Are We Undermining the Diversity of Speech Online?

The first two chapters of Republic.com 2.0 do not form a persuasive argument in my point of view, for the author uses intuitive judgment about every Internet user's online experience. Here are the two primary assumptions that underline these chapters: 1) politically everyone likes to hear only opinions that he/she allies to; 2) one has little chance to be exposed to unexpected content online. However, I find it hard to agree with such ground that the author's argument based on.

First of all, it is true that we'd like to support our own stance on the political spectrum, but it is the constant comparison and debate that constitutes and vitalizes the political forum. In other words, even if a conservative firmly believes his/her political choice, one will have to distinguish the advantages of this political view by learning and combating the opposite. However the situation depicted in the book easily slips into a world where conservatives only read heavily conservative-biased news and commentary, and liberals ready only liberal ideas, and the nation becomes an ugly battlefield of politicians of two parties. This kind of imagination overlook the motivation of one's political choice. Everyone among the mass audience needs a motivation and reason to support his/her point of view through contrast and differentiation, which is not considered in the book.

Secondly, the author spends many words informing the reader that by consuming general-interest intermediaries, one is more likely to come across topics and opinions that he or she may not expect to have interested in. My question is how is that different from our online browsing experience? Every individual has unique set of interests and we are always being exposed to new possibilities when we are reading a news, a blog post, or a tweet. While we can create a very customized Daily Me, the rich and diverse content online offers even more paths to unplanned reading than the atom-made media.

In short, I think the first two chapters of the book echo the archaic Hypodermic Needle Theory, undermines the competence of individuals, and assumes a mass audience that has little ability to make choices.