Polarization and Cybercascades
- Extreme discussion groups and websites online: Hate groups and terrorists groups.
- Potential consequences of a fragmented speech market
- Highly specialized websites: people engage in filtering (a republican will most likely read a republican leaning news site)
- Desire to self segregate in order to strengthen the group.
- Information overload cause for filtering, make choices that do not disturb our preexisting views
- Affect of network labels on peoples relation to news: more attracted to stories from networks we align with politically. (fox attracts republicans)
- sites share links to similar/like minded, sites. people are reading things that echo their own beliefs.
- internet has created a increase in choices and customization- choices based on preexisting political convictions
- Problem with separating online: harder to solve problems due to not understanding opposing views. How will we be able to speak and work with people with competing views in order to solve problems? Internet allows for this consistent avoiding of opposing views.
- internet plays a role in uniting people who would be isolated without it: including hate groups-allows them to grow and operate
- these hate groups support other like minded hate groups “you link to us and we’ll link to you”
- Group polarization: “after deliberation people are likely to move toward a more extreme point in the direction which the groups members were originally inclined” on the internet CYBERpolarization
- 2005 experiment in Colorado- after discussion all groups became stronger in their convictions/more extreme
- people who would filter oppositional views out are the ones who need to hear them the most
- 3 reasons for group polarization: 1. persuasive arguments and information 2. social comparison 3. confidence corroboration and extremism
- polarization increases with shared identity and solidarity: persuasive arguments are more likely to work
- consequence of group polarization on the internet: fragmentation, error and confusion
- studies show group polarization occurs with more errors online: study about collaborative decision making, people rely on shared knowledge
- “fairness doctrine” used to have to offer amount of time for opposite points on view to be shared on radio and tv
- we would benefit from a decentralized system
- terrorists groups have a working knowledge of group polarization. terrorism is fueled by internet and new technology but cannot attribute terrorism 100% to new communication technologies.
- group polarization can be good too: fueled civil rights movements, antislavery, equality between men and women. society may be better off by the creation of more extremism.
- Enclave Deliberation: deliberation that occurs within insulated groups. Can be very important in society because it gives opportunity for otherwise invisible positions to be seen/heard
- In deliberating groups high status members are heard more. low status members lack confidence and fear retribution. Example being dismissal of women’s ideas in mixed gender groups.deliberating enclaves are helpful and the internet is valuable in making them easier.
- Wikipedia as a successful way for everyone to contribute
- deliberating enclaves improve deliberation but not if members are walled off from competing opinions
- Depolarization: shifts towards the middle of the extremes. Happens if people are willing to listen to one another
- exposure to opposite views increases political tolerance
- “social cascades”
- information and reputational cascades. informational:rely on signals of others. reputational: people dismiss what they feel is right in order to maintain good reputation
- Cybercascades. Music expirement: being affected by others choices
- cascade effect has caused spread of many false rumors via the internet
- The Deliberative Opinion Poll: political opinions collected only after they have deliberated with different people who share different points of view
- promise for the future by using technology to allow for diverse people to exchange ideas
*Sorry this is a bit late, I was away in San Francisco for a wedding and just got back!
mdeseriis, and 
Mediated Subjectivity 
Veronika Höglund 8:03 am on September 26, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As we are all individuals who live in an incredibly diverse country, the possibility for fragmented communication, should be that which we take notice and response. Group polarization, as Sunstein writes, offers a vulnerability to our views and values as individuals. Leading to potential confusion, misinterpretations, and exaggerations of our true belief systems, in the very least hinders our ability to take an objective look at views other than our own and further, restricts our capacity for cooperative discussions. While Sunstein certainly draws attention to the positive effects, I found the unfavorable prospects far more intriguing.
mdeseriis 9:48 am on September 26, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
You probably mean “Sunstein,” not Shirky, right? I don’t think we have “true beliefs.” Beliefs are by definition subjective–i.e. subject to change. The same goes for the “objective look at other people’s views.” All views are… perspectives. The question for Sunstein is whether we are able to bring together in the same discursive space views that are significantly different from one another or whether the Internet reinforces our initial beliefs by insulating each one of us from competing viewpoints. Pluralism seems to be Sunstein’s main concern, yet some may say that we never had such a rich and diversified informative space…
mdeseriis 9:48 am on September 26, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I like your summary Mollie, but what are the questions?
MarioCedeno363 8:13 pm on September 27, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I enjoyed this reading as it brought up many points that I found interesting regarding the ways that the internet actually works to inhibit democratic practices. I definitely think that group polarization on the internet is a serious problem in regards to hate and terrorist groups, but I do not think the average user of the internet is affected by the dynamics of group polarization very much. If the internet is the only place in which people hear about news and discuses topics with others then yes, group polarization is a potential issue. But I feel as though there are many places in which people still are confronted with viewpoints that are in opposition to their own. This happens by talking and listening to others at places such as school or work, and by reading books or articles off of the internet. The more time people spend on the internet and close themselves off from the “real world” the more group polarization will be a serious problem.