who immerse themselves in their work? I’d hate to see creativity and perseverance replaced with forced thought police in an effort to sidetrack the gifted. Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Why Not Practice What You Preach? Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=95&t=68&admview=1 You have a good idea! I've encouraged the person in charge here to set up links to Richard Epstein, probably the most prominent libertarian law professor in the US (see his books, Takings (1985) and Forbidden Grounds (circa 1995), and also to Catharine MacKinnon, probably the most prominent radical feminist law professor in the US (see her books Feminism Unmodified, circa 1985, and Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, circa 1990).. Though I'm not in charge of my website (the university is), my hunch is that they'll do this; many thanks for the good suggestion. Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Eugenia Macer-Story Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=96&t=40&admview=1 Greetings: I think that some version of reference on the Internet might be good if it is not censorship.Perhaps a "webmasters" fiunction might evolve wherein responses to controversial sites might be logged and opinions on those sites might be polled. Recently, I had lunch with my cousin--a civilian employee of the Navy who works in D.C.-and , knowing of my recent publications & connections on the web, he saidf provocatively:"You know: everything you read on the web is not true It's too diffuse, too abstract.Actual printed writing is tighter, more formulated, more disciplined."My initial reaction to this statement was visceral. I was angry. I thought:"Everyone knows this.Why are you saying this to me? Don't you know my publications are ALSO in hard copy form?" But then we got sidetracked into a discussion of craftedic literary styles and I droped the subject. My opinion is that people in a free society must be allowed to make their own decisions.I do not, for example, support the idea that all guns should be in the hands of a military or police elite. This creates a feared, Facist heirarchy.But referencing and. ultimately, product licensing assists people to make decisions about guns and websites. My decision is to do all forms of media, including hard copy & internet.I do not own a gun as my wrists, adapted for years to play the guitar, are too finely-aligned to shoot a weapon with a kick-back accurately. Best--Eugenia Macer-Story Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=97&t=66&admview=1 Prof Sunstein tries to respond politely with what has become the real "political correctness" of our time: a disavowal of any attempt to use government for even benign purposes. Matthew's reply is, I am sad to say, rather inflammatory in that it uses carefully selected code words, making what I believe is a false analogy, between forcing a library patron interested in Jewish history to read Holocaust "revisionism." Matthew, Professor Sunstein laid out carefully the reasons why this analogy does NOT apply to the Internet. Cyberspace is by nature both highly focused and customizable, whereas when one looks at books filed according to conventional systems, one will automatically and by the nature of things get a series of differing, if not opposing, viewpoints. Thus if one looks in the Mideast section of a library, one will find Bernard Lewis alongside Edward Said, Tariq Ali, and Paul Johnson. Each of these authors has different views on the questions of the Mideast. But by default, a Web site "on" a particular topic will either be restricted to or will emphasize authors and viewpoints favorable to the institution creating the site. The conditions of production of Web sites alone, the fact that their creators make them rapidly, tends to a sort of triage in which the views of the sponsor are important and Prof. Sunstein's links are marginal. Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Mike Volk Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=98&t=67&admview=1 Why is the personal filtering in/out worse than the "media" doing it for/to us. I personally don't filter but given the internet scope, I think you'll find that much more information about a wider range of topics is available and it SHOULD be the individuals choice what they want to follow -- Not yours, Not the governments and certain ly not traditional media. A current example of the filtering done by the media is ask your typical american about the flack with the british nuclear submarines in Gibraltar. Most people go "Huh?" For all the activist and other concerned citizens this is important news that is being "largely ignored" by mainstream media but the internet allows people to easily see that information worldwide. Basically, stop trying to blame the medium and try focusing on the real issue -- better education and social awareness. The internet is just a tool, it is not the cause of the ills of the world nor is it the cure for the ills. Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=99&t=66&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > Prof Sunstein tries to respond politely with what has > become the real "political correctness" of our time: a > disavowal of any attempt to use government for even benign > purposes. But in this case governmental force isn't benign. And forcing people to disseminate information they disagree with, even if just a link, is something befitting an Orwellian state and has no place in an open and free society. The answer to speech is more speech not forced state approved speech. Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Why Not Practice What You Preach? Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=100&t=68&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > > You have a good idea! I've encouraged the person in > charge here to set up links to Richard Epstein, probably the > most prominent libertarian law professor in the US (see his > books, Takings (1985) and Forbidden Grounds (circa 1995), and > also to Catharine MacKinnon, probably the most prominent > radical feminist law professor in the US (see her books > Feminism Unmodified, circa 1985, and Toward a Feminist Theory > of the State, circa 1990).. Though I'm not in charge of my > website (the university is), my hunch is that they'll do > this; many thanks for the good suggestion. Great. I'll be looking forward to see how you implement your theory. You could have made your book stronger at least by moral suasion, to have shown your web site as an example of toleration and diversity. You’re right that it is better to implement your "opposing links" theory by choice rather than legislation. State power shouldn’t be used so casually, and I’m not sure the risk of cybercascades warrants such extreme intervention. Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=101&t=67&admview=1 I think the argument of the book is consistent with everything you say here. Subject: Re: Quest for community on internet Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=102&t=59&admview=1 Carl, today, when discussion turns to almost any state or community-sponsored effort, the keyword of conservatism is 'compel" as in "should we allow the state to compel...". In at least some contexts, this keyword can be replaced by "enable." The Federal Aeronautics Administration, by "compelling" pilots to listen to controllers, "enables" a commercial aviation marketplace. It is said, by certain ideologues, that air traffic control can be privatized. But even if it can, no sane ideologue claims that the air traffic control system is evil state compulsion, and professional writers on aviation admit that were we to revert to the aviation system of the 1920s or 1930s, only adventurous people would fly...the absence of government "compulsion" would create a perception that flying is unsafe. Cass Sunstein commences from a naturalized artifact, the Web page, which seems inevitable but actually represents a myriad of technical choices which derive from cultural preconceptions, most of which are benign. He quotes Mr Gates as emphasizing the individual's desire to "filter out" content in which the individual is uninterested. This encapsulates a common perception of the educated American: that the set of things which may claim his attention is already overlarge, and that he can trust his own formed perception of what might be useful. Software developers of course cater to this cultural bias and are very careful to either narrow the bandwidth, or enable customization. But this means that the person walking into the library is presented with "roads not taken" and may profit from these roads. A person thinking of a career as an air traffic controller may pick up a book on software development by accident. He has not been compelled to take a look at the alternative. He has been enabled. Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=103&t=59&admview=1 Mike, current jurisprudence includes feminist jurisprudence which changes the fighting words doctrine, based on the idea that people can be verbally wounded (a part of common sense.) It is true that traditional American political speech has always been fairly uncontrolled, and for this reason, a Sensitive Soul should not contemplate a career in politics. However, this ignores the fact that there has always been a form of unspoken agreement, now under attack, to avoid certain types of attacks over and above "fighting words." "Smashmouth" campaigning not only wounds actual people, it also, unlike traditional debate, does not appear to help people understand issues. We can link feminist jurisprudence in surprising ways with the need to legally reassert traditional unspoken norms; for example, Gerry Spence has pointed out that in two cases (Kim Pring and Jerry Falwell), a semipublic and a public figure were unnecessarily wounded by overly literal interpretations of the First Amendment, without the public interest being advanced. I'm afraid the understanding you demand of me is less understanding than consent to restrict my attention to your favorite texts. This type of narrowcasted understanding, however, is precisely the kind of understanding that results in Prof. Sunstein's "opinion cascades", where knowledge consists in agreement with a group that has had its attention restricted to the favored precedents. Prior to about 1940 and the Brandeis court, freedom of speech was understood to be freedom of political speech, and political speech alone. This means we are not bound to the "fighting words" doctrine and can change it in order to spare women verbal attacks, to spare children exposure to pornography, and to spare college students of color an Internet, zones of which appear to be completely dominated by the Klan. To think that this puts us on a slippery slope to Taliban is to manifest insecurity about our own common sense and generosity. Subject: Re: Quest for community on internet Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=104&t=59&admview=1 Correction: I meant, of course, the Federal Aviation Administration...my apologies! Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=105&t=66&admview=1 Matthew, I live in North Carolina at the present time, and I was quite offended by the new "reality" programs like Temptation Island. Developed, to be brutal, because Hollywood is faced with an imminent strike by screenwriters, these programs use and victimize people to create content. The participants in programs like Survivor and Temptation Island are foolish enough to work for free, and are systematically humiliated. My local cable provider is still family-owned, and the family has made a decision not to carry Temptation Island. I do not share their religious convictions on the sanctity of marriage (I believe marriage has a natural sanctity) but I believe that in this case, their property right trumps my "right" to watch morons cavort. Note that two rights are at issue here, and both are supported by the right, and note that simple-minded discussion ignores the need to balance rights. Note, also, that the enhanced ability of the Web to carry nonstandard views (of which this thread is an example) that it becomes simply less important that Jesse or Orrin is telling a left-wing group to put links to right-wing views on its Web site. I meant by my "smorgasbord" comment to point out that we think about digital circuitry in convenient metaphors which rapid change undercuts. When I am eating sausage I am not eating beef, but when I am espousing a political view I am engaging its opposite. Discourse ethics compels me to at least name, and in some cases describe, my opponents' position, in the way that the most successful rhetors of the ancient world were also, in their self-confidence, fair, and clear, in presenting the argument of the opposing side. Only devolved and vicious children wish to hide the opposing view. Shakespeare's Marc Antony is a fictional presentation of a reality that the Renaissance admired in the surviving texts: the ability to "link", as in connect, to an opponent's view (for Brutus is an honorable man) so thoroughly as to reinforce one's own case. If a Webmaster is scared of links to his opponents, he'd do well to brush up on Julius Caesar. Subject: Re: Do guns kill people? Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=106&t=40&admview=1 Sigh... Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=107&t=59&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > Mike, current jurisprudence includes feminist > jurisprudence which changes the fighting words doctrine, > based on the idea that people can be verbally wounded (a part > of common sense.) I don't believe this is a correct statement of the law with regard to the meaning of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. >We can link feminist jurisprudence > in surprising ways with the need to legally reassert > traditional unspoken norms; for example, Gerry Spence has > pointed out that in two cases (Kim Pring and Jerry Falwell), > a semipublic and a public figure were unnecessarily wounded > by overly literal interpretations of the First Amendment, > without the public interest being advanced. I believe the correct reading of Gerry Spence's comments (assuming your characterization of them is true) is that he is expressing disagreement with current First Amendment jurisprudence. Which is to say, what you're asserting here is not Firat Amendment jurisprudence as it is, but as you wish it to be. > I'm afraid the understanding you demand of me is less > understanding than consent to restrict my attention to your > favorite texts. I'm not sure what you mean here. My favorite texts? > Prior to about 1940 and the Brandeis court, freedom of speech > was understood to be freedom of political speech, and > political speech alone. The notion you advance here has been challenged by David Rabban's FREE SPEECH IN ITS FORGOTTEN YEARS. >This means we are not bound to the > "fighting words" doctrine and can change it in order to spare > women verbal attacks, to spare children exposure to > pornography, and to spare college students of color an > Internet, zones of which appear to be completely dominated by > the Klan. Get back to me when you've succeeded in changing it. In the meantime, I'll stick with talking about what the current understanding of "fighting words" doctrine is. --Mike Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=108&t=40&admview=1 Mike, I welcome the contributions of law professors like Cass and Larry Lessig. Law professors, like computer nerds, vote in elections and get their driver's license renewed. They live in the real world and their education in most cases enhances and does not downgrade their awareness. Just as it is unfair to say to a computer programmer that, always and everywhere, his perceptions are distorted by "the bits and bytes", it is also just prejudiced to say that the law professor is blinded by his precedents and his law. Your case is based in part by a claim that the field of knowledge, as retained by ordinary people, is quite vast and unchanging. However, there are indications that the Internet and its ability to narrowcast has created ignorance along with knowledge. For example, the phenomenon of "neo Secessionism", groups of people who believe that the South and the Sunbelt in general should secede from those naughty states up north that voted for Gore, cannot be understood without the Internet, which has allowed people in many regions to conclude that this stupid idea is a good idea. They share texts which, for example, claim that Jefferson Davis freed the Confederacy's slaves. This is not an exclusively technical phenomenon. English historian Norman Davies names increasing historical illiteracy in England as a real problem (people there believe that Henry V's famous victory occured in 1066.) Back in the States, I was traveling through Harper's Ferry to find that a fellow Amtrak passenger was simultaneously a resident of Harper's Ferry, and an authority on its local history...who did not know who John Brown was. We cannot blame the Internet for these phenomena. But insofar as they result from the very attitude that "I now have a BA (or MBA, or MSCS, or PhD): therefore it is time to get a good job and my learning days are over", the Internet's design encapsulates this social prejudice. It was developed (by reengineering Arpanet) on a privatized model in which the user was not a student, or teacher, or researcher, but instead a customer, in a culture where we say "the customer is always right." For this reason, the Internet has a tendency to reify certain errors. Mr Norman Davies finds that the Oxford University Library, accessible through the Internet, lists all histories of his people under United Kingdom, an entity created in 1707. The reification is insulting to Celts and others who might have found the creation of the UK under good Queen Anne high-handed, to say the least. Prof Sunstein, with more intellectual humility than I possess, phrases the problem not as one of positive error (for indeed we have to call the two large islands near France something and there is a sense that UK is just a label) but of fairness. I think the relative ease of Internet access, courtesy of the free market, provides a high initial level of fairness, but I am concerned that we still need a core vision of correspondence with (if not a set of truths) a set of norms. If that makes me a monstrum horrendum of the right, I am willing to play the role, and take the heat off of Prof Sunstein. However, the vigor in this discussion of attacks on Prof Sunstein's mild proposals is disturbing, for a counter-riposte needs to be based on the notion that some propositions are true and others false. The default intellectual egalitarianism of the Internet masks the real power of commercial speech, and endangers reputations and lives: journalist Richard Reeves, in a recent C-Span discussion, identifies a Web site that lists "pedophiles" without checking to see if the people so named are indeed convicted pedophiles. As both Prof Sunstein and Prof Lessig have pointed out, cyberspace does not have a constitution. A constitution that says "all is permitted" is disingenuous since it is *carte blanche* to the most powerful players, whose power is amplified by the very materiality (the big servers) of the Internet. Subject: Re: Quest for community on internet Author: Carl Lebeck Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=109&t=59&admview=1 Ok, here we go again.. if the government (in whatever constitutional setting it may be) in the long run enables me or burdens me may be discussed. It is however perfectly clear it is burdening me in the short run. Opening other paths or "roads not taken" and similar things are burdens, i.e. costs in time or money - or both. Mr Nilge's arguments are hardly convincing as the assumption is that we need someone to break our isolation and to elevate us to a proper level of civicness. A consequence of that must - if I haven't misread him - be a strong and ardent defense of paternalist policies as citizens can never know of their own isolation and hardly take proper measures to break it. Mr Nilges makes the comparison with regulation of airlines, airports and I assume airslots. Well, the point is that there is a least common interest in such regulation (which does not imply that the airtraffic is not overregulated sometimes) as such regulations are a pre-requisite for airtraffic at all. However there is no common interest in regulating internet in that way as such regulation is not a pre-requisite for using internet. This will be my last comment on this debate due to other work. Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=110&t=40&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > Mike, I welcome the contributions of law professors > like Cass and Larry Lessig. You can't lump these two together. My friend Larry, who is wrong on some issues, nevertheless has put himself on the line to promote free-speech interests, most recently in Eldred v. Reno. Sunstein, who has never met a restriction on freedom of speech he didn't like, has done nothing for the rest of us except generate mischievous suggestions like those in Republic.com. >Law professors, like computer > nerds, vote in elections and get their driver's license > renewed. They live in the real world and their education in > most cases enhances and does not downgrade their awareness. Ignorance, however, downgrades anyone's awareness, and it's clear that Sunstein is ignorant of the diversity of speech on the Internet and of the dynamics there. He's also exploiting public anxiety about a new mass medium to make criticisms and suggest reforms that are equally (and distressingly) applicable to other mass media, including newspapers and book publishing. In short, Sunstein hasn't done his research. > However, there are indications that the Internet > and its ability to narrowcast has created ignorance along > with knowledge. So? This is true of books as well. >They share texts which, for > example, claim that Jefferson Davis freed the Confederacy's > slaves. This phenomenon predates the Internet. > We cannot blame the > Internet for these phenomena. Now you're getting it. Sunstein wants government intervention to make sure we think good, informed thoughts, and this goal is only incidentally connected to the Internet. > For this reason, the Internet has a tendency to reify certain > errors. The tendency of errors to be reified is a human tendency, not a technological one. > However, the vigor in this discussion of attacks on Prof > Sunstein's mild proposals is disturbing, for a > counter-riposte needs to be based on the notion that some > propositions are true and others false. As, in fact, has been the case. >The default > intellectual egalitarianism of the Internet masks the real > power of commercial speech, and endangers reputations and > lives: journalist Richard Reeves, in a recent C-Span > discussion, identifies a Web site that lists "pedophiles" > without checking to see if the people so named are indeed > convicted pedophiles. I'm sure my friend Dick Reeves did not mean for his comments to be taken as an indictment of the Ineternet, or as an endorsement of proposals like those of Sunstein. ---Mike Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=111&t=67&admview=1 Cass Sunstein's argument is independent of the question whether or not the AI assumption is true, for Prof Sunstein's argument rests, not on whether the filters really are sufficient to reflect "what I want" but on their existence. Indeed, his argument is reinforced by any inadequacy of the filters. The idea that an AI system could be aware of "what I want" is to me based on an absurdly limited idea of the contents of any given human psyche. Computer technology seems to have the ideological message that Freud was wrong, and that there is neither such a thing as false consciousness, nor desire for the wrong thing, or any kind of ambivalence whatsoever. Studs Terkel interviewed a former Klansman here in Durham NC who was more or less forced out of his preconceptions by the necessity as a union member for him to work alongside African-American new hires. We do not regard (I hope) the Civil Rights act as "compelling" this person to change his beliefs: we regard it as enabling the change. Under the libertarian message that it is always and everywhere wrong to "compel" exposure is an old Southern case for freedom of association, and disassociation. We have to treat this case with a respect it did not receive in midcentury from liberals who in their own way were as ideological as today's libertarians, and no less than Hannah Arendt made this case. People do enjoy a right of association and this right needs to be ported to the net. But note that Cass Sunstein does not require you to click on the link, he only suggests that the link be there. In this, he is like Thomas Penfield Jackson, judge in the Microsoft case. Microsoft did not want any part of the Windows desktop to be dedicated to links to competing browsers and its case was based in part on the idea that the Windows desktop was its intellectual property. A parallel case is made as regards the Web page: this page is my intellectual property and therefore I should not be compelled to place links to opposing views...any more than a political candidate could place a sign on my lawn. The problem is that "intellectual property" is another metaphor (an issue on which Prof James Boyle at Duke Law has written.) Regarding a desktop or a Web Page as "my property" disregards the ontology of a situation in which (unlike your front yard) a desktop or Web page is lifeless unless viewed by another's attention. Because the thing itself consists of your bits and bites and my attention, I can reply to your assertion of property rights that the mental act itself is a form of "commons." The fact that this gets us into deep waters, previously visited only by philosophers, only underscores the very idea that cyberspace is just too important to be left to businesspeople, or even libertarians. Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=112&t=40&admview=1 Mike Godwin wrote: > Ignorance, however, downgrades anyone's awareness, and it's > clear that Sunstein is ignorant of the diversity of speech on > the Internet and of the dynamics there. He's also exploiting > public anxiety about a new mass medium to make criticisms and > suggest reforms that are equally (and distressingly) > applicable to other mass media, including newspapers and book > publishing. > > In short, Sunstein hasn't done his research. I would agree with Mike here. I have not seen a plausible explanation from Sunstein or anyone else on why his theories don’t also apply to books and other print media? It has been raised several times the question of why there has been such a reaction to Sunstein’s book. And the answer is a simple one- Some people, me in particular, don’t cotton to the notion of restricting speech online or off- Not an iota more. And I found Sunstein’s ideas not only uninformed as Mike has, but downright dangerous. Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=113&t=40&admview=1 Mike Godwin wrote: >> In short, Sunstein hasn't done his research. Matthew Gaylor wrote: > I would agree with Mike here. I will concur in part and dissent in part. It is clear that Sunstein has done some research. However, I think *a* problem is that he's believed blue-sky statements in press releases and by techo-pundits. Whereas in fact, those are nothing but puffery. I have a quandary when an argument I think is wrong, is refuted in ways that I believe attack a straw-man version of the argument. Some of the critical comments don't attack Sunstein's argument itself, but an extremely caricatured, almost unrecognizable version of it. The existence of flame-wars in mailing-lists and elsewhere isn't a refutation. And Sunstein's never said anything remotely approaching that no-one ever will argue or see contrary views on the Internet. I understand (I believe) his argument. I think it's wrong because the technical basis is very wrong. Basically, I'd *summarize* his thesis as that the power of personalization in Internet-delivered content reaches such a level as to threaten the fabric of the republic. (hence the title, Republic.com) Now there's a couple of obvious rebuttals 1) Strawman rebuttal 1 - Claim he said no-one would ever argue, point to a bunch of arguments. 2) Strawman rebuttal 2 - Claim he said there's no contrary information, point to contrary information. 3) Procedural rebuttal - government is a set of voting procedures, and that's all. These processes aren't affected, end of story. So I have some sympathy for Sunstein's message protesting that he didn't say certain things (point #3 is a quasi-religious difference). But that doesn't mean what he claims is correct. This is why I say his book rests on what I term the "AI assumption", that there's a *radical* advance in personalization on the Internet of such a magnitude that it seriously affects the functioning of governance. In a country where nearly half the population doesn't even vote, the size of the effect Sunstein postulates strikes me as utterly ludicrous. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=114&t=67&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges > Cass Sunstein's argument is independent of the question whether or > not the AI assumption is true, ... I point out his very sample chapter proclaims the critical aspect of this assumption: "the daily me" "Our communications market is rapidly moving in the direction of this apparently utopian picture" "What I will also suggest is that there are serious dangers in a system in which individuals bypass general interest intermediaries and restrict themselves to opinions and topics of their own choosing." I understand your counter-argument. The problem is that such "exposure" rules have been absolutely and thoroughly refuted in the case of paperspace, and very much removed nowadays in radio and TV. Simply arguing for them on the basis of their supposed general value is not going to get very far. This is why Sunstein needs the AI assumption to buttress his points. Internet communication must be seen as distinct, something which is not an extension of the printing press, but profoundly different (note sometimes the argument of profoundly-different is made elsewhere in a positive sense, and I've disagreed with that too). Why is a web page "lifeless", but a book not? This is the basic argument that several people have been asking. Are you willing to argue for any sort of must-carry rules in paperspace? What's the different? I believe Sunstein's difference is what I term the AI assumption. Note these must-carry ideas are NOT new. And if you think I'm a Libertarian, you're sadly misinformed. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=115&t=40&admview=1 Thanks much. The core of the book is about the preconditions for democracy, and the thought experiment of complete personalization is intended to help us see those preconditions. In speaking of the risks of the internet, I don't think I make any strong or contested assumptions about what is now happening. It's only necessary to say that a number of people (not most people) are selecting, mostly, topics and points of view that suit their interests. That's all that chapter 1 says, really. There's plenty of evidence, given in the book, to support that weak assumption. Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=116&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > > Thanks much. The core of the book is about the > preconditions for democracy, and the thought experiment of > complete personalization is intended to help us see those > preconditions. In speaking of the risks of the internet, I > don't think I make any strong or contested assumptions about > what is now happening. It's only necessary to say that a > number of people (not most people) are selecting, mostly, > topics and points of view that suit their interests. That's > all that chapter 1 says, really. There's plenty of evidence, > given in the book, to support that weak assumption. This is disingenuous. Sunstein writes in his book that "Our communications market is rapidly moving in the direction of this apparently utopian picture" and that "In reality, we are not so very far from complete personalization of the system of communications." This is a much stronger assumption, and the reason he downplays its strength now is that he knows the assumption is either trivially true to the degree that it applies to all media (such as books and magazines), or, to the extent that he means for it to apply just to networked communications, he worries that it might not be defensible. So he'd like for us not to focus on the premise of his book. But it's still the premise, regardless of what he says now. To get an idea of where Sunstein goes wrong, take a look at his reference to TiVo, for example. (It seems clear that Sunstein hasn't actually used the device.) TiVo allows you to set your TV to record all sorts of broadcasts that you specify -- it makes such settings more convenient, but this is personalization only in the sense that making TV choices always has been: e.g., choosing to watch "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" instead of "That '70s Show." (One of the advantages of these new TV-watching tools is that you can arrange to watch different broadcasts that air at the same time -- one might read this advance as an increase in the probability that audiences will see diverse content, if one weren't a tendentious law professor leveraging public anxiety about new technology to advance his longstanding anti-free-speech agenda.) People have always made choices about what to read or to watch or to listen to -- Sunstein sees something new in all this because he hasn't throught through what's old about it. My old law professor, the late Charles Alan Wright, used to prefer to get his newspaper commentary only from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. (I loved him in spite of this.) There is no question that a sizable number of people have been "personalizing" what they read or see for decades, or perhaps centuries, before the creation of the Internet. In short, the problem he purports to address is either fictional (read in its strongest sense) or nothing new (read in its weakest sense). One of Sunstein's more ridiculous rhetorical approaches in the book is to suppose that free-speech advocates generally believe that freedom of speech is an "absolute." This is hardly the case, but Sunstein's not interested in representing others' points of view accurately. Still, if there were an argument for making freedom of speech an absolute (or something close to it), Sunstein provides us with one implicitly, by showing how willing a would-be policymaker like Sunstein is to selectively choose his facts in order order to support an anti-free-speech agenda, all in the interests of better democracy. It's hard to escape the sentiment that Sunstein should never be allowed even close to the reins of power in this country, and if making free speech more of an absolute would keep his hands off communications policy in the U.S., why then it would be worth doing. Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=117&t=40&admview=1 It's very nice, at least, to find that even angry readers are willing to engage in discussion with people who disagree! I'm learning a lot from the disagreements, and I see that I should have written some of chapter 1 differently. I'll try to make some revisions for the paperback edition. William James said, roughly, that "books aren't finished; they're abandoned," which is a nice point for any author who is willing to rethink. So many thanks for the various objections. -- Actually many people, including Alexander Meiklejohn (one of my heroes), have said that free speech is an absolute. -- I do agree that the basic concerns of the book apply to any situation with many diverse speech outlets, and I've said publicly, many times, that the same concerns apply to any fragmented speech market. (I'm pretty sure I suggest that in the book too, inter alia in the context of a discussion of the old fairness doctrine, which was (a) upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court and (b) much more intrusive than any measure discussed in the book.) The internet makes a difference in degree, not in kind. -- I do think that some readers are overreacting to the mere idea of government regulation. I'm very cautious about new regulations myself and generally favor private alternatives, but it would be interesting to know whether those opposed to regulation on the internet are opposed to government bans, on the internet, of criminal conspiracy, attempted bribes, threats, child pornography, fraud, and libel -- and if not, exactly why they accept such bans. Under current law, the general rule is that speech that is unprotected in the real world is also unprotected on the internet. Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=118&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > > It's very nice, at least, to find that even angry > readers are willing to engage in discussion with people who > disagree! So much for the notion that there's any likelihood that folks will use the Internet and related technology to avoid disagreeing opinions. >Actually many people, including Alexander > Meiklejohn (one of my heroes), have said that free speech is > an absolute. It seems strange to label as one's hero someone whose principles one consistently labors to undercut. >-- I do agree that the basic concerns of the > book apply to any situation with many diverse speech outlets, > and I've said publicly, many times, that the same concerns > apply to any fragmented speech market. (I'm pretty sure I > suggest that in the book too, inter alia in the context of a > discussion of the old fairness doctrine, which was (a) upheld > by a unanimous Supreme Court and (b) much more intrusive than > any measure discussed in the book.) The Fairness Doctrine is a function of the notion that the broadcasting spectrum is special in some way and thus more deserving of regulation. (This is the import of the NBC, Red Lion, and Pacifica cases.) The notion that broadcasting, and in particular television, is special is one that modern commentators increasingly regard as intellectually bankrupt. (Sure, the broadcasting spectrum is a scarce resource, but so are daily newspapers -- there's scarcely more than one per city in the U.S. -- yet scarcity would not be seen as justifying federal intervention as to the content of newspapers.) See, e.g., Lucas A. Powe's commentary on the subject. More importantly, Sunstein misses the object lesson of broadcasting regulation, which is that when new mass media arise, somebody always comes along to say that the new medium is different and thus specially deserving of regulation, especially as to content. (The sheer incoherence of current TV content regulation, even in these latter days of relative deregulation, appears in the fractured plurality of the Supreme Court's opinion in Denver Area Consortium.) How wonderful that Sunstein has come along and is hoping that we'll recapitulate, with regard to the Internet, that terrible policy error we made with regard to broadcasting -- recreating "the licensed press" in a new medium. How sad that he does not recognize that he is reenacting the same social panic. But those who forget history, etc. > The internet makes a > difference in degree, not in kind. -- I do think that some > readers are overreacting to the mere idea of government > regulation. We're not overreacting to "the mere idea of government regulation." We're reacting quite properly to someone whose eagerness to constrain freedom of speech is well-known and well-documented. > I'm very cautious about new regulations myself .... "Cautiously positive" might be more accurate. > and generally favor private alternatives, but it would be > interesting to know whether those opposed to regulation on > the internet are opposed to government bans, on the internet, > of criminal conspiracy, attempted bribes, threats, child > pornography, fraud, and libel -- and if not, exactly why they > accept such bans. A phony question, given that the answer is in the next sentence. More importantly, it illustrates Sunstein's propensity to attribute extreme positions to those who are critical of his views. >Under current law, the general rule is that > speech that is unprotected in the real world is also > unprotected on the internet. Now you're getting it. Those who oppose the calls for Internet content regulation are arguing that content there should not be more restricted or regulated than it is when instantiated in ink on pressed wood pulp. In oither words, the argument is not that the Internet should be more free than book publishing is, but that it should be no less free. --Mike Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=119&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > Actually many people, including Alexander > Meiklejohn (one of my heroes), have said that free speech is > an absolute. Meiklejohn famously said of Times v. Sullivan that the decision was "an occasion for dancing in the streets." One imagines that Sunstein would dance in the streets were the Supreme Court to uphold a requirement that websites post links to opposing points of view. One further imagines that Meiklejohn would spin, rather than dance, in his grave. --Mike Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=120&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > Thanks much. The core of the book is about the preconditions for > democracy, and the thought experiment of complete personalization is > intended to help us see those preconditions. Even assuming that, do you see following flaws: Problem #1 - If there were an AI capable of "complete personalization", the world would be so changed as to render this discussion moot. Problem #2 - You're arguing that the net effect is negative. Many people say it's zero. I say overall the effect arguably positive. You never address these ideas. > In speaking of the risks of the internet, I don't think I make any > strong or contested assumptions about what is now happening. Excuse me? Here, just for variety, another example: http://pup.princeton.edu/releases/m7014.html "Without the Internet, most people with dangerously extreme positions will eventually come to see that their views are exotic and weird--and they will end up thinking more sensibly. But on the Internet, like-minded people can find a kind of group home. They create little enclaves for themselves." > It's only necessary to say that a number of people (not most people) > are selecting, mostly, topics and points of view that suit their > interests. That's all that chapter 1 says, really. There's plenty of > evidence, given in the book, to support that weak assumption. You have assumed that the effect you *postulate* is both radically stronger on the Internet (see above), and no other aspect counteracts it overall. Both these assumptions are repeatedly challenged. Yet the discussion never seems to progress beyond a repetition of the original assumptions. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: open Internet spaces Author: Xeth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=121&t=40&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > I do think that some readers are overreacting to the mere idea of > government regulation. Umm, seriously, what did you expect would happen? One of the reasons I'm primarily disappointed in the book is that I think it's caused much wasted mind-space and media-attention on a phenomena (the dangers of personalization) that's not even real. This isn't a case of someone taking a word or two out of context. the idea of regulation is a major selling point in the PR for the book: http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7014.html "In evaluating the consequences of new communications technologies for democracy and free speech, Sunstein argues the question is not whether to regulate the Net (it's already regulated), but how; ..." Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: Why Not Practice What You Preach? Author: Greg Lastowka Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=122&t=68&admview=1 Isn't the real problem with links to "opposing" viewpoints a question of what exactly constitutes opposition? What is the opposite of the NRA, or the KKK, or PETA? Is a Republican the opposite of a Democrat? Or is Ralph Nader the opposite of both? Or do we need to link to an anarchist -- or maybe to a person who isn't concerned about politics at all? ubject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=123&t=67&admview=1 Seth Finkelstein wrote: > > Edward G. Nilges > > Cass Sunstein's argument is independent of the question > whether or > > not the AI assumption is true, ... > > I point out his very sample chapter proclaims the > critical > aspect of this assumption: > > "the daily me" "The daily me" can be anything from a crude simulacrum, constructed on the basis of my selections in a Web page, to an "artificially intelligent" system that psyches me out based on a broadband input. Sunstein is talking about existing systems...which are on the crude end of the above continuum. For example, if you visit a French language site, you are deluged with French ads even if you are not a skilled French speaker or writer. And God forbid that the keyword "sex" should appear in your input stream. The fact that you are right in pointing out "we don't have AI" makes Sunstein's argument stronger, for "The Daily Me" becomes a crude caricature of my real thoughts (and this is rather insulting, as I am sure you would agree: see below on "libertarianism.") The self of the non-AI "Daily Me" is Salman Rushdie's "self", constructed out of films, novels, and old resentments. This self, however, is used by PR types to construct political causes which tend systematically towards a mild Fascism. > > "Our communications market is rapidly moving in the > direction of > this apparently utopian picture" > > "What I will also suggest is that there are serious dangers > in a > system in which individuals bypass general interest > intermediaries > and restrict themselves to opinions and topics of their > own choosing." > We don't need AI for this. We can filter input today using simple check boxes and other such contraptions. Cass does not address the fact that this is a misrepresentation of "me", but this only strengthens his case. > I understand your counter-argument. The problem is > that such > "exposure" rules have been absolutely and thoroughly refuted > in the > case of paperspace, and very much removed nowadays in radio and > TV. Simply arguing for them on the basis of their supposed > general > value is not going to get very far. > > This is why Sunstein needs the AI assumption to > buttress his > points. Internet communication must be seen as distinct, > something > which is not an extension of the printing press, but profoundly > different (note sometimes the argument of > profoundly-different is made > elsewhere in a positive sense, and I've disagreed with that > too). > Computation can be (in the words of hero computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra, whose writings on the field are falling into undeserved desuetude) "a radical novelty" WITHOUT being artificial intelligence. Indeed, Dijkstra's "philosophy", if I can dignify it so, was based on the simultaneous truth of two propositions: (1) Computers are not intelligent in any human sense (2) Computers are useful only insofar as they are correctly programmed (according to external standards set outside cyberspace) by intellectually honest applied mathematicians (1) adds to and does not detract from the radical novelty for until the digital computer we have not seen something which "seems intelligent", is useful for ordinary work, but which attains neither consciousness nor intelligence. Dijstra may have been sadly, and sociologically, wrong on (2): for it may be that computers are useful in modern society because of the APPEARANCE of correctness and efficiency. Cf. Paul Edwards, THE CLOSED WORLD: it now appears that the original SAGE air defense system *never worked*. However, because of the public's committment to Enlightenment, the appearance may be all that is necessary, and the mere simulacrum of a "daily me" (which puts the political and personal subconscious under erasure) may be all that is necessary. > Why is a web page "lifeless", but a book not? This is > the basic > argument that several people have been asking. Are you > willing to argue > for any sort of must-carry rules in paperspace? What's the > different? > I believe Sunstein's difference is what I term the AI > assumption. > > Note these must-carry ideas are NOT new. > > And if you think I'm a Libertarian, you're sadly > misinformed. I am concerned with objective tendencies in views. I am glad to hear that you are not a libertarian. However, part of the problem of the very crudity of the "daily me" is that it systematically distorts our own perception, and others' perception, of our opinions. > > Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=124&t=66&admview=1 Matthew Gaylor wrote: > > Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > > > Prof Sunstein tries to respond politely with what has > > become the real "political correctness" of our time: a > > disavowal of any attempt to use government for even benign > > purposes. > > But in this case governmental force isn't benign. And forcing > people to disseminate information they disagree with, even if > just a link, is something befitting an Orwellian state and > has no place in an open and free society. Today, millions of people are under your interpretation being "forced" to file tax returns. This is of course just silly. I would agree that if you forced Tom Jefferson to copy in a fair hand Alexander Hamilton's statements of his views, old Tom would find this an infringement of his liberties. However, transmission of information by electronic means, in the volumes demanded by mere links, is effectively zero cost. It is interesting that many cyberfans on the one hand announce the arrival of free bandwidth yet leap to defend this as valuable personal property when it is a question of the needs of the community. > > The answer to speech is more speech not forced state approved > speech. > > Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=125&t=59&admview=1 Mike Godwin wrote: > > Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > > Mike, current jurisprudence includes feminist > > jurisprudence which changes the fighting words doctrine, > > based on the idea that people can be verbally wounded (a part > > of common sense.) > > I don't believe this is a correct statement of the law with > regard to the meaning of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Mike, I am not a lawyer and was not attempt to state the law. Outside the law, of course, lies common sense and morality. > > >We can link feminist jurisprudence > > in surprising ways with the need to legally reassert > > traditional unspoken norms; for example, Gerry Spence has > > pointed out that in two cases (Kim Pring and Jerry Falwell), > > a semipublic and a public figure were unnecessarily wounded > > by overly literal interpretations of the First Amendment, > > without the public interest being advanced. > > I believe the correct reading of Gerry Spence's comments > (assuming your characterization of them is true) is that he > is expressing disagreement with current First Amendment > jurisprudence. > > Which is to say, what you're asserting here is not Firat > Amendment jurisprudence as it is, but as you wish it to be. > This is based on a sort of democratic nihilism which believes, first of all, that we cannot agree on any set of core concepts of behavior. Attempts to change the black letter law on this reading become wishful thinking and mere desire. However, even lawyers, when they are young and foolish, write articles for law reviews. In these reviews they engage in your "wish it to be thinking": for they discuss law outside precedent and ask whether it should be changed. Even young fogey lawyers are asking for a (quite radical) change when in their Law Review articles they describe the Supreme Court as "activist", for, of course, the Supreme Court has always been activist and willing to set aside precedent. Of course, it is true that I wish the law were more responsive to the needs of poor people, minorities, and women. For this reason, I am dismayed by the fact that cyberspace encapsulates radical individualism ("the Daily Moi") at a deep level. Precisely because of the high levels of verbal violence on the Internet (which appear to be linked to school shootings) I think we need to rethink traditional "fighting words" doctrine, which was more appropriate to anteBellum America, when men were men and the women were glad of it. > > I'm afraid the understanding you demand of me is less > > understanding than consent to restrict my attention to your > > favorite texts. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. My favorite texts? > Being precedent that you know and I don't. Instead of citing precedent, I would like to know why you are committed to the fighting words doctrine. > > Prior to about 1940 and the Brandeis court, freedom of speech > > was understood to be freedom of political speech, and > > political speech alone. > > The notion you advance here has been challenged by David > Rabban's FREE SPEECH IN ITS FORGOTTEN YEARS. > That's nice. But it flies in the face of the historical record, which is that prior to the 1950s, communities tightly regulated certain forms of speech. Also, it completely ignores the exceptions made before and after the Warren court for commercial and electronic speech. > >This means we are not bound to the > > "fighting words" doctrine and can change it in order to spare > > women verbal attacks, to spare children exposure to > > pornography, and to spare college students of color an > > Internet, zones of which appear to be completely dominated by > > the Klan. > > Get back to me when you've succeeded in changing it. In the > meantime, I'll stick with talking about what the current > understanding of "fighting words" doctrine is. > You bet. > > --Mike Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=126&t=67&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > "The daily me" can be anything from a crude simulacrum, constructed on > the basis of my selections in a Web page, to an "artificially > intelligent" system that psyches me out based on a broadband input. Is this your usage of the term, or are you saying it's what is meant in Republic.com? I have a hard time believing we are having much of an argument over the dire implications form people read some stories but not others ("selections in a Web page"). This happens all the time in paperspace. > Sunstein is talking about existing systems...which are on the crude > end of the above continuum. Quote: "Our communications market is rapidly moving in the direction of this apparently utopian picture". Earlier: "You need not come across topics and views that you have not sought out. Without any difficulty, you are able to see exactly what you want to see, no more and no less." Again, either this is trivial, so what's the point, or it's AI, which doesn't exist. > The fact that you are right in pointing out "we don't have AI" makes > Sunstein's argument stronger, for "The Daily Me" becomes a crude > caricature of my real thoughts (and this is rather insulting, as I am > sure you would agree: see below on "libertarianism.") I'm not insulted because I don't understand this sentence. Forgive me, but in general I have a great deal of trouble understanding your writing. To wit: > The self of the non-AI "Daily Me" is Salman Rushdie's "self", > constructed out of films, novels, and old resentments. This self, > however, is used by PR types to construct political causes which > tend systematically towards a mild Fascism. Sorry - "No habla". Same for everything after this. Regrets. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=127&t=59&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > Mike, I am not a lawyer and was not attempt to state the > law. Outside the law, of course, lies common sense and > morality. I think that distinguishing between Chaplinsky speech, which causes physical fights, and merely uncomfortable speech is both commonsensical and moral. > > Which is to say, what you're asserting here is not Firat > > Amendment jurisprudence as it is, but as you wish it to be. > > > This is based on a sort of democratic nihilism which > believes, first of all, that we cannot agree on any set of > core concepts of behavior. Nothing in my posting is based on any sort of nihilism whatsoever, nor is it based on disbelief in core concepts of behavior. >Attempts to change the black > letter law on this reading become wishful thinking and mere > desire. I don't have problems with wanting to change the law. I do have problems with supposing that the changes one wants are already part of the law. > Precisely because of the high levels > of verbal violence on the Internet (which appear to be linked > to school shootings) I think we need to rethink traditional > "fighting words" doctrine, which was more appropriate to > anteBellum America, when men were men and the women were glad > of it. There is no link between "verbal violence on the Internet" and school shootings, except in the sense that there is a link between the English language and school shootings. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. My favorite texts? > > > Being precedent that you know and I don't. It's a conceptual confusion to infer that my understanding of the law is based on "favorite texts" in any normal sense of the word "favorite." I do like to stick to what the cases actually say, though. Keeps me honest. > Instead of citing > precedent, I would like to know why you are committed to the > fighting words doctrine. I assume you're asking why I don't support your expansive view of "verbal violence." Answer: labelling speech one dislikes "violence" is a classic censorship move. > > The notion you advance here has been challenged by David > > Rabban's FREE SPEECH IN ITS FORGOTTEN YEARS. > > > That's nice. But it flies in the face of the historical > record, which is that prior to the 1950s, communities tightly > regulated certain forms of speech. Also, it completely > ignores the exceptions made before and after the Warren court > for commercial and electronic speech. You might want to read the book before asserting that it flies in the face of anything. --Mike Subject: Re: Why Not Practice What You Preach? Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=128&t=68&admview=1 Greg Lastowka wrote: > > Isn't the real problem with links to "opposing" > viewpoints a question of what exactly constitutes > opposition? I've been meaning to ask Professor Sunstein this very question. What sort of mechanism does he think is reasonable if there is a question or disagreement over what constitutes an adequate link or hyperlink? Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Matthew Gaylor Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=129&t=66&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > However, transmission of information by electronic means, in > the volumes demanded by mere links, is effectively zero > cost. It is interesting that many cyberfans on the one hand > announce the arrival of free bandwidth yet leap to defend > this as valuable personal property when it is a question of > the needs of the community. I'm glad you are more forthright as to what you really believe. This sure sounds like a version of the thought police to me. The state has no business compelling speech. It doesn't cost me much to stand in a public square and make a speech too- Under your suggestion, you want to force the public speaker to espouse or at least acknowledge the existence of a differing view(s) as defined by the state. Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Is the AI-assumption TRUE? Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=130&t=67&admview=1 Seth Finkelstein wrote: > > Is this your usage of the term, or are you saying > it's what is > meant in Republic.com? I have a hard time believing we are > having much > of an argument over the dire implications form people read some > stories but not others ("selections in a Web page"). This > happens all > the time in paperspace. The Web is sold as the same sort of access as paperspace, but it is different. Since the National Review is filed alongside Z and The Nation, a right-wing person, in visiting the newsstand, may very well pick up The Nation, just to see what the Commies are up to. On the Web, the environment is different. The conservative pads down to his study, powers on, logs in and types www.nationalreview.COM. He is not exposed to anything else, and indeed this is supposed to be an example of the power of the Web. > > > Sunstein is talking about existing systems...which are on > the crude > > end of the above continuum. > > Quote: "Our communications market is rapidly moving > in the > direction of this apparently utopian picture". Earlier: "You > need not > come across topics and views that you have not sought out. > Without any > difficulty, you are able to see exactly what you want to see, > no more > and no less." > > Again, either this is trivial, so what's the point, > or it's > AI, which doesn't exist. > I think the very idea that the difference between paperspace and cyberspace is marginal or trivial is part of the problem and a technician's illusion. It was thought at Xerox PARC that using a computer mouse would be effortless, because in the research environment it was merely a pointing convenience. But in actual application, the very asymmetry of mouse use (which is used by the favored hand) causes serious health problems because the "marginal" fact that occasional movements are replaced with monitored employee movements, in vaster numbers, becomes the critical difference. Perhaps, Prof Sunstein is trying in the tradition of Jane Jacobs and Louis Mumford to have us think outside the box in which scaling up (from occasional use of the Internet as a supplementary convenience, to the erasure of the corner newsstand, or from the city to the mega mall) causes real changes. > > The fact that you are right in pointing out "we don't have > AI" makes > > Sunstein's argument stronger, for "The Daily Me" becomes a > crude > > caricature of my real thoughts (and this is rather > insulting, as I am > > sure you would agree: see below on "libertarianism.") > > I'm not insulted because I don't understand this > sentence. Forgive > me, but in general I have a great deal of trouble > understanding your writing. Prof Sunstein does not discuss the crudity of "The Daily Me": but basing a picture of "Me" on sometimes random mouse selections is silly. The very fact that I've entered the names of romance novels 100,000 times into Amazon.COM could, in logic, mean that I am dying to read more romance novels. But also it could logically enough mean that I am surfeit and sick to death of romance novels. In recent business press articles it has been found that the most effective marketing is NOT forming "The Daily Me." Instead, it's having well-run Web sites for auto and other shoppers who have decided to buy. In a recent bunfight on CSpan, Richard Reeves pointed out that in his view, it does not matter whether the databases and software used in political market research is correct. He said, with sincerity and not cynicism, that what matters in this type of market research is electronic justification, not correspondence with reality. Having worked in market research I can confirm that his result can be generalized and that as a result the Daily Me will be a strictly empirical summation of my selections, at best. It will ignore the context of these selections and as a result will not only, as Sunstein writes, create opinion cascades but also cause cascades in which the participants do not really possess the opinions, but may be embarassed to admit it. I hope this helps and is not *ignotus, per ignotum*. > To wit: > > > The self of the non-AI "Daily Me" is Salman Rushdie's "self", > > constructed out of films, novels, and old resentments. This > self, > > however, is used by PR types to construct political causes > which > > tend systematically towards a mild Fascism. > > Sorry - "No habla". Same for everything after this. > Regrets. No problemo. > > Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: Matthew Gaylor's Review of Republic.com Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=131&t=66&admview=1 Matthew Gaylor wrote: > > Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > > However, transmission of information by electronic means, in > > the volumes demanded by mere links, is effectively zero > > cost. It is interesting that many cyberfans on the one hand > > announce the arrival of free bandwidth yet leap to defend > > this as valuable personal property when it is a question of > > the needs of the community. > > I'm glad you are more forthright as to what you really > believe. This sure sounds like a version of the thought > police to me. The state has no business compelling speech. > > It doesn't cost me much to stand in a public square and make > a speech too- Under your suggestion, you want to force the > public speaker to espouse or at least acknowledge the > existence of a differing view(s) as defined by the state. First of all, you need to examine your metaphor. Outside of tourist attractions such as London's Speakers Corner, places where people give speeches on public squares simply do not exist anymore. Such people (in America, usually people with relgious convictions) who are moved to give speeches in public are in fact under our law already strictly monitored and controlled and under various municipal ordnances hauled in by the police, unless they have a pre-existing arrangement. In increasing cases, in private mall spaces, these people are completely excluded by law and I do not believe that libertarians would restore their rights; for libertarians would have to concede on their view, the greater property right. As I've pointed out, most rhetors do "link" to opposing views by name as did Shakespeare's Marc Antony and thereby strengthen their case. In the case of speech, they never have had to be forced to do so because a speaker has to contextualize his speech by naming and describing opposing views. The difference in cyberspace is that its boundaries, unlike the fuzzy boundaries of real space, are so definable that opposing views are never aired. And because most of cyberspace is privately owned, this will give the remaining views a right-wing bias. > > Regards, Matt- Subject: Re: Quest for community on internet Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=132&t=59&admview=1 Carl Lebeck, it is quite possible that if the Internet is viewed as untrustworthy, the absence of corrective regulation will persuade people not to use its resources...even as, absent the FAA, air travel would be perceived as unsafe and there would be no modern market. We may already be seeing this perception in the tech downturn as vendors, to restore shrinking profit margins, start charging for formerly free information without vetting the quality of this information. The Invisible Hand may cause these vendors to be abandoned if the public views them as merely displaying random bits. Five years ago, a similar phenomenon occured in the educational textbook industry in which an alarmingly high error rate was discovered. The Internet and its privatized data resources take a lot of expensive labor to produce and (as in the air) the temptation is to present unvetted information and save time. Whereas no such pressure exists on government data gathering. Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Edward G. Nilges Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=133&t=59&admview=1 Mike Godwin wrote: > > Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > > Mike, I am not a lawyer and was not attempt to state the > > law. Outside the law, of course, lies common sense and > > morality. > > I think that distinguishing between Chaplinsky speech, which > causes physical fights, and merely uncomfortable speech is > both commonsensical and moral. It ignores speech that damages people's ability to conduct their lives. For example, your dichotomy ignores blackmail and anonymous threats, IF I understand Chaplinsky speech to be speech that takes place within the same physical space. It ignores sexual harassment in any case. > > > > Which is to say, what you're asserting here is not Firat > > > Amendment jurisprudence as it is, but as you wish it to be. > > > > > This is based on a sort of democratic nihilism which > > believes, first of all, that we cannot agree on any set of > > core concepts of behavior. > > Nothing in my posting is based on any sort of nihilism > whatsoever, nor is it based on disbelief in core concepts of > behavior. This is a kind of entrapment where free speech is permitted to espouse violation of norms only to have the violation marginalize the speech. It's just common sense to go from having norms to applying those norms to speech acts. The norm of not causing other people to panic bases the norm of "no shouting fire in a crowded theater." But in place of undecidable debates about "where do you draw the line", I prefer to find actual inconsistencies. For example, the strong or libertarian view uses metaphors (such as the public speaker) which are absent from modern public spaces owing to property rights which the libertarian strongly defends. > > >Attempts to change the black > > letter law on this reading become wishful thinking and mere > > desire. > > I don't have problems with wanting to change the law. I do > have problems with supposing that the changes one wants are > already part of the law. > Mike, I am quite aware that the law is apparently permissive, and if that was your point, you won long ago. However, I detected in your argument the further claim that what we have need not be changed. > > Precisely because of the high levels > > of verbal violence on the Internet (which appear to be linked > > to school shootings) I think we need to rethink traditional > > "fighting words" doctrine, which was more appropriate to > > anteBellum America, when men were men and the women were glad > > of it. > > There is no link between "verbal violence on the Internet" > and school shootings, except in the sense that there is a > link between the English language and school shootings. > This is not true. School bullying seems to be on the rise owing to social changes (including the infantlization of the parent's generation) but the Internet is a part of these changes and seems to reinforce the resentments that cause bullying. Most research I've seen of school bullying presents it as an escalating phenomenon which starts with the word, and some research shows that this word is electronic. > > > I'm not sure what you mean here. My favorite texts? > > > > > Being precedent that you know and I don't. > > It's a conceptual confusion to infer that my understanding of > the law is based on "favorite texts" in any normal sense of > the word "favorite." I do like to stick to what the cases > actually say, though. Keeps me honest. > Again, if all you're saying is that current law is what it is, then we can admit your claim and discuss what it should be. There is a perception, in all of this freedom of speech, that the speech is so free that any one view has no merit. > > Instead of citing > > precedent, I would like to know why you are committed to the > > fighting words doctrine. > > I assume you're asking why I don't support your expansive > view of "verbal violence." Answer: labelling speech one > dislikes "violence" is a classic censorship move. > This is historically untrue. Most censors historically were unconcerned with violence in general, but concerned with violence and threats thereof against the sovereign. Up until the early 19th century, gentlemen could call each other out and threaten each other under the duel and this speech was never censored. Its termination was not at the time viewed as censorship. In our own century, censors have been less concerned with violence than threats against the state. American movies in the era of the Hays Code and the (Catholic) Legion of Decency more than made up for censorship, not of violence but of sex, with content very violent by the standards of the time. > > > The notion you advance here has been challenged by David > > > Rabban's FREE SPEECH IN ITS FORGOTTEN YEARS. > > > > > That's nice. But it flies in the face of the historical > > record, which is that prior to the 1950s, communities tightly > > regulated certain forms of speech. Also, it completely > > ignores the exceptions made before and after the Warren court > > for commercial and electronic speech. > > You might want to read the book before asserting that it > flies in the face of anything. > Perhaps, but there are many books, some of which are written with an axe to grind. It may be better to read general histories of the Supreme Court to realize that prior to the 1950s, the Court not only restricted speech to political speech, but tightly regulated union talk. > > --Mike Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=135&t=59&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > I think that distinguishing between Chaplinsky speech, which > > causes physical fights, and merely uncomfortable speech is > > both commonsensical and moral. > > It ignores speech that damages people's ability to conduct > their lives. For example, your dichotomy ignores blackmail > and anonymous threats, IF I understand Chaplinsky speech to > be speech that takes place within the same physical space. > It ignores sexual harassment in any case. We're not talking about "my dichotomy," whatever that might mean. We're talking about the actual meaning of "fighting words" doctrine, which does not mean "whatever Edward Nilges wishes it meant." > But in place of undecidable debates about "where do you draw > the line", I prefer to find actual inconsistencies. For > example, the strong or libertarian view uses metaphors (such > as the public speaker) which are absent from modern public > spaces owing to property rights which the libertarian > strongly defends. There is no dearth of public speakers on the Internet. > > There is no link between "verbal violence on the Internet" > > and school shootings, except in the sense that there is a > > link between the English language and school shootings. > > > This is not true. School bullying seems to be on the rise > owing to social changes (including the infantlization of the > parent's generation) but the Internet is a part of these > changes and seems to reinforce the resentments that cause > bullying. There is no statistical evidence of any of this. > Most research I've seen of school bullying presents it as an > escalating phenomenon which starts with the word, and some > research shows that this word is electronic. There's no statistical evidence showing that "electronic" words give rise to school bullying to any significant degree. > Again, if all you're saying is that current law is what it > is, then we can admit your claim and discuss what it should be. Go right ahead. But make it clear that you're not talking about the law as it is, and the way to do that is to use terms like "fighting words" consistent with their actual meaning. > There is a perception, in all of this freedom of speech, that > the speech is so free that any one view has no merit. Huh? > > I assume you're asking why I don't support your expansive > > view of "verbal violence." Answer: labelling speech one > > dislikes "violence" is a classic censorship move. > > > This is historically untrue. Wrongo. History is full of examples of this. > Up until > the early 19th century, gentlemen could call each other out > and threaten each other under the duel and this speech was > never censored. Its termination was not at the time viewed > as censorship. Hint: look at the history of libel law and get back to me. > > You might want to read the book before asserting that it > > flies in the face of anything. > > > Perhaps, but there are many books, some of which are written > with an axe to grind. That doesn't get you off the hook. Better go read David Rabban, whose book has no axe to grind. > It may be better to read general > histories of the Supreme Court to realize that prior to the > 1950s, the Court not only restricted speech to political > speech, but tightly regulated union talk. I hope I may be forgiven for my conviction that I'm rather more well-read in Supreme Court history than you imagine. --Mike Subject: Re: The Libertarian Challenge Author: Mike Godwin Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=134&t=59&admview=1 Edward G. Nilges wrote: > > I think that distinguishing between Chaplinsky speech, which > > causes physical fights, and merely uncomfortable speech is > > both commonsensical and moral. > > It ignores speech that damages people's ability to conduct > their lives. For example, your dichotomy ignores blackmail > and anonymous threats, IF I understand Chaplinsky speech to > be speech that takes place within the same physical space. > It ignores sexual harassment in any case. We're not talking about "my dichotomy," whatever that might mean. We're talking about the actual meaning of "fighting words" doctrine, which does not mean "whatever Edward Nilges wishes it meant." > But in place of undecidable debates about "where do you draw > the line", I prefer to find actual inconsistencies. For > example, the strong or libertarian view uses metaphors (such > as the public speaker) which are absent from modern public > spaces owing to property rights which the libertarian > strongly defends. There is no dearth of public speakers on the Internet. > > There is no link between "verbal violence on the Internet" > > and school shootings, except in the sense that there is a > > link between the English language and school shootings. > > > This is not true. School bullying seems to be on the rise > owing to social changes (including the infantlization of the > parent's generation) but the Internet is a part of these > changes and seems to reinforce the resentments that cause > bullying. There is no statistical evidence of any of this. > Most research I've seen of school bullying presents it as an > escalating phenomenon which starts with the word, and some > research shows that this word is electronic. There's no statistical evidence showing that "electronic" words give rise to school bullying to any significant degree. > Again, if all you're saying is that current law is what it > is, then we can admit your claim and discuss what it should be. Go right ahead. But make it clear that you're not talking about the law as it is, and the way to do that is to use terms like "fighting words" consistent with their actual meaning. > There is a perception, in all of this freedom of speech, that > the speech is so free that any one view has no merit. Huh? > > I assume you're asking why I don't support your expansive > > view of "verbal violence." Answer: labelling speech one > > dislikes "violence" is a classic censorship move. > > > This is historically untrue. Wrongo. History is full of examples of this. > Up until > the early 19th century, gentlemen could call each other out > and threaten each other under the duel and this speech was > never censored. Its termination was not at the time viewed > as censorship. Hint: look at the history of libel law and get back to me. > > You might want to read the book before asserting that it > > flies in the face of anything. > > > Perhaps, but there are many books, some of which are written > with an axe to grind. That doesn't get you off the hook. Better go read David Rabban, whose book has no axe to grind. > It may be better to read general > histories of the Supreme Court to realize that prior to the > 1950s, the Court not only restricted speech to political > speech, but tightly regulated union talk. I hope I may be forgiven for my conviction that I'm rather more well-read in Supreme Court history than you imagine. --Mike Subject: The Flip Side of Enclave Deliberation Author: msnadel Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=136&t=136&admview=1 Cass First I want to compliment you on addressing the important question of how the Internet will/may affect the U.S. democratic process. I also want to note my strong agreement with your thesis that it is critical to the health of the U.S. democracy that we learn to use the Internet to foster rather than diminish deliberation. I also believe that proactive steps should be taken by the foundations, the private sector, and government to harness the capacity of the Internet and databases to help voters vote more wisely. That said, I disagree with most of your analysis of the dangers of filtering. Since others have already raised many of those reasons, and since I spell out my views in my comments at Lessig's "Code" website and in pages 829-32 of my review of his book (see http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=228342), I would rather focus on a concern you develop much further than Lessig's book: that a "more speech" approach might not adequately remedy the bad speech resulting from enclave deliberation. (p.80) I share your concern that the Internet facilitates the ability of narrow-minded individuals to join together and achieve a critical mass that leads them to engage in enclave deliberation and develop even more extreme, and potentially dangerous, views, than would occur absent the Internet. I also assume that you are correct that in enclave deliberation, "shared group identity will heighten the effect of others' views." (p70) I believe, however, that the Internet also creates the opportunity for a "more speech" solution. After all, doesn't the Internet also make it much easier for individuals to infiltrate the websites of groups they oppose and masquerade as a "friend," thereby "heighten[ing] the effect of [their agruments]"? Thus, the Internet enables a gun control advocate to enter anti-gun control websites and urge support for a mild gun control measure by asserting that it is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the more extreme versions of gun control. The chance to participate in enclave deliberation should enable that gun control advocate to be dramatically more effective than in more traditional settings, where his or her identity would be clear. Similarly, historians and others can infiltrate holocaust denial websites and stage mock debates that intentionally make their own positions look foolish and embarrassing, while "accidentally" revealing powerful analogies. It would appear to me that this ability to gain a receptive ear from one's opponents may well balance the dangers of deliberative enclaves. Had you considered this approach? Do you find it defective? Thanks, mark Subject: Re: The Flip Side of Enclave Deliberation Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=138&t=137&admview=1 msnadel wrote > It would appear to me that this ability to gain a receptive ear from > one's opponents may well balance the dangers of deliberative enclaves. I suggest that it would be very educational to you to actually try this. I don't think you'll believe me if I point out all the painful flaws of your proposal. I recommend http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/ as the deliberative enclave for your experiment. Since it's already been multiply infiltrated, one more won't matter. Let me know how it goes. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: The Flip Side of Enclave Deliberation Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=139&t=137&admview=1 I think you're exactly right, and I think I say some such things in the book (though not as well or as precisely as you do). It's a really good point. But it's possible to accept it and also to worry about group polarization/fragmentation. Too many sites and discussion groups lack much participation from those who disagree, and even though outsiders can enter, they generally don't, or lack influence when they do. But maybe more creative private efforts in this direction could help a lot, which I guess is the upshot of your question. Subject: Re: The Flip Side of Enclave Deliberation Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=140&t=137&admview=1 In response to Seth Finkelstein's interesting note: Might it not depend on the nature of the enclave? Some enclaves will probably be unrecptive or worse (is this what you mean by "painful flaws"?), whereas some will be willing to engage on the merits. I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I've encountered both (none of my experiences has involved anything like an "infilration"). Subject: Filtering: Upsetting messages v. Noise Author: msnadel Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=141&t=141&admview=1 On page 32 you carefully distinguish between exposures that are unplanned and those that are unwanted. I would like to suggest that it is also particularly helpful to distinguish between two types of unwanted messages. The first type are messages that are upsetting. These include those that challenge, if not threaten, one's political, social, and religious views. These messages may be offensive, arrogant, or angry, and would include Mike Godwin's postings to this forum. The second type are messages that I would call "noise." These are the types of comments that would dominate if one were to stand today listening in a park or street corner. They would include lots of messages about the weather, about meals, meetings with friends, and stories with little relevance to those who didn't know the characters. I think that filters perform a politically positive function by enabling individuals to screen out the latter and much material bordering on the latter in terms of its irrelevance to a particular topic (not viewpoint) of interest. Sure I would love to have the time to serendipidously sample random messages for a few hours a day to find a few gems, but I don't have the time. I want/need assistance from trusted experts to filter for me. Moreover, your embrace of the role of general interest editors/infomediaries leads me to believe that you agree. I do not understand then why you appear to accord similar importance to unmoderated public forums. I agree with you that they are valuable for enabling protestors to confront those that they disagree with (p31-32). I also think that they are most valuable for providing less wealthy groups with a medium on which to perform (effectively audition) for the mass media, e.g., television news. I am hard pressed to take you seriously, however, when you argue that they are important sources of DIRECT communication to passersby (pp30-32). Could you elaborate on this further. I know that there are many online forums that I will quickly exit, never to return, once I find that noisy comments will waste my precious time. Due to time constraints, I prefer forums that are moderated - as by an excellent university professor - to screen out noisy comments that "waste" scarce time I would prefer to devote to considering insightful examples of "upsetting" messages. That is, how do you reconcile your acknowledgement of the information overload (p57) and the continuing importance of public forums for direct communication? Subject: What is the real baseline? Author: msnadel Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=142&t=142&admview=1 You argue that personalized filtering is dangerous because it screens out many messages that viewers would benefit from being exposed to. Yet I question the baseline that you are arguing from. You reason that, absent the Daily Me, a substantial group of citizens would be exposed to valuable ideas when they watched the television news, read the daily newspaper, or went online. But might it not be equally likely that, absent the Daily Me, many, if not most of that group of citizens will choose to forgo television news, the daily newspaper, and online newsgroups altogether, given the cornucopia of personalized options provided by the 10,000 magazines, and 200+ cable television networks, not to mention books, radio stations, etc. Therefore, isn't it quite possible that the Daily Me - if edited to include a variety of different viewpoints on the topics of interest to the individual, as well as a few serendipitous selections - might actually increase many citizens' exposure to the messages you value by attracting them away from sporting events and other chewing gum for the mind? Subject: Re: The Flip Side of Enclave Deliberation Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=143&t=137&admview=1 Cass Sunstein wrote: > In response to Seth Finkelstein's interesting note: Might it not depend on > the nature of the enclave? Some enclaves will probably be unrecptive or > worse (is this what you mean by "painful flaws"?), whereas some will be > willing to engage on the merits. I don't have a lot of experience with this, > but I've encountered both (none of my experiences has involved anything like > an "infilration"). Some enclaves are overjoyed to have someone come around and argue with them. They love it. It gives them something to do. Rather than making them more reasonable, it makes them more extremist. Many members of the group then can prove their purity by attacking the outsider. It also confirms their importance, that someone cares. Trying to pose as a true believer in order to 'masquerade as a "friend,"' is probably not going to work. It's like attempting to speak a foreign language. Unless you are excellent at the 'masquerade', the native speakers are likely going to be able to tell the difference. Talking about infiltrating holocaust-denial sites almost made me laugh out loud. In netnews, an enclave was specifically created for this group, TO GET RID OF THEM. The last thing almost anyone wants is to deal with them (except for the professionals who take on rebutting them as a dirty-job-but-someone-has-to-do-it). Having one of the holocaust-deniers around is not a celebration of deliberative democracy - it's extremely disruptive. What I meant about painful flaw is that the writing of both the "dangers" of these enclaves, and the idea of being effective (in terms of argument) by infriltrating them, bespoke to me someone who has never actually tried to deal with such enclaves. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: Filtering: Upsetting messages v. Noise Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=144&t=141&admview=1 There's a severe problem with using the word "filtering" to refer to all of: 1) control by an authority of a subject, i.e. censorware (third-party banning) 2) killfiling of a second party by a reader (first-party exclusion) 3) affirmative personalization of content (first-party inclusion) Such imprecision in terminology leads to a very great deal of confusion. I found it very unhelpful that Republic.com added to this imprecision in places where it employed the term "filtering" to connote "personalization". Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: The Flip Side of Enclave Deliberation Author: msnadel Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=145&t=137&admview=1 Seth, You complain that I reveal myself as >someone who has never actually tried to deal with such enclaves. You state that >Trying to pose as a true believer in order to 'masquerade as a >"friend,"' is probably not going to work. It's like attempting >to speak a foreign language. Unless you are excellent at the >'masquerade', the native speakers are likely going to be able to >tell the difference. Well, I admit, that I have never tried to deal with such enclaves. Furthermore, I was not suggesting that infiltration would be easy. On the other hand, many undercover police officers, among others, successfully pull this off in real space, where I believe infiltration is qualitatively harder, since one must maintain a physical appearance to go with one's verbal identity. Furthermore, I have also seen many university professors and lawyers master a subject so well that when I have seen them discuss the subject I have been unable to decide which side they personally support. The point I was trying to make is that I believe that a kind of psychological version of the Newton's Third Law applies to the subject of enclaves in cyberspace. That is, to the extent Cass is correct (and I believe that he is) that the Internet makes it easier for enclaves to form and produce more polarized viewpoints, so too cyberspace creates the opportunity for an equal and opposite reaction, in the vein of the "more speech" response most compatible with the First Amendment. That is, opponents of these extremists would gain easier access and more receptive ears for careful convincing dialogue on the relevant issues, thereby potentially neutralizing the Internet's harm. Subject: Re: The Flip Side of Enclave Deliberation Author: Seth Finkelstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=146&t=137&admview=1 No offense meant Mr. Nadel. None at all. It's just that I've been through some experiences (particularly "takeovers" of lists, turning them into enclaves) which give me some insight into the practicalities here. Sure, it's possible to master a subject. My point was that it's not something that's done lightly. The problem is that the discussion is bases on so-o-o much abstraction, that as I said, you're not going to believe me when I point out the flaws. The discussion is going to be "It COULD work this way, and if it does work this way, that MIGHT be reaction, and this other aspects is POSSIBLE, and in regard to that MAYBE ...". On and on. My original suggestion was you should see how it actually works. Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com Subject: Re: What is the real baseline? Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=147&t=142&admview=1 Great question. Also true, it's possible. -- The baseline is an ideal--a situation in which most citizens are exposed to a broad array of topics and ideas. Innumerable editions of the Daily Me would be better than foregoing news altogether, but both would be worse than the ideal. No? Subject: Re: Filtering: Upsetting messages v. Noise Author: Cass Sunstein Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=148&t=141&admview=1 I think your point about noise is a good one, and I certainly don't mean to say that noise is good as such. But exposure to a wide range of claims and topics can be valuable even if it isn't upsetting and even if much of it seems to be noise. Suppose that you're reading the daily paper, and you have no interest in 70% of what's there, and you basically filter it out. Still you "hear" some of it. Once in a while some of it will attract your interes and make you pause. A street or park can be like that too. (Ever buy Streetwise? Ever read something in it, not expecting to?) That's basically what I have in mind. Subject: Re: Filtering: Upsetting messages v. Noise Author: msnadel Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=149&t=141&admview=1 But as I said above: "Sure I would love to have the time to serendipidously sample random messages for a few hours a day to find a few gems, but I don't have the time." I would rather devote my scarce time to the material collected by a trusted infomediary (e.g., editor) who has tried to search out those gems for me. Yes, I may miss some gems, but if I stand on the street corner for an hour instead of reading something pre-screened of noisey material, such as your book, I would miss even more. Since you acknowledge the current information overload and the importance ("need"?) for intermediaries, how can you simultaneously believe that public forums are an important direct source of messages for most individuals? Subject: editors Author: Thomas Message: http://128.112.156.119/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=150&t=150&admview=1 Reading the first chapter here, but not having read the entire work, I am struck by the apparent acceptance of the world we live in--the world of general interest intermediaries--as something natural and conducive to democratic deliberation. It seems to me that all sorts of problems are posed by the current situation. For example, the editors and publishers of these general interest intermediaries are democratically unaccountable to their fellow citizens, allowing the public discussion to be focused not on what the citizenry--whether individually, in a consumeristic model, or collectively, in a deliberative model--finds interesting or important or vital, but rather on what these private and unaccountable actors find interesting or important or vital. (This accountability is exacerbated by the McCain/Feingold speech regulations, which limit the ability of certain groups to influence the public debate while simultaneously increasing the power of the general interest intermediaries (a point not often discussed, perhaps not surprisingly, in the same general interest intermediaries). Similarly, there is, it seems to me, a disconnect between the values and interests of the editors and publishers of the general interest intermediaries and the values and interests of a great many Americans. For example, studies have shown that these editors and publishers tend to be more liberal in their politics and less religious than most Americans. Many Americans believe that these value differences are reflected in the content of the general interest intermediaries. Yet the fact that so many people find their views marginalized and dismissed by these general interest intermediaries evidently doesn't pose a significant problem for our public life; in fact, the response many people have had to that marginalization and dismissal is, according to Sunstein, what poses the problem! A skeptic might point out that the dangers of the Daily Me are present in the Daily Us, especially when a small but powerful minority--our educated elites--see their views and attitudes expressed everday in the nation's general interest intermediaries. The New York Times, it seems to me, is as much of an echo chamber for liberal law professors as the NRO is for a conservative. But, dangerously, the liberal law professor is unlikely to realize that the Times has a point of view, much less that it is an extreme one. As cautious as we should be about the process of self-segregation into 'echo' groups on the net, with that process's tendency to push to extremes, we should also be cautious about a process in which a small group hears its views as if they are the only ones--pushing them to extremes--while simultaneously persuading others that their views are unspeakable. That process has the potential to distort public deliberation even more, by persuading people that their views are unacceptable in public. That can, at times, lead to outcomes disconnected from the legitimate preferences of a majority of the populace. We may have seen something quite like this in our debate over affirmative action, a debate in which the general interest intermediaries solidly aligned themselves in support of affirmative action, dismissing and marginalizing those opposed. This may have had the effect of persuading people that they shouldn't publicly oppose affirmative action, that they should keep their--in my view, legitimate--preferences to themselves for fear of retribution. In such circumstances, affirmative action survived. The only threat to affirmative action came when citizens were allowed to express their discomfort with the racial spoils system embodied in affirmative action policies in private, at the voting booth. There affirmative action lost. How many other debates have, in a similar fashion, been distorted by the overwhelming and democratically unaccountable general interest intermediaries? [Forum concluded]