Flickr Creative Commons | Redvers

I spend a lot of time thinking about the Internet as a platform for social change and engagement, and also about how access to the Internet and technology broadens the mind and exposes people to diverse opinions and new information. When I consider everything that I have learned from logging on (How else could I have learned about this and this and THIS for free and in less than 10 minutes?!) and I think of the trillions (gajillions?) of bytes worth of information “out there”, and I really do believe in the power that the Internet has to bring us closer than we’ve ever gotten to the Jeffersonian ideal of a well-informed citizenry.

But what if the way that we typically use the Internet makes us less informed, and more closed-minded?  Dumber-er, if you will? That’s the premise of an interesting article by Elizabeth Kolbert, in the November 2 edition of the New Yorker.  The article reviews “On Rumors:  How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” the most recent in a series of books on the Internet and the virtual commons by legal scholar and current head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass R. Sunstein.

Sunstein’s premise is that consumers of information on the Internet tend to filter what they read, and that we all select sites that confirm and reinforce beliefs we already hold.  (I suppose the fact that I, a dedicated farmer’s market shopper/yoga enthusiast born in the People’s Republic of San Francisco, am linking to a New Yorker article and to Cass Sunstein’s book could demonstrate the narrowing of my own mind, but enough about me.) According to research cited in the article, continued exposure to only those who hold similar beliefs strengthens those beliefs and biases, and can lead to group polarization and extremism of all kinds.  It also allows lies and half truths to live on forever, because no matter how unfounded or bizarre the rumor, one can always find a community of fellow believers to keep it alive on the Interwebs.

The article stops short of offering a solution (I think you need to read the book for that.), but it does close with the view that it is tempting to assume that just because the Internet is being used “to produce a certain political effect, it [is] somehow destined to do so.”

I suppose that means, in the end, that the Internet is what we make of it. It can be a powerful platform for information and connecting disparate communities, but only if we work to make it so. Any thoughts on how we, as Internet users, companies, non-profits, academics and bloggers, can foster conversations as opposed to shouting? And might I have to consider reading blogs about, I don’t know, bear hunting and processed pork products?

Read the article and the book! And if you get the chance, let me know what you think.