See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Tomorrow, our power to filter promises to increase exponentially. With the advent of the Daily Me, you see only the sports highlights that concern your teams, read about only the issues that interest you, encounter in the op-ed pages only the opinions with which you agree. In all of the applause for this remarkable ascendance of personalized information, Cass Sunstein asks the questions, Is it good for democracy? Is it healthy for the republic? What does this mean for freedom of speech?
Chat with Cass Sunstein in a Message Forum hosted beginning April 1, 2001.
What people are saying - Write a review
Quick takeaway: Personalized news readers and political websites that preach to the choir have stripped Americans of the 'surprise rhetoric' one might find in the public square and general newspapers. Folks ought to expose themselves to thoughtful rhetoric from varying viewpoints, for a few reasons: basic input; the need to challenge the intellectual sufficiency of your own position (can you debate the WSJ or Times OpEd page); and, generally, to take part in the marketplace of ideas that is crucial to the Republic.
The Daily Me
An Analogy and an Ideal
Fragmentation and Cybercascades
Social Glue and Spreading Information
Whats Regulation? A Plea
Freedom of Speech
Policies and Proposals