Slashdot Mirror
Republic.Com
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, a process that in turn causes group polarization and radicalization.
For example, he says, "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 an attempt at guilt by association.
In Chapter seven, Sunstein writes: "FREE SPEECH IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE," -- his caps. In fact, he repeats 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 a four-station universe the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) 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; 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.
You can read the first chapter online for free. You can also purchase this book at ThinkGeek. You may also be interested in Cass Sunstein's Homepage.
"Apple is the real innovator in the computer industry."
"NASA is a waste of money."
"NASA does cool stuff."
"Everyone is dumber than me."
I think Slashdot has experienced the polarization effect, but not the homogeneity effect. We thrash about wildly to espouse our opinions, and there is no shortage of diversity.
KDE or Gnome? :0) Seriously, the government has no business interfering in this way. You want a law passed saying that you have to use different software every day of the week to prevent bias? Ridiculous.
We shipped it back, tho'. In packing crates.
Umm, not a fact. Even Salon says so.
it is the right that is ideological and the left that has become the natural party of government in most of the democratic world
Assuming you can tell them apart any more. In the UK, for example, Blair is far more a child of Thatcher than Hague. And I'm thankful for it. Can you imagine the Winter of Discontent if socialist dinosaurs like Prescott ran the country?
Back on topic, remember that neither the Daily Mail nor the Guardian are in the business of news, they're in the business of supporting the existing opinions of the right and left respectively.
I always felt that they were a bunch of fascists that make Mr. G. "D". Bush look left-wing. They seem to have a lot of extremist Republicans in their group, who in my book are also right wing.
...unless their post starts with "I know I'll get modded down for this, but", in which case they get an instant +5, Insightful.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
A "culture and attitude of constant reinforcement of already-held ideas"? Get the hell out of here, man! That's not the kind of thing we talk about here on Slashdot!
It's very close to the printing press. [timewarp on] In fact, it's also very much like a new invention, the "newspaper", which are small unbound books printed by our two leading political parties, the Whigs and Tories. [warp forward somewhat] It's also similar to radio, and somewhat later, television.[timewarp off] We've seen this problem before, and seen the solution set: I note that the initial reastion is regulation, then public participation, then broad availability. In the case of the 'net, we're got to the third quite quickly (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
Hee hee. Of course, what would be really funny is to have religious websites required to link to pr0n sites for the "opposing viewpoint".
And the MPAA would have to put links to DeCSS sites... I'm sure that would go over real well.
I just love it when some professor (who's supposed to be smarter than average) doesn't stop to ask someone else if his ideas are completely stupid and unworkable.
Classic, totally classic.
Free speech is a precious thing. People have made a good case for limiting it in certain situations, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Generally though, any suggestions to further limit speech should be view with great suspicion.
I've always liked the idea of a Govt. supplied open source distribution of some kind of referance model operating system as well, complete with public standard referance file and doc type, just like the NIST runs the public system of weights and measures, etc. Not that anybody HAS to use it all the time, you could certainly purchase a Windows or Apple or Sun or whatever, just that those will have to include a minimal doc type for cross proprietary platform information interchange, submitting resume's or tax returns, etc. This is necessary to prevent a certain company from exploiting the public electronic information revolution for their own nefarious ends.
Speaking of which - what's the network effect of Office XP going to be? Will it have yet another extension doc type that only those who upgrade to Word XP will be able to read? And I do mean when the local sect'y creates a new doc and simply clicks 'save' - not the laborious and confusing methode of choosing to save in an older compatible format - that's asking too much of your typical Office® user.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I hate to break out the bad news, but Hitler was not a right wing freak.
:-(
People frequently forget that the word Nazi is short for National Socialist. The way the Nazis ran Germany--dictating from the government what is acceptable and what should be liquidated--is sadly what a lot of left-liberals want to do, especially on college campuses.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
"Linux is the best operating system."
"Hackers are the best people in the world."
"Jon Katz is the smartest journalist & philosopher."
Could slashdot be an example of Internet-blinders too?
Most people. probably including myself,
slect other media to reinforce their world-views.
This includes the magazines they read, TV shows they watch, music they listen to, and so on.
As much as I'm in favor of considering opposing viewpoints, and even think it's necessary to be a truly healthy individual, I think personal freedom is even more important. You're not going to get someone to consider another point of view by cramming it down their throats; anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves. You can't force anyone to be a 'better' person-- it just doesn't work that way. Think of the 55mph speed limit, which originally was imposed to save energy but then was continued for 20 years because it was 'safer', despite no supporting evidence.
The really important thing is to maintain freedom of speech-- because then opposing viewpoints can always be heard by those that want to hear them.
---
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Knowing social dynamics, I think the Quaker Process would have a hard time scaling. Also it think it would need people who are genuinly interested in control of their own lives, yet also respect others wishes. Another problem is it doesn't deal well with is people moving around. The Quaker process only really works in long term stable communities. I'd have to say most communities are either to large or dynamic for it to work.
As a country, the US needs to work on getting it's citizens truly involved in government. To the extent that they know the issues facing the communities they are living in. Know the relavant details, etc. Unfortunately most people only just want to slip by on the path of least resistance. If this means giving over control to someone else and following that other person's decisions, so be it.
The one thing a cult can't survive is a bunch of free thinkers. A democracy needs them.
Yes, they put the word "Socialist" in the name of their party. Socialism was very popular in the late 20's and early 30's in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, so it was possible to get a large number of working class votes by claiming to be "Socialist".
The actual behavior of the Nazis was anything but however, in fact their retoric was decidedly anit-socialist, and violently anti-communist.
The name of the Nazi party was an early example of Double-Speak, and regardless of your feelings about "the left" doesn't deserve to be repeated or supported in this forum.
____________________________________
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
Except when Microsoft does it, it's "anti-competitive."
-Snoot
Sunstein's arguments about some upcoming cultural megadisaster are no different than the arguments that Y2K would end civilization.
Sunstein assumes that the world is like a set of dominoes - knock one down and the whole kit and kaboodle falls down. He's no different than those who figured bad data in Burma would destroy the Dow Jones.
The world is not a bunch of dominoes - it's a complex, ever-changing interconnected organism. A change here produces a change there. If people filter their data, the results of their ignorance will affect them and change (of many kinds) will occur.
However Sunstein goes by the domino theory, and thus assumes some "top level engineering" will stop that first domino from falling. Of course, he fails to ask what the costs and repercussions of his solutions are - which is ironic as he seems to be VERY convinced of the costs of the current situation.
The sad part is that I addressed this in a column I do on writing. Even in fiction the myth of the "domino world" is obvious.
But I suppose saying "things aren't the greatest, oh well" doesn't sell books. Panic and messianism does.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
The column addressing the domino theory (while discussing writing parallel earths) is here.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
> Most people who visit /. sit around reading all the great things about Linux/Open Source and they convince themselves how great Linux is.
/., 'cause on the one I read, about half the posts bash people with pro-Linux mentalities. And get moderated up for it.
We must not read the same
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Of course, even if an opposing point of view is stated, we humans tend to remember evidence that corroborates our own previously-held point of view, and forget evidence that casts doubt on it. This is a powerful argument against both religious belief and religious unbelief, for example.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
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."
... Societies that were individualistic? England, US, ...
perhaps?? permitted to remove???
This guy wants to force me (for my own good, of course) to read government propaganda and with visible reluctance concedes that it might not be feasible in a free society.
In the classic issue of balance of power between an individual and society/government, Sunstein greatly favors the society. That is really a value decision, hard to rationally argue about. However a look at history should prove useful. Societies that suppressed individuals in favor of society/government? Russia, China, Nazi Germany,
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I don't know who moderated this as informative, but this is so clearly a troll it isn't even funny.
Let me summerize his post:
Governments suck, and the left wing promotes the government, so the left wing sucks. The right wing RULES!! This book is written by a left-winger, thus it sucks.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Just because you don't agree with the views that are espoused in a book, does mean that it isn't a good book. You critize the book just because he uses the NRA as his example of people getting into collective thought. What if he had used something a little closer to our hearts?
/. sit around reading all the great things about Linux/Open Source and they convince themselves how great Linux is. Most of the time, good arguments about Closed Source/commercial software aren't made on /. because of the environment that discourages it.
Most people who visit
Sunstein thinks that people need to have good knowledge of all sides of an issue before they decide what they believe, and that people who can filter out what information they receive won't have that knowledge.
Perhaps Sunstein's main idea is much more important than his idea of Public.Net. Peer pressure is a very strong force. If people are stuck in an environment where all of their peers believe one thing, they will be extreme discouraged from developing their own ideas. We need to promote more diversity in our discussions, and not flame people who have differing ideas. People should actually try to help their opponents devlop better arguments so that better debates can be held.
Yes I do know I was rambling a lot, but you shouldn't dismiss Sunstein so quickly. He is not a dumb man.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
BTW, the sentence `Having a gun in the car tells me I'm the one in trouble if hostilities occur' pefrectly describes the appropriate attitude towards weapons. It heartens me to read that there are such responsible folks out there.
But this is horribly OT...
Actually, while i will agree that a lot of so-called leftists want to dictate what you can and cannot do, the actual meaning of being a leftist is to maximize personal freedoms while minimizing financial freedoms. So, yes, real socialists are leftist, but all communist counties that i know of lean more to the totalitarian corner of no financial OR personal freedoms.
-ben.c
This is one of the things I watch for as I meta-moderate -- are moderators modding down good statements they don't agree with? It happens but that's fairly rare. The /. audience is pretty polarized on a few issues but in general it's relatively diverse in its opinions.
/. specific, but a trend in society (US, anyway) at large. People select for polarized discourse because it's more exciting or fun.
/. story. Most of the widely-read comments are probably posted in the first two hours that a story's up. It's much easier to quickly post a rant compared to a balanced, well-thought comment.
I think there is probably some degree of the polarization that Sunstein describes. But I think more of the problems with discussion stem from two areas. For one, extreme opinions tend to get better airplay than moderate ones. This is not
Second, I think online discussion suffers from a lack of in-depth thought. I'd love to see a graph of posts over time look like for a
I only wish I had improvements to suggest... it's like the Churchill quote, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Slashdot, once bastion of correct-thinking liberalism, has long since ceased to provide balanced viewpoints.
Once the quickpoll was replete with options of 'RobSux' or 'HemosSux' as their joke answers, but now NO DISSENTION IS ALLOWED, and all the joke answers are 'CowboyNeal', forcing us to agree with everything that Slashdot says!!!!
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Moderate article: -1, Redundant, see last week's article on the same subject.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
the resurgance of the Conservatives in Britain,
Come on, man, you've got to do better than that.
Female Prison Rape in NY
In the circles of political discourse, as filtered through the national media in the US, extreme views on both sides get more press (in general) than moderate views because extremeism makes better copy -- it gets people riled up. This is true to a large degree of both the left and right.
The NRA sounds radical because you generally only hear the radicalized version of things. The same could be said of the gun-control people (I'm hard pressed to name even a single such group, in spite of the fact that there are several -- my own ignorance, possibly willful).
There are right wing loonies in the NRA. Not every NRA member is one such. They do all like guns, however.
The NRA defends the right of people to bear arms, as guaranteed in our constitution. This is reasonable. That provision is not really there for hunters -- it exists because we as a people have historically had a profound distrust of government, prefering to keep it close to us, where we can watch it carefully. The authors also had recent experience with governments confiscating arms and property for its own use.
Sorry, there is no freedom of speech or expression permitted on college campuses these days. Flat out nearly all of them are under the thumb of left-wingers.
Cite examples please. With evidence that a) there is no freedom of speech/expression permitted, and b) this is the fault of left-wing groups. I hear these claims of liberals attacking these freedoms, but I don't see any more instances of them doing it then people on the right.
Just asserting it doesn't make it so.
I still find it amazing that so many conservatives attack the left as being in favor of censorship and all, when the biggest group that fights FOR those first amendment freedoms, the ACLU, is also considered a left-wing group. (The right-wing version, the ACLJ, is notorious for thinking freedom of religion means the ability to force your beliefs on others - that sure isn't freedom)
(BTW, I am a very liberal person, who donates regularly to the ACLU and is a strong supporter of first amendment rights)
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Liberals seem to look to the future and change things, trying to improve them, whereas conservatives look into the past, and try to roll things back to a point that they felt was comfortable for them.
Not even close. To take just one example, conservatives are trying to reform Social Security to make it self-sufficient and not in danger of bankruptcy in 30 years, and liberals are howling in protest. The defining issue between liberals and conservatives is not the future or the past, it is how much power government should have.
In the US, the democratic party has tried to fight for the people, the little guy, the worker.
"Little guys" like trial lawyers, Hollywood actors, and union bosses? How exactly were Clinton and Gore fighting for the people when they approved the Clipper Chip, the CDA, and the DMCA? How are Democratic politicians helping inner-city families by denying them a choice in education, while they send their own children to expensive private schools?
The republicans support the business executives, big money, and therefore corporations as well as conservative religious organizations.
Take a look at campaign contributions. Democrats get just as much from businesses as Republicans. Corporations will happily buy legislation from either or both parties. I'm not going to defend the Republican party too strongly because they do a number of stupid things (generally due to the religious right contingent), but to say that the Democrats are for the people and Republicans are for the corporations is pure demagoguery.
With the return of the Bush regime to power in the United States, the prime goal that we've seen so far is to reduce environmental standards, by increasing the limits of acceptible arsenic pollution in our water
It is absolutely false that Bush wants to raise arsenic limits. He ordered a _review_ of Clinton's last-minute regulations lowering acceptable levels by 80% to see if there is a scientific basis for them. Compliance will cost a significant amount, and there is little evidence that current arsenic levels are a problem. In fact, if current arsenic levels are so dangerous, why did Clinton wait eight years to do anything? It couldn't possibly have been a political maneuver so that leftist partisans could subsequently accuse Bush of wanting to poison children....
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Of course free speech isn't an absolute. I'll bring up the tired but true example of yelling fire in a theater. Why wouldn't this apply to the net as well?
That being said, I really don't agree with Sunstein arguments. People have a tendency to hear what they want to hear and visit web sites that they will follow their line of thinking.
You can't force people to have an open mind
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
... because the presence or absence of links to opposing viewpoints is a useful heuristic as to the sanity of the site.
Sites that have opposing viewpoint links are saying that they are confident enough in their views (and your intelligence) that pointing to the opposition only makes their case stronger. It's also an excellent way to kick sand in the face of the opposition - "we link to them, but they're not brave enough to link to us".
Sites that don't have opposition links are saying the opposite - that they don't trust you to agree with them, that they think the opposition might fool you despite their best efforts, that they're not 100% confident in their arguments.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I never liked the term "left" or "right" wing. Where did those come from anyways? Were the terms created by how a certain arrangement of people used to sit in a certain assmebly? It's a convenient stereotype that people who want to use a label can tack onto a certain thought or action in order to better classify it.
This is a rather narrow-minded perception of political agendas, even when paired together with the notions of conservative and liberal, these polarized views of an assembly of people's opinions for the most part fails to line up with reality.
Can you walk into a music store, and categorize everything in there to go from technologically inspired to non? Perhaps at one side you'd have techno, and industrial, move a little bit down the line to hip-hop and rock, a little further to country and folk, and finally end up with classical and acapella. Most people wouldn't dig this one-dimensional classification, it certainly wouldn't allow you to go to one part in the line and say that all music here is good, and all music over there is bad. Yet it happens every day in the major media organizations.
These names and parties *do* exist. We can examine what are the general tendencies of these philosophies - Liberals seem to look to the future and change things, trying to improve them, whereas conservatives look into the past, and try to roll things back to a point that they felt was comfortable for them.
In the US, the democratic party has tried to fight for the people, the little guy, the worker. The republicans support the business executives, big money, and therefore corporations as well as conservative religious organizations.
In law student's tirade, he mentions: The left wing has a kind of right-on fashion appeal, which attracts unthinking students and such, (look at the sixties). The sixties were a long decade filled with many activities, some of the most notable were man landing on the moon and the civil rights movement. The imagery that he may be trying to conjure up could be of the group of people who burned out from using too many drugs. That was an unfortunate circumstance to a major societal change. Many things happened in that wave, including the people's hunger to protest their government's stupid ideas being re-ignited (remember, the US was created by a bunch of people who protested their government). Many more personal freedoms were gained, including more gender equity in the workplace, auto safety standards, and the peace corps.
Most people I discussed politics with last fall had an opinion about who they should vote for president. Most of the Gore and Nader supporters had some well thought out opinions that were grounded in facts. I have yet to meet one Bush (or Buchanan) supporter who has anything intelligent to say about them. What I usually heard was "we're tired of Clinton's penis". Fine - but don't deliver hypocrisy as a side-dish.
With the return of the Bush regime to power in the United States, the prime goal that we've seen so far is to reduce environmental standards, by increasing the limits of acceptible arsenic pollution in our water, and C02 emissions so the coal and oil companies can get just a little more profit this quarter, while those same executive's children grow up inhaling our legacy's soot and drinking water with chemicals, and eating dead cows with numerous diseases - leading to the development of all sorts of weird illnesses.
Political debates have raged back and forth for ages, and nothing will settle people's conflict better than facts. Though facts can always be manipulated to tell different truths. That's why an open, free democratic union should always consider all the options available, and never "shun this book, as it is unamerican and left wing" for the american people are left wing, and right wing, and diagonal wing, and some are all 3.
- passion
<i>The "Nazi is short for National Socialist, therefore the Nazis weren't right-wing" blather is frankly offensive. Totalitarianism isn't unique to either the right wing or the left. </i>
<p>
It is however true that there is a great deal of overlap in the concepts of State Socialism (there are other kinds) and Totalitarianism. Socialism in it's traditional form saw the state as the orginizer of econominc life. Totalitarianism includes this position. </p>
<p> If you find the association of "Left" and NAZI offensive then think you have an overly emotional attachment to the word "Left" . The terms "Left and Right" stem from a discription of two sides in a french assebly. Left and Right do not stand for any particular philisophical position, and thier meaning varies greatly from place to place and over time. The use of the terms "Left and Right" are simply a vacuous substitute for having to deal witht the actual positions of a given person or group. The same is true of conservative and liberal.</p>
So if a gay site writes about Fred Phelps they have to link to GodHatesFags.Com?
Sunstein is serious when he says speech isn't an absolute. He supported, for example, the lawsuit by cattlemen against Oprah Winfrey. See:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/beef.html
You can interact with Republic.Com author Cass Sunstein in Princeton University Press's online book forum located at:
http://pup.princeton.edu/sunstein/
I asked Sunstein several questions which he gave less than satisfactory answers to. One of my questions asks him to explain why his web site at the University of Chicago has no links to opposing viewpoints. You might want to read his dodge.
My review also appears in the April Issue of "The Ethical Spectacle" http://www.spectacle.org/
Regards, Matt Gaylor
``In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'' -George Orwell
I have recently been studying the issue of gun rights, an area I had never really looked into in detail before.
What I found, interestingly enough, was exactly the opposite of what is hypothesized in this book. Pro gun rights websites tend, in general, to link to more anti-gun editoirials than to pro-gun editorials! Far from seeking to avoid controversial opinions, most people who are activists really love the argument and like to link to opposing views in order to have something to rant about!
The NRA likes to link to arguments against gun rights, but not necessarily because they are after a spirit of fairness and co-operation, of course. They like to link to that sort of thing because when their audience (pro gun rights people) read about gun control, they get mad and donate money.
I think that human nature is such that people do not act in the hypothesized manner. People don't like to read only things that they agree with. They like to read stuff that pisses them off.
Heck, I sometimes even read Jon Katz for that reason.
Wikia
If I am going to be required to include links to an opposing viewpoint when I feel like ranting, what is to stop me from linking to the most ridiculous naturally-occuring strawman I can find?
Furthermore, what's with the .net? How is this any different than what has occured in physical groups such as political parties, or in books, periodicals, radio and television programs, churches, and etc. in the past?
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Since the 17th century, Quakers (or the Religious Society of Friends) have been trailblazing a civilized, frank, thoughtful method of coming to consensus on behavior (trying to change attitudes is at best unnecessary in a multicultural world --see Richard McKeon's work). I think the book Beyond Majority Rule might do some so-called "thinkers" a lot of good. Attending non-programmed meetings, and actually experiencing the decision-making process in monthly "meetings for worship with a concern for business," would be even more educational. As an anarchist myself (government is not very necessary; all stable groups of humans form culture, expectations, and controls anyway), I am very comfortable with what the society calls "Quaker process." Yeah, it takes time, but it works -- which is more than you can say for democracy, capitalism, or any other organizational/principled form.
well, apart from in Europe.
Not sure about the Conservatives in the uk either - unless you`ve been talking to farmers?
Politician can't read
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Personally, I'm against pr0n so I'm off to investigate the pro-pr0n sites..
I think this is a work of art, not a troll.
What a short awesome job of showing the problems with Republic.com and it's bias.
It poisons the people. I LOVE this post!!! I gather from the last line, the author may not even agree with what he's saying, but I still love it!
Liberals/left wingers what have you, are really after control by society. They think individuals should defer to societies viewpoint(s) whenever it has one and for whatever reason.
Right wingers/conservatives whatever generally believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility.
This book is proposing that the government, or "SOCIETY" get to decide what people put into their brains. Rather than the people themselves deciding what goes in. The lines of what is/isn't radical will be drawn by the government, the choices of what people "need" to be exposed to would be chosen by the government. (ie Democratic society, the whim of the populous at large with guns behind it)
This idea is a liberal's wet dream, of course it's biased. But, the liberals say, we're going to put stuff up there we DON'T agree with too. Yeah, right I believe you. So, um would this post I'm replying to be one of the things "required" on "extreme liberal" sites? Oh, there's no "extreme liberal" category? How did that get left out? Oh, yeah, liberals don't believe anything strongly, except that no one else should either. Huh, that makes sense.
Why do liberals(particularly the leaders) like things this way? Because they are generally good politicians, and good arguers, so it makes it easy for them to get their way.
It would just be really scary if somebody got a bright idea and decided to implement actual LAWS like this.
That is why this line of reasoning is a bit uncomfortable for those of us who happen to actually BELIEVE in something, and even those who realize that everyone believes in SOMETHING.
Call belief a human trait if you like.
Why should anybody be forced to carry anything. It is surely factual that the net will increase the distance between factions but so what? If America is a boiling pot what is wrong with turning up the flame for a more vigorous boil? Free speech should produce a vigorous and almost violent state of perpetual conflict. That is what it is supposed to do. In a war of speech Darwin stands in the sidelines. The most fit speech will win the day.
"environmental terrorists who spike logging areas" -- hmm, do I detect a hint of bias? Maybe just an eensy weensy bit?
"WTO protestors/rioters and other left wing extremists" don't sound like hate groups to me. I would like to know exactly why you consider these to be hate groups? Or are they hate groups because you hate how they threaten the security of your precious trust fund?
[pink beam of light]
Obviously you haven't heard that the book is actually about and inspired by (as in disagreement with) the site freerepublic.com (notice the name- republic.com)
No. I first got the image from zanyvg.overclocked.org (the game is called Battlerangers) and I've been cracking up about it ever since.
--
--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
Bingo Foo
---
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Regardless of the various moral positions we wish to promote, this is a quandry we all run into.
To a certain degree, it is a measure of our social skills, to be able to be in communication with someone who does not want to listen. Some poeple who are not very skilled try to insist on it as a right, when in fact it is a matter of social agreement (yah, I'll watch your commercial)
And let's face it the freedom to not listen is often taken as an act of integrity. Republicans not listening to Democrats, dogs not listening to cats, Microsoft not listening to anyone (except when it hurts), etc.
I am sure each of us can think of dozens of things you don't want to listen to. It is an interesting quandry.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Tell me again how this is different from the printing press.
Awww, hell with it.
The "Nazi is short for National Socialist, therefore the Nazis weren't right-wing" blather is frankly offensive. Totalitarianism isn't unique to either the right wing or the left.
And anyone who thinks the Conservative Party is resurgent in the UK is either in the UK and in a dreamworld, or elsewhere and twenty years behind the times.
Hitler was a right wing freak. On the political spectrum from left to right you generally have: nazism, fascism, reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, socialism, communism. Hitler was not a socialist - far from it, he was a fascist. National Socialism is as far from the core ideas that Karl Marx preached as the Taliban is from the core ideas Mohammed preached. Hitler's system had a great deal of private property, and the rhetoric of the Nazi's were almost exactly the same as the rhetoric of the fascists in Italy. The doctrine of political power through strength, national unity is a fascist doctrine, carried even further in Nazi propaganda to call for racial purity. That is far removed from the socialist idea of equality of persons. That's why, in the end, Germany sided with Italy, not with Russia. Titles mean little - you should look at what the actual platform called for.
--
Yours,
What about these ads I see for NBCi's new thingamajigger where you can click on any word (on a web page or not) and you'll be instantly taken to more info?
Why not just force everyone to use NBCi? That would be so much easier than policing everyone's website.
-- dR.fuZZo
These laws were eventually struck down as unconstitutional. Part of the reason, IIRC, was that it required stations to subsidize speech that they didn't agree with.
But more importantly (to my mind), the other reason they were struck down was that they were based on the false notion that there are only two viewpoints on any issue, and that presentation of two viewpoints covered the entire spectrum of the issue.
Sunstein's idea to require linking to opposing viewpoints is just Equal Time redux, and it would be just as unconstitutional. Viewpoints that do not fit into the traditional (and overly simplistic) left-right dichotomy would be even more marginalized than they are currently.
Writer Camille Paglia espouses an unusual brand of feminism which tends to upset conservatives and traditional "liberal" feminists equally. Where would her voice fit in this system?
Pro-life and pro-choice extremists both claim there can be no compromise on the issue of abortion, despite the fact that the vast, but largely silent majority of Americans seem to want a compromise, allowing abortions early in a pregnancy, but not partial-birth abortions. But how likely is it that anyone would be exposed to the moderate view under Sunstein's system?
And when there are more than two opposing viewpoints, who decides which ones qualify to be linked to? If it were up to the website owner himself, what keeps him from linking to the worst, weakest presentation of an opposing viewpoint, and how does that help anyone? Or, to take a worst-case scenario, what prevents him from deliberately putting up a bad presentation of an opposing viewpoint, presenting it as a site independent from his own, and linking to that? Literal biblical creationists are notorious for presenting strawman versions of evolutionary theory to shoot down, either failing to understand or deliberately misrepresenting what evoluationary theory actually predicts.
At least when a web site or other information source presents only one side of the story, most people are smart enough to realize it's biased. But I worry that when two viewpoints are represented (because they're required by law to be represented) people will then conclude that all viewpoints are represented.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Does he present citations to opposing views?
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
And it would die a quick death due to no users!
sulli
RTFJ.
Required links to the opposing viewpoints?
Part of being a responsible citizen is informing yourself by doing some research on ideas, beliefs, policies, organizations etc.
Sure, the web makes it easier to do all this, but are we going to let ourselves be force-fed, in any way, information that is supposedly balanced. I will never believe it, and will not give up looking it up for myself. It's the only way to gurantee that if I'm wrong, I'm at the very least, responsible for it.
yoink
For instance, this site is host to some pretty vociferous arguments. Many of the people who post here have very different political viewpoints than mine. Some posts make my blood boil, yet I still keep reading. I read because this is a site about... about... well, I forget what this site is about, but there are generally pretty interesting things on it.
The most interesting idea in the review (haven't read the book yet) is the idea of a 'public service' link to a site about public policy. This could be the fee the government charges for its initial investment in the Internet. Reminds me of the boards in Ender's Game. The democratic system of government presupposes some intelligent public debate, and its long-term survival demands an informed populace, so the system of government (as opposed to the current government itself) might be well-served by this sort of thing. There are precedents to governments incenting their citizens to participate - some states in ancient Greece fined citizens that didn't vote in elections.
Milo
Here's a thought: Practical, moderate resolution of real issues instead of ideological baiting, pandering, warring and dysfunction.
All left-right battles do for us is polarize and create circus sideshows so that the huge, silent middle won't be able to pay as much attention to what's really going on.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Wow, did I step into a time warp? Because this comment had to be written 10 years ago (at least).
resurgance of the Conservatives in Britain
Ha ha ha ha ha
Unfortunately, this is not "+1, informative," it is "-1, troll." However, since I'm dumber than the average fish, I'll bite-- Just because "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" doesn't mean that German fascism had the slightest thing in common with socialism in theory or in practice. While it may have certain totalitarian aspects in common with, say, soviet communism, it has virtually nothing in common with socialism as it has been theorized and practiced in the remainder of Europe. Please study political science before you spout off facile comparisions. --J
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
It doesn't seem to me that this is a new problem. People have always had the ability to choose what to read or listen to. Should governments force them to read both left- and right-wing newspapers, for example?
It might not always even be a bad thing. I think we need places where people of like views can gather and discuss. I used to read alt.atheism but the trolls(who were "witnessing") and the people flaming back at them were just too much. Here I wanted to discuss my religous beliefs with like-minded people - what do you tell kids?" and so forth - and I have to wade through 100 messages about
RE: RE: RE: UNBELIEVRS GO TO HELL!!!!!! REPENT AND BE SAVED!!!!
in order to get to the discussion I wanted - using a 4800 modem. There was supposed to be a subgroup of alt.atheism for this argument, but nobody read it so the trolls kept posting to the main group (and people kept arguing with them).
I like the occassional flamewar as well as anyone else, but the best discussions occur when people have a common ground. Look at Slashdot posts debating the relative merits of various distros compared to "Windoze sux" posts and "Die GPL Bastard" posts. The Linux discussions tend to be much more factual and involve a hell of a lot less hot air, because everyone involved agrees Linux is a good OS, and all distributions are fairly similar. No one will call you an idiot for explaining why you like Debian.
There's a place for opposite opinions to clash, but Republic.com would turn every single website into a never-ending flamewar.
Sorry, there is no freedom of speech or expression permitted on college campuses these days. Flat out nearly all of them are under the thumb of left-wingers.
... infering is their game, dodging responsibility works wonders in their book.
This lil'book is a great example, a typical tactic of the left is guilt by association. They love this as they can then claim they did not "say it"
The 10 reasons list that went out recently is a great example of the suppresion of speech on college campuses. This is the fault of a falculty who encourages students to violently lash out against opposing views and then excuses them when they do. (if you notice however, its okay to do anything if you can find a group who was possibly oppressed)
freedom of speech sucks because anwsering the claims requires facts and not emotion
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yeah, the links tend to get outdated. It's been a while since I've tried to update them all.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I maintain a series of my admittedly liberal and somewhat populist views on my website on a 'Rant Page'.
http://www.furinkan.net/rant/
Subject matter ranges from griping about bad Anime dubs or things that piss me off in the news. I regularly slam organized religion, conservatism, and moralism.
What really amazed me when I started this site was the large number of emails it generated, both in favor and against the ideas I put forth. Some are flames, but a good number are intelligent, crafted rebuttals of my arguments. It has improved my world view, and made me more prone to carefully consider my arguments before I post them.
While I do think that hate groups and kiddie porn groups exist that feed off of their own homogenity, I think this trend is not the norm and still a sign of stupidity or introverted and psychotic behavrior. From my experiences, I beleive that the majority of intelligent people out there do seek out differing views on the subjects they're interested in.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
It's too easy to dismiss the other guy as stupid or evil. Keep in mind that in every demographic in the US both the republicans and the democrats got atleast 10% of the vote. In other words no matter what you believe there is always someone smarter out who believes the opposite.
Rush Limbaugh said, about 5 years ago, that Republicans tend to think that democrats are stupid and democrats tend to think republicans are mean (whether you like him or not we should be all able to agree that he is one of the most biased men in america.) And I think 5 years ago he was right about this point. But rescently I think opposite is true. So I would rephrase his statement as those in power tend to paint their opponents as mean (those bastards don't want you to have tax cuts) and those with out power cast their opponents as stupid (those republicans just don't understand that we can't aford this tax cut.)
So why am I bothering to say all this? I'm just pointing out that when you submit comments like law student you are simply falling into the trap rather than... well I don't know what he was trying to accomplish. But the same goes for this review. Sure the author is biased; but atleast it is visable. But aside from his biase do the arguments presented in the book offer logical structures? Does he supply evidence? If the main theory of the book is rooted in strong logical arguments what does it matter if laces it with pinko bs (I just love using the term pink bs.) Those who agree with his left wing agenda probably won't have a problem with his examples... but if they are clear minded may or may not agree with the fundemental hypothesis. And those who disagree with the liberal comments should just dismiss those comments and critique the main theory.
It is human nature to catagorize everybody into US or THEM boxes. It's up to you where and how you draw the line. I do tend to fall slightly on the rightwing side of politics (pro-life, pro death penelty) but I try to draw my US/THEM line between openminded and closeminded. I consider a creative liberal that questions, a lot closer to me than a conservative who inhales everything he is fed.
What is the equivalent of yelling "Fire" on the Net?!
If I type "Fire" in a chatroom, surely this poses no threat to you. You would not be harmed by even the most vicious jpg of a fire on webpage...
Even the most insidious speech on the net may do nothing more harmful to you than raising your blood pressure...
It is different...because it is different...some things are no more complex than that
Why wouldn't this apply to the net as well?
I would suspect that you are a fairly logical person in real life, why doesn't that apply on the net as well? *grin*
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Fact Every major European country has had a left wing government for a majority of the time since 1989.
Fact 'Social Democrats' currently form the government in all but two major European states.
Fact The notoriously right wing Murdoch press has even written off the Conservatives as a credible opposition force let alone a government.
Fact No party that believes it will win an election calls for a delay as the British conservatives have been doing.
Fact A majority of the US electorate voted for Gore, hardly a sign that the election can be taken as demonstrating Republican hegenemony. With a drawn presidential election, hung senate and narrowed lead in the house few expect the GOP trifecta to last long.
Delusion is not confined to sad Trotskyites. Nor for that matter is the evil of mindless ideology. Karl Popper had it right when he identified ideological extremism as the 'enemy of the open society'. The idea that the end justifies the means comes from a belief in absolute ideological truth.
Twenty years ago it was the ideological left that was trying to change society and the pragmatic right that spent most of the time in government. Today those positions are reversed and it is the right that is ideological and the left that has become the natural party of government in most of the democratic world.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Meaning nothing, the socialist block was the only group to vote against the enabling act that gave Hitler supreme power. The communists would have done had Hitler not had all their deputies elected.
The claim that Hitler's "philosophy" bore any coherent resemblance to any mainstream political movement. However the principal planks of Mein Kampf were a Eugenic program based on genocide of Gypsies, Jews and Homosexuals and the invasion of Eastern Europe to create a 'Liebensraum'. Neither of those objectives has ever been associated with mainstream European Socialism.
The Nationalization of industry did not actually take place, that is in part because the industrialists were the main backers of Hitler. With the exception of Winston Churchil most of the European right at the time was enthusiastically supporting Hitler's command economy program for restoring Germany's economy.
The fact is that the right was far more tolerant of Hitler than the left, just as the left were far more tolerant of Stalin than the right. Both sets of appeasers were utterly wrong and it was the standouts on both sides who were right - most notably Winston Churchil on the 'right' (although his changes of party means that he is not easily characterized) and George Orwell (Eric Blair) on the left.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Longstanding UseNetters will remember the activities of Achmed Cosar, a member of the Turkish Secret police who posted hundreds of messages a day to the soc.culture groups of Usenet under the aliases Serdar Argic and Hasan B-) Mutlu.
The clear intention was to drown out any discussion of the 1918 massacre of Armenians by the Turks. The massacre is a touchy subject for the Turkish government and Turkey recently withdrew its ambassador to France after France recognised the massacre as genocide and made vehement complaints to the British after the Armenian masscre was amongst those recognized on 'Holocaust day'.
What Cosar did was to run an AWK script that scanned several USEnet groups for any occurrences of certain keywords. The script would then return the first paragraph of the post, append a randomly chosen insult and add a piece of Turkish government propaganda to the end. Cosar's activities stopped when the US cancelled his H1B visa. [Don't ask how I know this stuff, I am not going to discuss my sources on /.]
Cosar's activities were an extreeme but there are plenty of similar examples. Shouting down the opposition was a popular tactic of Facist and Trotskyite groups. In the 1930s the NAZI party and the Communists would disrupt each other's meetings. Trotsky called the strategy of taking over another party by joining en-masse and being deliberately unpleasant to force others to leave 'entryism'.
These tactics are rare but not unheard of and it is this against this type of behavior that the majority of negative moderation is directed. On slashdot the 'first post' and 'goat**x' messages are a kind of mindless apolitical version of the same thing.
Strictly speaking I don't think that 'trolls' should necessarily be marked down since there is a very fine line between a deliberately provocative post and a troll. In each of the cases I have made a post that scored 5 I have thought that some people would think of as a troll. A well written intelligent troll can be fun - if the intention is to provoke thought rather than to trigger mindless reactions from the unthinking.
For these reasons I see moderation as a tool to protect the middle ground against the people whose purpose is to prevent debate.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
All this seems to be missing an important point - one that constantly gets lost in discussions about regulating this weird hybrid of communications technologies. That is that the internet/web/whatever you call it is not truly a public communication device and it is not truly a broadcast media. When you turn on your radio or TV you get a set range of channels or stations. You can choose what you see or listen to, but what's there is what's gonna be there. When you connect to the internet it is much more like picking up your phone: You can call people you know and want to talk to, or look up strangers, companies, or topics in a directory. Although the directories and connection protocols are public, the content and the connection you as a user make with can and in my opinion should be viewed as private communication, the same as if you were talking to the content originator on the telephone. Your choice in what information you connect to is much more under your control and the medium of information exchange is through privately held pathways, not public commodities like the broadcast wavelengths. In this context, establishing controls of the sort intimated in this review is treading on very, very dangerous ground. Should books be required to have a bibliography of differing opinions? Does the book in question present access to the opposing view? Should a computer monmitor my private telephone conversations, search for biased or hateful opinions, and break in to offer a 3-way call out to someone who disagrees? We exercise controls on speech in this society but I for one believe that it is imperative to liberty to keep speech absolutely as free as possible and to fight and argue any proposed revision of the principle of free speech tooth and nail, testing it against the absolute standard of whether it will prevent a clear danger or promote a clear benefit to the social contract which supercedes the dangers of denying every person the right to freely express their beliefs, however odious you may find them. Worrying that advances in communication technologies will promote polarization of opinion clearly fails this test.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
The basic trouble is that, like the debates in the last Presidential campaign, it assumes that there are just two viewpoints. There are lots of viewpoints. Florida had about a dozen different Presidential candidates on their ballot. And that's just the groups that worked hard enough at collecting petitions to qualify for a contest where they knew they didn't have any chance... Do you want to require every web site to carry links to everyone who wants to be linked? Or do you want to appoint a gov't commission to decide which are valid viewpoints? (Besides the @#$%^&* presidential debate commission, I mean...)
...everyone seems to want freedom from something (wether if be something that offends them, differing viewpoitns, et. al), instead of remebering that the 'net has at its bedrock the principle of freedom of something: namely, information.
--M.
Eh? "the resurgance of the Conservatives in Britain, and the collapse of the left acrsoss the entire globe since 1989."
Where have you been? The left is firmly ensconced in power in the UK (Labour Party) and continental Europe, with the exception of the Republic of Ireland and Spain, whose governments are right wing and conservative. In recent elections in France, the left took Paris for the first time in over 100 years. You're completely misinformed.
And I might add, that the European concept of "right-wing" would fall into the American "moderate left" category. So you might as well view the whole of Western Europe as ruled by social democrats.
i must disagree. i'm liberal, but from my (possibley limited) experience, liberal college students are more likely to call for censorship than conservative college students. that being said, they're a whole lot less likely to be a--holes than the right-wing students.
however, you can't ignore the brown case: the ACLU i know and love would defend the publishers of this racially dubious ad in a second
there really needs to be a stronger distinction between liberal, conservative, extremist, and idiotic in the rest of this discussion.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Perhaps Sunstein's main idea is much more important than his idea of Public.Net. Peer pressure is a very strong force. If people are stuck in an environment where all of their peers believe one thing, they will be extreme discouraged from developing their own ideas.
Sunstein's main idea is extreme enough to get his book published, but polemical enough that it misunderstands the conditions of creating a dynamic, a conversation, or a community.
Communication requires context. The internet offers a variety of contexts that are not only changing so fast that they are hard to keep track of, but which so far have not found a way to fit together neatly. While the search to get past the one-way-linking that the internet uses is interesting and may bring new possibilities, every search of the internet will take you through things you weren't looking for. You cannot help but have a chance to encounter what you disagree with.
Niches are the internet. It will take some pretty strong new kind of candy to hegemonize or dominate the vast variety of intermixing groups which sustain themselves online. Some people will always appear to be obstinate and closed off, but most people graze here and there, and generally find something unexpected in what they are familiar with.
Your point, in general, is good, but I think it's best to remember while in a suburban shopping mall. The internet may well be the last place that anyone is "stuck in an environment where all of their peers believe one thing." This is why the Chinese build such big firewalls.
usually it's A) an excuse to smoke pot or B) a ploy to get in a woman's pants.
True dat.
But let's look at it this way, ain't nothing wrong with smoking pot. If it's what you're going to do, it's what you're going to do. It's a hell of a lot better than the damn crack that goes and ruins someone's life.
Also, when it comes to doing something to impress the ladies, well, that isn't all that bad either. After all, women have kind of an intuition. They can tell when things are wrong, and when shit's fucked-up. Even if you're doing something just to get in their pants, if it really impresses the lady, then it probably did some good for the world. (Hell, a majority of women are left-wingers, so this should make some sense.)
I see it this way, who would you rather support, some guys who are just lookin' to have a little fun, or some guys who don't have enough faith in their own johnsons?
--
Dolamite. I keep my hoes satisfied.
- Information,
- Data, and
- Noise.
Only information is immediately useful. One person's information is another person's noise; it depends what you are looking for. Requiring the inclusion of certain material will just increase the noise from the perspective of many readers, and they will go to considerable effort to filter it out. You'd have to be hopelessly naive or an idiot to think that something like this would work; whether Sunstein is naive or cynical and two-faced is a good question. I have never read his writings to see if he has a talent for double-think, but given the obvious flaws in Republic.com I'm not likely to bother. I already have enough noise being thrown at me by people who think I should rate their priorities higher than my own.--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
- Compelled speech is un-Constitutional.
- People would just filter it anyway, either the way you already ignore banner ads or via anti-compulsion filters akin to WebWasher.
On the other hand, if libel law were modified to limit or remove the safe-harbor provisions when inaccurate or selective quotes did not include a link to the context (if said context was available on-line and at a linkable address - none of this "have to go through the main page and then search" crap), that might address many of Sunstein's objections.--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I think the book is very good. Here is an interesting review of it: See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Cass Sunstein asks the questions, Is it good for democracy? Is it healthy for the republic? What does this mean for freedom of speech?" "Republic.com exposes the drawbacks of egocentric Internet use, while showing us how to approach the Internet as responsible citizens, not just concerned consumers. Democracy, Sunstein maintains, depends on shared experiences and requires citizens to be exposed to topics and ideas that they would not have chosen in advance. Newspapers and broadcasters helped create a shared culture, but as their role diminishes and the customization of our communications universe increases, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities are in danger of dissolving. In their place will arise only louder and ever more extreme echoes of our own voices, our own opinions." "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; proves that freedom of speech is not an absolute; and underscores the enormous potential of the Internet to promote freedom as well as its potential to promote "cybercascades" of like-minded opinions that foster and inflame hate groups. The book ends by suggesting a range of potential reforms to current misconceptions and to improve deliberative democracy and the health of the American republic . If you are interested in the book you can read a chapter here
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way
F.W.Nietzsche in Beyond Good & Evil
This is true, and it appears to not be addressed in this book, which I find distressing. The left wing is the most insanely dangerous movement ever to threaten Mankind, much more that Hitler or various other conservative right wingers ever were. The reason for this is that the state is insane, and the left wing promotes the state at the expense of the individual. Right wing idealogies, whilst often quite bad (KKK springs to mind) are not as insidiously evil as the left wing.
The left wing has a kind of right-on fashion appeal, which attracts unthinking students and such, (look at the sixties) but the right wing is the true destiny of our People. We can see this because of the election of the Republicans in America and the resurgance of the Conservatives in Britain, and the collapse of the left acrsoss the entire globe since 1989.
This book is the creation of a sickened mind, a mind destroyed by the influences of the socialist state in which it was born and unable to think for itself anymore.
All true Americans will shun this book, as it is unamerican and left wing. It poisons the people.
Given the deep differences between America and some countries that have successfully implemented gun control, I doubt that strict gun control would help much with the American's horrid record of violent crime. Gun control in the USA would likely reduce sucides and accidental death's, but I doubt it would reduce violent crime much. Still, gun control would save many lives.
As quoted in the next section, the main problem with guns is that they make it much too easy to kill. It lets one excalate violence much faster than other weapons - often causing uncessessary death. A rational person does not arm themself with lethal weapons for everyday life. A drunk armed with a knife isn't likely to kill a friend in a drunken rage, while this happens all to often when the drunk has a gun. I have never heard of anyone knifing a son or daughter to death by accident, but guns bought for 'home defense' kill more family and friends than intruders.
A Lucid Gun control Sight and Some quotes from it: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm
The problem with guns
The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person. In Jeffrey A. Roth's Firearms and Violence (NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994, found at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol), he points out the obvious dangers:
Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.) In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.
Suicides
Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns
Self-defense
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.
Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one.
Other weapons
"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders.
Gun Control, a History of Candian Gun control http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/Canadian_Gun_Control .htm
Anarchists never rule
Online as in the physical world, it is possible--and often quite easy--to expose oneself exclusively to viewpoints that reinforce the beliefs one already holds. If people don't want to hear the other side, they have the power to cut it out of their lives completely, on or off the internet.
In this respect there's not much difference between the internet and traditional media. But the ease with which one can learn about alternative viewpoints through the internet makes it much more likely that people will choose to do so.
If learning more about a political organization involves driving across town to go to their meetings or spending your hard-earned money on their publications, are you going to bother? What if all you have to do is wait for their homepage to download?
No one can force you to learn about ideas you don't agree with, but you're much more likely to do so if it's cheap and easy.
IF I HAD KNOWN IT WAS HARMLESS, I WOULD HAVE KILLED IT MYSELF.
I don't know about in the US, but the view from the outside is that the NRA are a bunch of right-wing loonies. Is this true?
No. Empirical research has demonstrated that gun ownership by law-abiding people reduces crime. The connection is so reliable and well known that finally, Democratic congressmen have chosen not to call for new gun laws even in the wake of recent school shootings. There are other good reasons to own guns that have not been a big part of recent public debate. I consider a few of them here.
Guns are protection from the government. The founding fathers knew it -- the Federalist Papers (29 and 46, for example) tell us it's a good thing for the citizenry to outgun the national government; that the United States would be unique in world history in having an armed, and therefore truly liberated, populace. Court cases following the abolition of slavery established that black Americans, having been freed from slavery, would not be truly free unless their gun-ownership rights were the same as everyone else's.
Guns are safe. Bill Clinton told us not so long ago that 12 children are killed by guns every day in the US. Brace yourself: He lied. The number is 12 only if the definition of "child" reaches up to age 24 and includes gang members killing each other (mostly in New York and California). If you look at children aged 10 and younger, 72 were killed in 1999 by accident, or three children every two weeks in a nation of 280 million. That means 72 terrible tragedies, but it also means that when we adjust statistically for the number of guns against the number of everything else, guns are safer for children than wading pools, bathtubs, bicycles, and cars. Part of this is because 99-point-something percent of parents don't let children play with guns, and most children know that real guns aren't toys. And guns don't go off by themselves. I can find many cases where an armed robbery or murder was committed without a gun. Show me one where a gun did it without a criminal.
Guns make people less violent. The first time I bought a gun, I knew I had a dangerous weapon and should act accordingly. I read the owner's manual carefully, and the language of it was enough to put anyone in awe of one of these devices. Further, any gun owner's manual is packed with invaluable safety information -- it is a primer on responsible behavior in general. This feeling of responsibility extends beyond shooting. I don't do "road rage" now. Having a gun in the car tells me I'm the one in trouble if hostilities occur. When someone cuts me off or tailgates, I deliberately drive safely and courteously and behave to avoid any hard feelings with other drivers. At the same time, I am reassured that if some flipping kook simply decides he wants to hurt me, I'm protected. And I am not unique. The great thing about guns is they have this effect on most all law-abiding owners: Choose any state you want that issues concealed-carry permits and you'll find that civilians with concealed-carry permits are less often accused of violent crimes than are the POLICE in that state.
Guns are good for other things. People collect all sorts of items, from souvenir figurines to stamps. Guns, in their own right, are enjoyable to inspect. Spending my life with relatively junky computer keyboards and mouses, can openers, toaster ovens, and whatever else, it's a pleasure just to look at the parts of even an inexpensive gun when cleaning it. Everything is heavy duty, hardened, and precision made. When the typewriter was being developed in the 19th century, early prototypes were frail, clanky, and unreliable. Few people know that it was a gun maker who saw that the problem was lack of precision manufacture, and who had the equipment to make a functional, reliable typewriter. In the same way that auto racing has provided safety and performance technology to production cars, gun manufacturers have given us developments responsible for who knows what other developments.
It bears mentioning that there are one to two million incidents per year in the U.S.A. where law-abiding people use guns successfully to defend themselves or stop crimes. In over 90% of those cases, the gun isn't even fired. Even radical pacifists should love this. But even if guns weren't interesting, even if they weren't safe, even if they didn't impose a calming effect on owners, and even if they didn't protect us from criminals -- protection from the government -- the only entity legally empowered to use lethal force to get whatever it wants -- is enough. I'll keep mine, thanks.
Haha
Disclaimer: There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood
I have just received my copy of republic.com but haven't started it yet. It is obvious that the author is highly biased on one side of the arguement. Sadly, like so much of the 'establishment' he is not aware of the vast possibilities for communication that the Internet brings. If you do a search for a topic on a search engine, you'll end up with a deluge of sites with radically diferent points of view, and pr0n. Chat rooms for an issue will inevitably have pro- and anti-participants. The idea that the government could demand sites carry links to opposing sites is ludicrous. Would the government insist that any group meeting of Greenpeace or Catholics Pro-Lifers have representatives of the oil industry and atheists or pro-choicers present? That would be unconstitional, as it would infringe upon the right to assembly. The Supreme Court agreed with the Boy Scouts that they did not have to violate their policies and allow a gay scout master. Why should an NRA site be required to have a link to anti-gun groups? Does that not also violate their right to free speech. You are in effect saying "You may speak freely so long as you speak as we say?" Any attempt to regualte web-speech would require wholesale regualtion of the Internet, something which the government is currently and will forever be inadequately capable of doing. Don't you love the open-mindness of academia?
Disclaimer: There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood
I like the section concerning guns and workers right.
I also like the section where Jane met the mutant panda and they had coffee.
Then there was the ending, gosh, I haven't cried so much since the end of "An American Tale II: Fievel's Adventures in Las Vegas"
Sheesh...
------ 1001001
Thanks much for the attention to my book. I'm sure I wasn't clear enough about this, but the purpose of the book really isn't to call for more government regulation. (Actually I say that regulation should be disfavored.) The real purpose is to say that for democracy to work, it's important for people to come across topics and ideas by accident -- that in a diverse society, people will do better if they have all sorts of unexpected encounters. The book certainly isn't critical of the internet as a whole. In fact it says that on balance, the internet is very good for democracy. But there's a downside, to the extent that many people (not all, not even most) are using it to live in echo chambers of their own design. This is a problem, even if any government "solutions" would be a bad idea. A real focus of the book is the difficulty of a situation in which like-minded people push each other to extremes, without encountering different points of view. The internet certainly didn't create this difficulty. For many people, it's a fantastic source of new and different ideas. But for too many people, it is creating insulated enclaves, in which people don't expose themselves to new topics and positions. Anyway many thanks for the discussion.
I can promise you that the book is not about and inspired by freerepublic.com! I hadn't known about that site until very recently. Actually I have no criticisms at all of freerepublic.com. The title was inspired by Benjamin Franklin's answer to the crowd's question what the framers of the Constitution had "given us": "A republic, if you can keep it."