Note 1

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.

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 information is here to stay. The more fruitful line of inquiry is whether