Republic.com | 
 enlarge | Author: Cass R. Sunstein
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $19.95
Buy Used: $1.05
You Save: $18.90 (95%)
New (1) Used (19) from $1.05
Avg. Customer Rating:  20 reviews
Sales Rank: 769754
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 240
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 5.3 x 0.7
ISBN: 0691095892
Dewey Decimal Number: 340
EAN: 9780691095899
ASIN: 0691095892
Publication Date: March 25, 2002
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
The center does not hold. The rise of customizable media has mainstream thinkers, used to a near-monopoly on attention, running scared. Legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein makes the case for a more robust information diet from a slightly left of center point of view in Republic.com. Building on the ideas of the Technorealist movement, Sunstein focuses on the increasing volume of extremist voices as people choose to read or listen to only those points of view they already share. Though it seems that he occasionally overstates his case--it seems unlikely that we'll ever really be able to filter every unwanted or unexpected opinion--he does score some solid blows against the current, more or less laissez faire system. His prose is clear and accessible--exactly the kind of reasoned discourse he values and wants to preserve. His proposed program of government-sponsored and mandated public media spaces probably won't rouse many readers to wholehearted endorsement, but the suggestion that we have problems brewing ought to be enough to spur further thought. Since everyone from the American Nazi Party to the Zapatistas has found a stronger voice via the Internet, it's little wonder that we're starting to hear concerned prophets warning of a new Babel. Whether we can--or should--do anything beforehand is an open question; Republic.com makes a strong and pointed case against the status quo. --Rob Lightner
Product Description
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? 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 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 enflame hate groups. The book ends by suggesting a range of potential reforms to correct current misconceptions and to improve deliberative democracy and the health of the American republic. Chat with Cass Sunstein in a Message Forum hosted beginning April 1, 2001.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 15 more reviews...
 Interesting, but comon! January 16, 2007
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
Lacking in almost everyway. It was lightly interesting, but not really very entertaining. Doesn't make you want to keep reading. Read only if it is assigned in class, like it was for me.
 Thought-provoking, but not really scholarly or scientific September 10, 2005
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This was an interesting read for the first... 50 or 70 pages. Then it seemed like the info was repeated over and over again without new substantiation... kind of like debating with oneself - I lost interest right there... maybe that's because I have no background in law...
However, the main thesis of the book is really thought-provoking for those interested in online communication and polit science. The fact that internet is not "all-good" and not "all-evil" is evident from reading this volume; a few good examples vividly demonstrate it, mostly anecdotally and logically, rather than impirically.
I'd recommend this book, it's fist 50 pages are worth the money!
 An Authoritarian Trashes the Internet March 22, 2005
6 out of 8 found this review helpful
I give this book three stars not because I agree with it but because I think people need to read this book to find out that there are VERY influential people in this country who have a problem with the free exchange of information and ideas that occurs on the Internet. Sunstein's thesis is that the Internet fragments and personalizes information to such an extent that individuals are increasingly isolated from contrary views; this isolation allows "bad" ideas to go unchecked, thereby promoting extremism and threatening democracy. Sunstein proposes a series of "solutions" which are both unworkable and unnecessary, for his basic premise is flawed.
Contrary to Sunstein, the Internet gives people access to more, not less, information, more opinions, not fewer, and gives people more opportunities - not fewer - to challenge and respond to false or contrary information. Chat rooms and web bloggers provide unprecedented opportunities to engage people of differing opinions, opportunities unavailable in the days when everybody sat in front of the TV and passively accepted the scripted, highly centralized news reporting of a Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather. Sunstein seems unaware that even highly partisan websites ALREADY serve as forums for evaluating and responding to contrary viewpoints, and that bitter disputes occur even among people who share the same general philosophy.
Sunstein explicitly yearns for a return to the days when network news programming would provide a "shared frame of reference" for the public; in other words, he longs for the days when news - presented by people with views similar to his own - could function as propaganda, unquestioned by dissenting voices. Sunstein is thus an authoritarian masking as a libertarian; he wants to control and regulate what you see and hear.
 A poor solution for a problem that doesn't exist March 22, 2005
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
Repulic.com identifies a problem with the new popularity of the internet. With all of the filtering we are able to do through the use of modern software, we may only ever see the type of content that reaffirms our own biases. According to Sunstein, this will result in people having less and less exposure to opposing viewpoints, and the end result will be the fragmentation of the Internet into splinter groups of like-minded individuals. He then goes on to identify a series of ways that this problem can be fixed, all of which involve increased regulation on the content of the web.
The ideas behind this book were poorly thought out from the start, and indicate that the author doesn't have a firm grip on the reality of the Internet, or even of what social interaction involves. He states that we seek out like-minded people and that we can limit our exposure to information that is disseminated only by these people. While this may be true, no two people are ever entirely like-minded. A discussion group on music will have people from all different political backgrounds, a discussion on politics will have people from nearly any religion, and in a religious discussion every possible genre of music fan will usually be represented. People never discuss strictly one subject in an Internet discussion group, in fact this often poses a problem for moderators who want to keep the discussions on topic. Any internet discussion group will have so many different viewpoints that argument is inevitable.
At this point the author might point out that people will be able to filter this content to display only the information that they agree with, but this argument doesn't take human nature into account. People enjoy arguing and convincing others of the truth of their arguments. A person who reads only conservative discussions will inevitably head to a liberal discussion group and start an argument, and vice versa. Sure, they can be banned, but most discussion groups welcome open debates, and this trend shows every sign of continuing well into the future.
Sunstein then argues his case for the Orwellian regulation of all Internet media with the goal of exposing people to more viewpoints. He tries to draw a parallel to the regulation of other media, but misses several glaring differences. Television, newspapers, radio, and magazines are all distributed by a small group of corporations. This makes it easy for a small group of people to control the media, but it also makes them easy to regulate since there aren't many avenues for content to be distributed to the people. The World Wide Web on the other hand, is the diametric opposite of these types of media. Anyone can create content, anyone can find content, and no one can control content.
Throughout the book, the author beats up straw men, compares apples to oranges and extrapolates oversimplified trends to impossible ends. In the end, he never actually explains how his bad ideas could be realistically implemented, but it would inevitably involve a convoluted mess of government regulation. Read it if you must, but this book is only useful as an example of a poor persuasive argument written by an author with only a rudimentary understanding of how the world operates.
A student in the process of reading April 2, 2003
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
I recently began to read sunsteins' book, and I have to say that it raises thought provoking ideas on the direction our society is headed if we continue down our current path. I would have to agree with Howe, in that the Daily Me does not open us up to new ideas or other prospectives and therefore does not allow our democracy room to breath. We are sealing ourselves off from the rest of the world by having everything that we like at our disposal while refusing other information.Even though some of his ideas may seem far-fetched, it is this type of thinking that allows our minds to see different perspectives and escape the fate that awaits us. Of course, his book is not the only thought-provoker but in this growing field of technology ideas such as sunsteins are interesting and a bit refreshing in the world of information
|
|
|
