Neither Hayek nor Habermas Author(s): Cass R. Sunstein Reviewed work(s): Source: Public Choice, Vol. 134, No.

1/2, Blogs, Politics and Power (Jan., 2008), pp. 87-95 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27698212 . Accessed: 26/01/2012 07:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Choice.

http://www.jstor.org

Public Choice (2008) 134: 87-95 DOI 10.1007/sl 1127-007-9202-9

Neither

Hayek
Sunstein

nor Habermas

Cass

R.

Received: ? Springer

2 June 2007 / Accepted: 9 June 2007 Science+Business Media, BV 2007

/ Published

online:

16 August

2007

Abstract aggregation information

The of and

rise

of

information, correct

the blogosphere and about errors? Can

raises

democracy we understand Hayekian In this

of marketplace for information along kind that J?rgen Habermas describes? be any understood equivalent as of

the elicitation and about important questions to check itself. Do allow blogs people as as a kind the blogosphere operating terms? Or is it a vast public meeting of the article, I argue the blogosphere because knowledge characterize venue cocoons. for Haber I conclude that cannot it lacks the

a Hayekian means for the price I also system.

gathering argue

that

as they do other social interactions, blogosphere masian to the creation and perhaps of information deliberation, leading to the of responses by briefly canvassing partial problem polarization. Information Condorcet

dispersed forces of polarization it an unlikely making

Keywords

Hayek

Blogs

aggregation

Jury Theorem

One

the most of the first years of the twenty-first unanticipated developments can serve to elicit and aggregate the remarkable rise of weblogs, which the or "blogs," held by countless contributors. at a truly have been growing Weblogs, so that any current rate?so much account out of date. As of will grow rapidly of been

century

has

information astounding November

2006, over 57 million blogs were in existence, with approximately

created chapter every day. of a book?) (Question: In recent how many years, blogs the most rated highly tens or even received are created in the political hundreds

100,000 new blogs being

time it takes to read a short Atrios, of visitors blogs?including of thousands

Instapundit, each day. The rise of information,

and Daily of

Kos?have

the blogosphere and even about blogs,

maintaining

their own

about the elicitation and aggregation many questions are the operation of democracy If countless itself. people be able to act as fact-checkers and as supplemental they should

raises

This essay draws on some discussion Farrell for suggestions and help. C.R. Sunstein (ISI) of Chicago Law School, University e-mail: csunstei@midway.uchicago.edu

by Sunstein

(2006).

I am very grateful

to Dan Drezner

and Henry

Chicago,

USA

4y Springer

88
information media. should to find sources, of not for one

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

only

If hundreds be corrected

thousands

quickly. range

an astounding that

another but also for prominent members of the mass are reading of people the most then errors prominent blogs, No one doubts that the blogosphere enables interested readers of opinions and facts. serves who as a huge market, the need for in a way that to obtain the

If the blogosphere
we might believe claims of Friedrich information.

is working well, we might understand it in two different ways. First,

supports stress

society dispersed we might as a kind of gigantic think that the blogosphere operates Alternatively, town meeting, in a way that fits well with the claims of J?rgen Habermas and others who of the public and Habermasian of speak of the operation understandings sphere. Hayekian the blogosphere lie behind many of the contemporary of it. celebrations on both is to investigate here and to cast doubt of these understandings. purpose My

the blogosphere and others Hayek

cannot I suggest that the blogosphere in Hayekian it lacks the pre because fashion, operate to it). for Hayek's the price (or any reasonable system requisite understanding: analogue I also that the problem of group raises serious for efforts suggest polarization problems to understand some terms. But the blogosphere in even vaguely Habermasian of my ob jections force. raise I conclude empirical with and imaginable questions, some notations about what we answers empirical now know. could diminish their

1 Hayek,

prices, and blogs blogger, federal court of appeals Judge Richard Posner has explicitly
about the price system on behalf of blogs, emphasizing their poten

An accomplished
voke Hayek's

in

argument

tial to reveal dispersed bits of information. In Judge Posner's (2004) words:

is ... a fresh and striking of Friedrich thesis that "Blogging exemplification Hayek's cre to to is widely distributed that the is and among knowledge people challenge society ate mechanisms for pooling that knowledge. The powerful that was mechanism the focus as of economists of Hayek's The newest is the price work, (the market). system generally, are 4 million mechanism is the "blogosphere." There The Internet enables the in blogs. stantaneous opinions, I believe illumination pooling facts and (and hence correction, and refinement, and amplification) of the ideas and

images, that Posner's

reportage argument of

scholarship, is wrong, but the blogosphere.

generated by bloggers." a great in a way that provides

deal

of

about

the operation

2 Hayek's To with understand Hayek

marvel

Posner's himself.

is wrong with and what argument, most contribution Hayek's important

it, we to

have social

to spend thought

a little

time

is captured

in his short 1945 paper, "The use of knowledge

claims tastes

in society" (Hayek 1984 [1945]). Hayek

the information that the great advantage of prices is that they aggregate both and the more assem be of numerous far material than could people, incorporating possibly or board. Hayek nature bled by any central the unshared (1984, p. 212) emphasizes planner of information?the bits of and knowledge contradictory "dispersed incomplete frequently which That knowledge includes facts about certainly possess." into and all of these must be taken and tastes, preferences stresses im above all the "very market. (1984, p. 214) by a well-functioning Hayek sense cannot in be scientific the but which called portant unorganized knowledge possibly of general rules: the knowledge of the particular of time and place." circumstances the separate it also individuals products, account but includes all

4y Springer

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

89

For Hayek, knowledge. tral planners That

the key problem cannot have

economic cannot access

question possibly to all of

that unorganized and dispersed or board. Cen person by any particular as the knowledge Taken held by particular people. be solved

is how

to elicit

a whole,
well-chosen when although another,

the knowledge held by those people is far greater than that held by even themost
about deliberating (1972, p. 123) claims groups: ... and as a body, they may surpass?collectively ... some not individually?the one part, some of the few best quality appreciate or and all together all." not that is Aristotle whether argument Hayek's appreciate experts. groups "all come together for free markets. Consider Aristotle's

diverse

was right about deliberation, the possibility of surpassing the quality of the few best certainly
does hold comes central is that the best solution from the price His claim Hayek's system. point is that in a system in which of relevant is dispersed facts among many knowledge people, act as an astonishingly concise and accurate and signaling device. prices coordinating They a sense that and in also because the itself it, incorporate dispersed knowledge publicize price as a signal to all. At the same the price has a wonderfully automatic time, operates system to respond to change. in its capacity If fresh shows information that quality, particularly a car, a watch?doesn't demand for it will television, work, always people's so too a the more becomes its fall, scarce, rapidly price. And when commodity suddenly users must to that The as a fact. market works not well because respond whole, remarkably can see all its features, but because the relevant is communicated information any participant and through prices. claims that it "is more than a metaphor to describe the (1984, pp. 219-220) Hayek as a kind of or a system for registering of telecommunica system price machinery changes, tions which enables individual to watch the movement of a few pointers." produces merely as a marvel, describes this process and adds that he has chosen that (1984, p. 220) Hayek on purpose so as "to shock word out of the the reader we with which often complacency take the working of the mechanism for granted." Hence to everyone a product?a

3 No prices and no Hayek We can see in this light why Judge Posner is drawn to Hayek
Hayek's system wide concern operates range

in his effort to understand

of The information blogosphere in

the operation of the blogosphere. he believes that the price society; certainly come to But allows

is the dispersed nature to elicit that information.

an extraordinarily attention. In a general public runs into serious the analogy aggregate, to incorporate

The

the views of those who participate of the market, device cannot be found marvel, aggregating Hayek's fered instead is a stunningly diverse rants, range of claims, perspectives, and nonsense. sense, non-facts, True, many

which produce prices, no reliable mechanism

of knowledge, local knowledge, to including that process well be seen as Hayekian. might Most the blogosphere not does problems. important, a wide in one place, and tastes. There is range of opinions sense, in the blogosphere. there. What is of insights, lies, facts,

bles elite ered

material

a lot of information; for example, assem blogs aggregate instapundit.com, sources. from many as Drezner and Farrell Perhaps, (this volume) suggest, who from elsewhere in the blogosphere, should be consid bloggers, gather material an mechanism sorts. of this mechanism exacerbate the However, aggregating may well towards of a few have or rants and nonsense, a poor of rather substitute biases. blogs than for individuals exceedingly the number it. Not counteracting the price mechanism, only are the arbitrary but some of these the overall useful reader for

tendency choices bloggers ship of

also blogs,

strong other

This that

that suggests point are not link to them,

metrics

fi

Springer

90
whether elite reliable information. that many A of

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

determining written by

blogs

provide

cursory them are

examination

cherry-picking of their readers. corresponds errors and

suggests strongly primarily bloggers or information and those their existing that reinforce views items of opinion or in that to find a Superblog, in general It is not possible areas, particular we in correcting to the price that succeeds In other words, lack a blog system. ones by can we distinguish from unreliable reliable truths. Nor blogs assembling

of the blogs in interested

at how much learn a great deal, traffic Those who consult blogs will looking they receive. falsehoods from facts. hard time separating but they will have an exceedingly incen in the blogosphere lack an economic There is another usually point. Participants are not involved little to gain in any kind of trade, and most of the time they have tive. They or simply or to lose. If they spread it may well be that they offer their opinion, falsehoods, sacrifice most little dramatic or nothing. falsehoods the their reputation will not; perhaps suffer, but perhaps Perhaps or at least distortions and hence readers. Most will draw attention

some blog trade on markets. do not have the economic stake of those who True, bloggers But most their credibility. and may well have a stake in preserving gers attract advertising, on revenues extent to in the do the which and not, blogosphere depend bloggers advertising are on to themselves sell truthfulness is uncertain. advertisers trying Many political blogs are unlikely to object to appeal to those with beliefs. strong partisan They products designed to exaggerations By their very In many ways, those including it is because of is far from and mistakes. Habermas to the prejudices of their target audiences. that appeal on facts as well as values. and contentious positions are curious can find a wide who this is a virtue, for people range of views, that oppose their own. But there are no prices here, and if truth is to emerge, and semi-falsehoods blogs nature, offer rival the of the marketplace competition effects One of the undeniable to another possible of blogs This marketplace particular is to spread misunderstandings of blogs?one rooted understanding of ideas.

reliable. This rather

leads point than Hayek.

in

4 The blogosphere
To a large extent, will I have

as public sphere
is a place the blogosphere better than one rooted to Aristotle's (1972, p. for deliberation, a deliberative and perhaps to delib and prices. With respect "all that when diverse groups suggestion

conception eration, come

do much referred ...

in markets 123)

together the quality of liberation, each some minds, Rawls lie

they may surpass?collectively there the few best_When

one

part,

that many recently, cussion ability inferences enlarging J?rgen tices

as a body, not individually? although to the process of de contribute who ... some can bring and moral his share of goodness appreciate prudence; is a clear all." Here, and all together then, another, suggestion appreciate on "the quality of the few best." More may improve deliberating together, same from dis "The benefits writes of the (1971, pp. 358-359) possibility: and are many that even of them No one are limited in knowledge legislators representative or can make all the others know, knows everything Discussion is a way of combining stresses and the the same and

in the fact

to reason.

in concert. that they can draw the range of arguments." Habermas (1999, pp. 940-941), to allow discourse victory by "the

information

designed

these elaborating better argument":

theme,

norms

and prac

Rational nication other

is supposed

for participants, rights force than the forceless to create for

to grant to be public and inclusive, equal to require and to diffuse any kind sincerity This communicative of the better argument. space topics. for the mobilization of the best

commu of force

structure available

is expected contributions

a deliberative relevant

the most

4? Springer

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

91

In Habermas' seek the truth;

(1979, they can be

pp.

1-4)

famous

"ideal

speech

situation," accept in Habermasian a norm

do not behave said

blogosphere will promote

to operate, of

the emergence

they strategically; to some degree, "the better argument."

all participants of equality. fashion,

attempt Perhaps in a way

to the that

5 An experiment
But there

in Colorado
problem that problem, for the general claim let us venture far from that deliberative the blogosphere processes and consider will have a small

is a serious To see

this virtue.

experiment in democracy thatwas held inColorado

ican people. issues citizens were Members of the day. engage

in 2005 (Hastie et al. 2007). Sixty Amer

ten groups, each of six consisting on three of the most controversial to enter into civil unions? Should

and assembled into together brought of each group were asked to deliberate Should states allow same-sex couples a

employers ally global As

in "affirmative groups? was from five Should

action"

by giving

disadvantaged warming? the experiment

the United

States

to members preference of tradition an international treaty to combat sign

designed, Boulder, "Blue

the groups the State" latter groups

consisted from

of

"liberal"

and

"conservative"

members?the election whose members years, members tended

former there were initially toward

Colorado "Red the

and five on

tended

toward

liberal positions and

conservative both before

positions on those fifteen

of Springs. State" groups?five groups three issues, and five whose were asked People of group discussion. to state What

In the parlance

issues. minutes

their opinions was the effect The positions among favored more they an strongly strongly results after liberals;

anonymously of discussion? were they simple. spoke

after

In almost with made one civil to control

every another. unions

group,

members made

ended civil

up with unions

more more

extreme popular Liberals it

Discussion less popular

discussion

among

conservatives.

international after opposed liberals about

treaty it after

global

discussion.

Conservatives discussion. Mildly favorable before discussion. the

before discussion; warming they favored were on that treaty before neutral discussion; favorable toward discussion, toward affirmative affirmative action after became action before

discussion, Firmly negative Aside both

became

negative about from

strongly action affirmative action after

discussion. even more

conservatives

affirmative

liberal

increasing and groups Before

extremism, conservative members

experiment

had

an more

independent

effect:

It made thus

groups started

squelched internal

diversity.

significantly to talk, many

homogeneous?and displayed of a mere a fair

groups

bit

of

were The disagreements as a result reduced fifteen-minute disagreement. discussion. Even in their anonymous consen showed far more statements, group members sus after discussion than before. It follows that discussion to widen the rift between helped on all three issues. liberals and conservatives some Before liberal groups were, discussion, to some close conservative The was result of discussion to fairly groups. far more sharply. Let us suppose, not implausibly, that the blogosphere is inadvertently the Col replicating orado to sort themselves into communities of like-minded experiment, by allowing people issues, divide them If so, we will people. lem is that deliberation what lem orado. have will a serious ensure for the Habermasian The problem understanding. more extremism and more internal homogeneity?hardly the better argument. to understand what To see prob on some

and

is sought by those who its implications for

the victory of emphasize we have the blogosphere,

happened

that prob in Col

4y Springer

92 6 Group polarization
The

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

an example of the well-established of is merely phenomenon experiment a a more ex in members end which up group deliberating typically of polarization, by treme position in line with their tendencies 1985, pp. 202 (Brown before deliberation began in It has been found is a usual with 206). Group groups. pattern deliberating polarization Colorado group of studies involving who over a dozen countries. It is undoubtedly happening on the

hundreds

blogosphere. For example, tions, there United will increase is specific States

those

their evidence

and are suspicious of its inten States, if of view. Indeed, disapproval points suspicion they exchange of this phenomenon citizens of France: the among they dislike disapprove of the United and and trust the United States a lot less, after a clue not as one another they talk with to the roots of extremism by deliberation. value (Turner such are asked, 1987, as how on a

a lot more, 223-224). and

1985, pp. (Brown and even fanaticism Group pp. polarization

Group polarization provides terrorism. All these can be fueled, for issues has is below been sea of fact found level. as well

reduced, of

occurs

issues factual

152-153).

far Sodom

Group polarization (on the Dead Sea)

on obscure Or suppose

questions,

that people

bounded scale of zero to eight, how likely it is that a terrorist attack will occur in the United
States certain," in the next seven year?with zero indicating "zero likely," group extreme median is three, indicating, answers The members "overwhelmingly from a deliberating move toward more probability," six "more will points is six, the group tend on eight probable to reveal the indicating "absolutely than not," and five group polarization, on their usually be two

"fifty-fifty." as the group's initial median be seven;

scale,

If the predeliberation point. if the predeliberation median as both when Democratic

the group judgment show a president et al. 2000, reasons,

depending will judgment will usually

(Brown 1985, pp. 222-224).

polarization, ing patterns party does Why the blogosphere tional influences.

Note here that federal judges are highly susceptible

and Republican appointees other judges appointed by polarize occur? There 1985). people too (Schkade are The listen several first far more of pp. and important made

to group

(Sunstein

sitting with et al. 2006). Juries

vot ideological the same political 1140-1141). on apply informa people. In

group polarization as elsewhere Fortunately,

all of

them

(Brown most

and most

involves by other

to the arguments

any group with some initial inclination, the views of most people in the group will inevitably be skewed in the direction of that inclination. Suppose that the majority position within a
group terrific numerous of some, is a serious is that global warming problem a As statistical the arguments matter, job. than but not the all, arguments of pointing the arguments or that the incumbent that initial favoring in the other direction. from lead a is doing president more be will position will As have heard of a result

Individuals deliberation. toward a more

that emerge will believed.

group

the various deliberation arguments, hearing in line with what group members initially and in exactly the same direction. polarize, involves explanation members. other group favorably by or lesser extent, a function greater The second social

people

extreme

Through

this process,

many

point can minds

want comparison. People usually Sometimes stated publicly people's to present of how themselves. they want

views Once

to be perceived to a are, they hear

what others believe,

dominant position. and acceptable, The third extremism, they usually for

some will adjust their positions at least slightly in the direction of the

In a left-wing for example, those who lean to the left will be more group, more to the this reason well end somewhat left. up leaning they might stresses of group links among the close confidence, explanation polarization corroboration more by extreme others (Baron et al. 1996). As from in their beliefs. people others confidence, gain tends to increase

and

become

Agreement

4y Springer

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

93

confidence, become more

and

for

this that

reason are

like-minded right simply after and

sure

more become opinions cause more they become reading a sense larization to conform identity (Brown larization as "the same like-minded

they extreme

people, thus more their

deliberated having extreme. In many views have share been

with

one

another, people's and be minds,

contexts,

because

corroborated, Many

confident

blogs,

can badly and Turner this

that others learning blunder in this way. to suggest

their views.

A great deal of work suggests that group polarization

of shared (Brown identity, 1985; point helps

is heightened when people have

yet another because explanation they are of po attempting If their group's more extreme prone disagreed, separated for to po such the

to the position is made 1985). when especially

that

1987). may polarize People see as their own group. typical within are norms to become the in-group salient, likely they experiment, referred many to some often groups group become were with all whom

In the Colorado their discussions

the more they

liberals."

Democrats

and Republicans If arguments Such come

more

sharply of an

reason. is a further likely to think in-group who to be point. from a member are es in-group, they seem to It is also likely right. from that come pressures rejecting of out-group members have far

There pecially reasonable what an

persuasive.

arguments

are more social

that people fear the would member has to say. By contrast,

the views

less force and might even be irrelevant (Brown 1985, p. 211). Should you really listen to
The systematically wrong? reputa to worry have about the views pressure rejecting of someone to be wrong like you? If a self-identified conservative usually thought by people hears arguments from someone who is known to be left of center, are likely those arguments tional to fall on deaf ears. The clear lesson is that when a group is highly cohesive, and when its someone to a group that you believe belongs will also be reduced: do you really to be

members
especially who

are closely
this

identified with
kind is not

it, polarization
confined

is especially
among the

likely?and

likely to be

large. of Polarization meet in person. social

to interaction to believe that

characterizes

reason is every on the Internet interaction There

For blogosphere. which conservative the study blogs, sort themselves linked to by only

one example, study and liberal bloggers finds that 91% of the into identifiable

(Adamic are links

too, especially and Glance

small of people groups logic of group polarization in contexts such as the political to the degree 2005) explores on two 1400 sides is

with each other. Focusing interacting are to like-minded sites. Hence the Powerlineblog.com, by 195 conservative is more a conservative blogs.

communities. liberal blogs?but

blog,

twenty-five

Dailykos.com, link

a liberal blog, is linked to by forty-six conservative blogs?but

the behavior aggregate, to one another far more The deal sites of with study authors of conservative often also Sources and bloggers in a denser pattern. about cited 40 almost

by 292 liberal blogs. In the

in this regard; too or they found the other. they

noteworthy and here one

examined were

"A-List"

blogs,

a great Those

segregation. identifiable

and NationalReview.com, commitments, political were almost on cited same the side of the always by blogs political spectrum. Another Jason Gallo, and Matt Kane offers more study, by Eszter Hargittai, (this volume), detailed for the same general conclusions. the behavior of support Examining forty popular and and her coauthors find that like-minded blogs?half-liberal half-conservative?Hargittai views blogs, cite receive a great deal of reinforcement. likely On to list other the "blogrolls," conservatives, conservatives are far more to other readers referring are far more and liberals

exclusively by such as Salon.com

side

likely to list other liberals. When

like-minded here others. is perhaps To be But?and the most

blogs refer to discussions

there striking is a significant finding?a

by other bloggers,
amount of of cross-citation cross

they usually
as well. simply

sure,

plurality

citations

%1 Springer

94
cast volve on the views

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

contempt

genuine established points

substantive of view,

discussion.

a quarter that are being cited. Only of cross-ideological in posts across In this way, real deliberation is often occurring but only infrequently.

7 Polarizing

blogs?
it should if people truth is not be that the Habermasian clear view of the blogosphere are reading to their own preexisting that conform blogs to emerge, and polarization is nearly inevitable. likely more end up more conservatives will become liberal; to conservative blogs. It is reasonable to speculate

In light of this evidence, faces a particular problem beliefs. If this is so, the Liberals, conservative

liberal will reading blogs, if they restrict themselves

that the Colorado experiment finds itself replicated in the blogosphere every day, with poten
because go to extremes they are consulting simply of blogs makes it all the easier to live in for people some bloggers, echo chambers of their own design. Indeed and many readers of blogs, live cocoons. in information are often on the Shared salient identities in a way that blogosphere, makes both more to be large. polarization likely and more likely results. tially harmful others who think as People they do. sometimes The rise In short, exist to aggregate to the Hayekian the challenge the dispersed information understanding that emerges is that no prices The challenge posts. people's are often self-sorting, people reading of the blogosphere from

to the Habermasian like-minded within

is that because of understanding more of view, in a way that can breed confidence, greater points uniformity and more extremism. From the Habermasian this is nothing groups, point of the view, do add to the range held a range of available hold out they certainly of people. Human beings and do not restrict themselves and suggests,

to celebrate. Of promise curious, points erate play when course of blogs views, numbers the are to

aggregating and many people of view with which as an extraordinary and beneficial minds are in a way already. The

information do read

they method role

antecedently

by large of perspectives, agree. As Posner dispersed information

a large many

here, but

for collecting because it is also

knowledge.

could op blogging numbers Sheer could

involved; that can only

ing exchanged, is happening dispersed

lead point

to work is likely best aggregation are be that reasons and information important to corrections and real creativity. To some extent, this is that while the price collects system automatically come from the discipline of the market for ideas.

information,

the only

safeguards

8 Evidence
of the claims I have been here are theoretical and conceptual, but they also offering an empirical dimension. No work could show that the empirical blogosphere actually a "price," does but it could to that the blogosphere is often working show well produce elicit and aggregate rather than disseminating information, perhaps by correcting widespread errors. social work could that the risk of group show is Certainly empirical polarization Some small, a wide operates of because as it actually ensures the blogosphere that many operates, no of While to show views. evidence is range empirical likely as a us a great it could tell perfectly functioning public sphere, or most that deal read people the blogosphere the nature about

have

the promise, and potential risk, for democracy. We know all too little about the blogosphere. But as I have suggested, there is good

stages.

remains in its earliest Empirical analysis are mostly evidence that many bloggers linking

4y Springer

Public Choice

(2008)

134: 87-95

95

to like-minded often The politically another. to cast general Much

others?and ridicule and

that when scorn on

they them.

link

to opinions there

that diverge

from

their own,

it is

conclusion

is that

in the blogosphere, Liberals do not even about and

identifiable of the

communities. time, they

conservatives the

is a significant divide between do not usually link to one topics. and new To be sure, many Just like the

discuss different

same

are using people of which Internet great like virtue, the above

the blogosphere it is a part, all for more

to learn

views

topics.

the blogosphere increases the curious and open-minded people.

Internet of

availability information views The democracy,

generally, But information.

filtering, of political issues. construction not least of

is certainly good on blogs can if linking behavior to think it is reasonable that many readers cocoons

and this is a range of options, On balance, the blogosphere, for democracy, because it increases the be are taken as a proxy one-sided for

obtaining

information

and

echo

chambers For many

is a real people, institutions

problem

for and ex

because

polarization is what of are

is inevitable.

blunders

tremism are highly likely, not in spite of the blogosphere but because of it. The question, on
which response. to offer more the jury is very much One idea possible links to those whose link out, by way views can private and public conclusion: Public-spirited from We their could do by way of do well would bloggers own. Liberal could blogs easily imagine explicit or

regularly

to conservative

different quite and vice-versa. ones,

implicit "deals" among bloggers with competing opinions, producing mutual linking. Such deals would increase the likelihood that people will be exposed to different perspectives;
they would also reflect a healthy degree of mutual respect.

References and the 2004 election: divided they blog. Avail Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere able at http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf. Aristotle Press (translated by E. Barker). (1972). Politics. London: Oxford University Baron, R., Hoppe, S. I., Kao, C. F, Brunsman, B., Linneweh, B., & Rogers, D. (1996). Social corroboration and opinion extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 537-560. Brown, R. (1985). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics? In Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Habermas, Beacon (translated by T. McCarthy). J. (1999). Between facts and norms: Habermas, 940-941. Hastie, an author's reflections. Denver University Law Review, 937,

an deliberation and ideological R., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Political amplification: experimental investigation. California Law Review. in society. In C. Nishiyama & K. Leube (Eds.), The essence of Hayek. Hayek, F (1984). The use of knowledge Stanford: Hoover. to the Becker-Posner Introduction Posner, R. (2004). blog. http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/ 1 .html, December. 2004/12/introduction_to_ Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap. Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Kahneman, Law Review, 100, 1139-1175. Sunstein, Sunstein, D. (2000). Deliberating about dollars: the severity shift. Columbia

C. (2006). Infotopia: how many minds produce knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. C. R., Schkade, D., Ellman, L. M., & Sawicki, A. (2006). Are judges political? An empirical inves tigation of the federal judiciary. Washington: Brookings. the social group: a s elf-categorization Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering theory. New York: Blackwell.

4? Springer