Note 1: Difference between revisions

From Internet, Law & Politics 2007
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
"In a system that is ostensibly run by the people, more engagement by citizens is better."
We are operating on the assumption that, in general, more information is better than less in a participatory democracy.  This is not always true, however.  One has to decide whether the benefits of extra information outweigh the costs.  


The foregoing statement needs some unpacking.
Assuming we actually want people to be educated about the issues and decide how they want their government to act (see [[Note 2]] for more on that topic), they need to get that information from somewhere. If there is already a reliable source of accurate and complete information that is not being filtered or controlled by those who have an interest in misinformation, there is no need for the internet. 


First, in a system that does not have a democracy, the citizens are probably used to being told what to do, and don't even think of themselves as agents of governmental power.  Unless the dictator decides to cede power to a democratic government (which is exceedingly rare), or a foreign nation decides to "liberate" the nation and impose democracy (which is becoming less rare), the people are going to have to take power for themselves.  While a few highly motivated individuals can start the movement, they must have support from a critical mass of the population.  So, in that democratic revolutions need ideological (and sometimes physical) armies to succeed, more engagement by citizens is better.
But it is a widespread assumption that our normal media outlets are biased at the least.  They also have limited information, since they only have so many reporters with so many connections.  As explained in the main text of our argument, the internet provides more information, and of a different type.


On a related note, once a nation transitions into democracy, the citizens have to care enough to maintain it.  Experience shows that democracy tends to devolve back into dictatorship if the leadership is left to itself.  If citizens fail to demand that their leaders act in a democratic fashion, those leaders will be happy to take power from the people.  More mature democracies need less vigilance than nascent ones, but not much less.  So, in that democracies need individual citizens to jealously guard their right to be governed by a democracy, more engagement by citizens is better.
There are, however, a number of problems with this new flood of information.  First, people don't know who to trust.  At least the New York Times is being read by a large number of highly educated people who will catch its mistakes.  Individual websites may intentionally deceive people, and it is less likely that misinformation will be caught.


Even a healthy democracy needs an engaged citizenry.  When citizens become too comfortable and leave governing to others, democracy slips into oligarchy.  Theoretically, the reins of power are still available to the masses if they care to take them up, but in reality that's probably not entirely true.  While the masses were busy with their own pursuits, the small cadre of engaged citizens could have entrenched their own interest groups and solidified their hold on power. And from there, it's only a few more steps on the spectrum before the nation finds itself with a dictatorship.  If citizens don't demand that their government take care of them, their government won't. Conversely, those who demand attention from the government will receive it.  So, in that citizens lose their political power through disuse, more engagement by citizens is better.   
Second, the mass of information, even if true, may just confuse or overwhelm people.  Individual citizens might throw in the towel and not vote at all if they feel that they can't ever be fully educated on an issue because there are simply too many sources of information.  The marketplace of ideas doesn't work if nobody shows up to shop.


Of course, one might believe that more engagement by citizens is bad.  The argument might be that most people are stupid or selfish, or that they just don't know what's best for themselves.  Less insulting is the argument that most people simply don't have the time to really become educated on all sides of a policy issue, and that it's better for everyone if they just stay out of it rather than meddle in government with incomplete information.  It would be bad if citizens become used to demanding immediate results on issues they don't understand, because leaders will succumb to political pressure and give the people those results, even if that's not really the best plan.  Sound bites could be used to rally people into a furor, and the sober politician who tries to educate citizens about the better course will be unpopular.  So, in that citizen involvement could lead to emotional and ill-conceived rule by the mob, more engagement is bad.    
Third, frivolous websites might make people miss the truly important ones.  So, even if there is more and better information out there, it is not being found or used.  For example, if you have to scroll through hundreds of websites to find the one that could have really educated you on an issue, you're likely never to get there.


Whether you believe more engagement is good or bad for participatory democracy depends on how you view citizens.  Are they essentially stupid and ill-informed, or are they capable of ruling themselves? That's a deeper political philosophical question than we have space to ponder.  But we are operating on the assumption that even if people are ill-informed, the proper course is to educate them and encourage their engagement, not to keep them in the dark and lead them around like lemmings.  It's true that democracy could devolve into mob rule if citizens become too engaged.  But looking around the world today, it seems that the greatest danger to democracy comes from less engagement, not more.  So, for the foregoing reasons, we believe that more citizen engagement is better than less, and that where the internet encourages
Fourth, as we mention elsewhere, people will read only that information that supports their pre-conceived beliefs.  RSS feeds make this particularly easy. It doesn't matter if there is challenging arguments from the other side available if you won't accidentally stumble on them and read them.  You are (perhaps) more likely to run across opposing viewpoints in newspapers, magazines, TV and radio than you are on the internet. 


we're not there yet
Fifth, people may read a few crackpot websites online and consider themselves educated, when that's not true.  Their time would have been better spent reading the New York Times.  The internet enables this kind of half-education as compared to the traditional media outlets. 
but that's just a matter of what you believe about democracy.  we're going from assumption that ppl are capable of governing themselves, and that leaders shouldn't be the ones deciding when ppl should get invovled without ppl knowing why.  that's dangerous.
 
Of course, the information is there, and that's not going to change.  Unless we are prepared to place severe controls on freedom of speech online, it's pointless to ask whether more information is good.  The more fruitful line of inquiry is how we can mitigate the problems caused by massive amounts of information online without losing any of the benefits.  For example, we need better search engines.  We need to encourage people to study both sides of an issue.  We need systems that help separate the chaff from the wheat online. 
 
While we acknowledge potential problems with the availability of information, we believe the benefits outweigh the costs, and we have hope that the technologies needed to make the information more useful are coming.  We encourage people to keep the problems of information in mind, but we proceed with the assumption that more information is better.

Latest revision as of 15:24, 19 March 2007

We are operating on the assumption that, in general, more information is better than less in a participatory democracy. This is not always true, however. One has to decide whether the benefits of extra information outweigh the costs.

Assuming we actually want people to be educated about the issues and decide how they want their government to act (see Note 2 for more on that topic), they need to get that information from somewhere. If there is already a reliable source of accurate and complete information that is not being filtered or controlled by those who have an interest in misinformation, there is no need for the internet.

But it is a widespread assumption that our normal media outlets are biased at the least. They also have limited information, since they only have so many reporters with so many connections. As explained in the main text of our argument, the internet provides more information, and of a different type.

There are, however, a number of problems with this new flood of information. First, people don't know who to trust. At least the New York Times is being read by a large number of highly educated people who will catch its mistakes. Individual websites may intentionally deceive people, and it is less likely that misinformation will be caught.

Second, the mass of information, even if true, may just confuse or overwhelm people. Individual citizens might throw in the towel and not vote at all if they feel that they can't ever be fully educated on an issue because there are simply too many sources of information. The marketplace of ideas doesn't work if nobody shows up to shop.

Third, frivolous websites might make people miss the truly important ones. So, even if there is more and better information out there, it is not being found or used. For example, if you have to scroll through hundreds of websites to find the one that could have really educated you on an issue, you're likely never to get there.

Fourth, as we mention elsewhere, people will read only that information that supports their pre-conceived beliefs. RSS feeds make this particularly easy. It doesn't matter if there is challenging arguments from the other side available if you won't accidentally stumble on them and read them. You are (perhaps) more likely to run across opposing viewpoints in newspapers, magazines, TV and radio than you are on the internet.

Fifth, people may read a few crackpot websites online and consider themselves educated, when that's not true. Their time would have been better spent reading the New York Times. The internet enables this kind of half-education as compared to the traditional media outlets.

Of course, the information is there, and that's not going to change. Unless we are prepared to place severe controls on freedom of speech online, it's pointless to ask whether more information is good. The more fruitful line of inquiry is how we can mitigate the problems caused by massive amounts of information online without losing any of the benefits. For example, we need better search engines. We need to encourage people to study both sides of an issue. We need systems that help separate the chaff from the wheat online.

While we acknowledge potential problems with the availability of information, we believe the benefits outweigh the costs, and we have hope that the technologies needed to make the information more useful are coming. We encourage people to keep the problems of information in mind, but we proceed with the assumption that more information is better.

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/ilp2007/?title=Note_1&oldid=1943"