Cass R. Sunstein in Republic 2.0 opens with an assertion that a threat to Democracy will emerge as people have the opportunity to chose the content they are exposed to in the media. He used an on-line newspaper, Daily Me, as an example of how "people are mainly listening to louder echoes of their own voices." (Sunstein 13) He does not negate technological advancements but the impact some aspects of it may have on the general public. Technology allow people the power to "filter" what they are exposed to in the media. Cass argues filtering will threaten democracy as it directly attacks freedom of expression. "Censorship is indeed the largest threat to Democracy and Freedom." (Cass 5) According to him, Democracy lies in the exposure of things that one normally wouldn't expose themselves to, and the need for people to share common experiences with one another.
Cass makes several interesting points but I am not completely sold on his assertions. He argued that, "These are problems that stem not from the action of producers, but instead from the choices and preferences of consumers." I think the real threat is in the action of the producers. Cass is the only one living in a utopia if he thinks that "general-interest intermediaries" epitomizes Democracy. He is over exaggerating with his point that people would pretty much interact only with like-minded people. General interest intermediaries is a platform where diverse topics and ides are available. I don't think the problem would be as bad as Cass predicts. First, he assumes that the current, or newly-old ways media exposes people to content, promotes Democracy. I learned in my Media & Consumers class that that are only five corporations that owns pretty much everything consumers read, view of TV, and hear on the radio. Its hypocritical to address one threat the Democracy but throw another one in an "off topic" pile. I just feel like with Cass arguments, we are pretty much trading on threat of Democracy (freedom of speech) for another (freedom of speech.) Those five companies only produce what they want consumers to see. Is it so bad that consumers have the freedom to chose what they are exposed to? Its all in the interest of capitalism anyway. As people start selecting content and "filtering" information, the system "gets-to-know" a person and start tailoring content, resulting in the tailoring of products. I mean didn't facebook, a general interest intermediary platform, already encouraged a revolution?
Cass makes several interesting points but I am not completely sold on his assertions. He argued that, "These are problems that stem not from the action of producers, but instead from the choices and preferences of consumers." I think the real threat is in the action of the producers. Cass is the only one living in a utopia if he thinks that "general-interest intermediaries" epitomizes Democracy. He is over exaggerating with his point that people would pretty much interact only with like-minded people. General interest intermediaries is a platform where diverse topics and ides are available. I don't think the problem would be as bad as Cass predicts. First, he assumes that the current, or newly-old ways media exposes people to content, promotes Democracy. I learned in my Media & Consumers class that that are only five corporations that owns pretty much everything consumers read, view of TV, and hear on the radio. Its hypocritical to address one threat the Democracy but throw another one in an "off topic" pile. I just feel like with Cass arguments, we are pretty much trading on threat of Democracy (freedom of speech) for another (freedom of speech.) Those five companies only produce what they want consumers to see. Is it so bad that consumers have the freedom to chose what they are exposed to? Its all in the interest of capitalism anyway. As people start selecting content and "filtering" information, the system "gets-to-know" a person and start tailoring content, resulting in the tailoring of products. I mean didn't facebook, a general interest intermediary platform, already encouraged a revolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment