Republic.com

by Cass R. Sunstein

Book Overview

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... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0691095892
• ISBN13: 9780691095899
• Release Date: April 2002
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Length: 240 Pages
• Weight: 0.54 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 5.0" x 7.5"

Customer Reviews

21st Century Primer for Cyber-Constitution

Every page offers up elegant thoughtful, *relevant* ideas that connect people, technology, and their government in dramatic useful ways. Core ideas explored by the book include the difference between populism and deliberative accountable judgment; the relationship between free speech and social well-being; the vital importance of being exposed to diverse opinion, not just similar opinions; the danger of cyber-cascade information, a form of Hitler-esque propaganda with malicious effect; the true potential (unlikely to be achieved at this point) of the Internet if managed in keeping with the original Constitutional understanding of the role of education and free speech); the absurdity of the notion of free speech as an absolute [on this see my review of Roger Shattuck's Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography, St. Martin's Press, 1996]; the importance of thoughtful regulation; and the destructive effects of market pressures on both culture and government. This is important helpful legal opinion that is clearly "tuned in" to modern information technology and all its dangers as well as its potential. This book is designed for the citizen-reader worried about the future of the Republic. It is both easy to read and necessary to read--a very articulate and comprehensive starting point for devising new law appropriate to the 21st century. I recall Mike Nelson, the author assistant to then Senator Gore in the crafting of the National Information Infrastructure legislature, talking about the frustration of trying to manage 1990's technology with 1950's law. This book, and its author, represent the first decent intelligent brief I have seen connecting the first principles of our Constitution and our Supreme Court interpretations, with the realities of this century's information technology and the threat of chaos in cyberspace. Gems abound. From the author's deep understanding of the dangers of undocumented computer code that contains pre-planned censorship and routing and privacy violation hooks, to his understanding of the need for diversity filters that expose one to contrasting viewpoints, to his discussion of emerging solutions from deliberative opinion polling (includes intelligence) to constructive URL linkages to the dangers of .coms over-whelming .orgs and .edus, this book is the best single lecture in the literature I have read in the past ten years--certainly important to the future of democracy in an electronic age. The author concludes with a discussion of six reform possibilities, including deliberative domains; required disclosure by communications firms; voluntary self-regulation; economic subsidies for democracy-beneficial content and websites; "must carry" rules on *popular* websites (one might include pornographic websites) in the form of links designed to nurture exposure to substantive questions; and "must carry" rules on divisive highly-partisan websites in the form of links to contrasting views. The book includes excellent

Obligations not oblation

Free speech, that guardian of every other right, demands that we listen as well as talk. Indeed, in a deliberative democracy worth the name this two-way freedom is an obligation, one more often than not shirked. Republic.com is marvelously and refreshingly counterintuitive, starting with the above reminder, that the ability to say what you want is half of a two-sided liberty. The author then goes on to point out the promise and perils of the Internet. Never have we had greater opportunity to express our opinions; never have we had more powerful means to avoid those opinions we dislike. And chest-thumping about the need to keep the Internet free of regulation is merely ignorant-it never was free, regulation was there from the start. Sunstein makes a compelling case that it's a matter of deciding, by way of deliberative debate, what regulation we want, not if we want it. And is it so unreasonable to imagine that a powerful new communications technology ought to be used to meaningfully support communication?What I liked most about the book is that it isn't really an Internet book at all. It's a book that uses the Internet to focus on citizenship and the health of the American republic. And, it is a powerful reminder that behaving as citizens is more important than worrying as consumers, be it consumers of patio furniture or political ideologies.That some will not like the book's conclusions seems a given; those that simply dismiss it prove his point.

This book is important

I'm a huge Net advocate and a believer in the possibilities of the Net promoting democracy. But Sunstein has written an important book, even if it is one many people online will consider heretic. He's challenging the tech world -- a sometimes narcissistic and elitist culture which often talks a lot about the masses and democracy, even though most people aren't online or tech savvy -- to consider that the explosion in collaborative filtering and other software (like that used here on this site) is causing us to only deal with ideas we know we're going to like. He reminds us that we are also citizens as well as free and empowered netizens, and that citizens need a public place to get together and be exposed to unanticipated and other ideas they might not agree with. The explosion on moderation and filtering is making it easier than every for people to screen out products, books, opinions they think they don't want to hear. In a civic sense, that leads to a sort of cultural Serbia. Sunstein is quite careful in this book not to be knee-jerk. He isn't anti-technology. He is challenging people to consider the implications of this powerful software. In the tech world, stuff is often judged by how cool it is, rather than by its consequences. My one strong disagreement is Sunstein's call for mandatory links to sites that offer opposing points of view. People shouldn't be forced to consider idea they don't like, they should be encouraged to get to places where they are exposed to them. But I think this is a very significant work, and I highly recommend it to people who love the Net and are interested in its impact on democracy.

Sunstein -defines- the internet speech debate.

This book raises issues that few have ever considered. The internet is a vast resource and we all enjoy customized pages. But are we putting on blinders by using MyPage.com's? Do we reduce our experience and thus the vitality of the Internet itself? After all, many Americans are now getting the daily news from peronsalized 'Net pages and not general newspapers. At the same time, many specialized information pages are available on the Net and may be relied upon without any ability to verify the information or sources. Whether this hurts our Republic is not something that has been popularly discussed in the course of the Internet debate. Sunstein has really extended himself and Republic.com considers important issues that have been neglected to date. This book is a must read.

Illustration of the problem

While I'm not persuaded that the danger of fragmentation is as great as Sunstein fears, mwinter9's rant seriously misses the point of the argument, for it is precisely the public's exposure to a wide spectrum of opinion that this book is concerned about preserving. And while I'm no fan of network televison news operations--particularly their superficiality and herd-like mentality--mwinter9's contention that everyman can easily master journalistic skills (or even understand their demands) is ludicrous and belied by his own writing. Finally, while I doubt that government regulation is the answer to the problems that Sunstein identifies, his object is not to put down the rabble but rather to enable constructive public discussion. Mwinter9's missive illustrates the very dysfunctionality that he is trying to refute and that Sunstein is trying to help us understand.