Rating: 
Summary: what Internet is this guy talking about?
Review: ...because it's not the Internet that I use. He talks about how the pervasiveness of the "Daily Me" will splinter our democratic republic into warring factions of special interest groups. Then he has the nerve to say that what the Internet needs -- to protect us from factionalization and viruses -- is more regulation. The regulations he proposes, such as "must carry" laws to websites with extreme opinions, could not exist in our current regulative environment, or even a future environment base don the current one. Sunstein comes off as a pampered academic who has very little understanding of how the Internet actually works, and how it is regulated. At the same time as he slams the "Daily Me" approach, he refuses to take corporations to task for their part in it. He simultaneously blames browsers that come pre-packaged with links to sites representing the views of the browser manufacturer [hint Sunstein, you can always delete them] and yet will not take that one step further to claim that Microsoft may have something to do with that being a bad thing. And he bashes the open source movement in ways that just reveal how little he understands about what they stand for or why their ideas might be a good thing. His basic argument seems to boil down to "there will be SOME regulation, we may as well make sure the regulations are just" He acts like some spoiled Yuppie that is unhappy that the "wrong element" has moved into his neighborhood, forgetting the fact that him and his ilk had gentrified it in the first place.
Rating:
Summary: "Shoot anyone who listens"
Review: Another pointey-headed liberal propounding theories about how freedom is bad for us. Sunstein LOVES big, mainstream liberal media and is quite clearly terrified that alternatives via the internet now exist for news dissemination, policy/issue discussion and consensus building. He has some policy proposals ---- for our own good, of course --- that should effectively silence those whose views he finds offensive. One is reminded of the words of the evil Alcalde in "Zorro, the Gay Blade" when told we have freedom of speech in this country the heroine must be allowed to speak no matter how objectionable he finds her words: 'All right, let her speak freely, but shoot anyone who listens". Don't waste your money on this turkey!
Rating: 
Summary: Don't bother me with Reasons ...
Review: At face value, this book tackles a subject to which I've been drawn due to its lack of opposition: due to our increasing ability to filter what we see, read, and hear through communication media (especially the Internet, but not exclusively), we'll be able to somehow manage our world of ever-increasing media more effectively-and that this is a wonderful thing. I found myself agreeing with the author's skepticism of this brave new filter-friendly world, but found that his assumptions and proposed solutions largely miss the point. Mr. Sunstein begins his book well, assuming a solid distinction between our consumer and citizen-oriented behaviors; the former favoring individual choice and the latter being more civic-minded. This dichotomy falls apart when presented as a false choice: you're either one or the other (I suspect most of the populace blurs the two), and the perilous consequences of unfettered personal choice make clear which the author favors-and which should be regulated. He further cheapens his consumer choice argument by drawing on dubious critics of consumption culture-among them one Robert H. Frank, author of such vitriol as 'Luxury Fever' and 'The Winner-take-All Society,' whose arguments seem to boil down to "consumer goods can't make you happy" and "we want goods because our neighbors have them," forever damning us to a "consumption treadmill." With this decked stacked against the consumer, Sunstein plows forward, arguing the need for government to step in and help the dumbfounded citizenry. They simply can't be left alone against the dreadful free market-characterized as having "potentially destructive effects" and "producing serious problems" when it comes to cultivating democracy. The strawman of "consumer sovereignty" takes a more-deserved pounding in a chapter on freedom of speech. But again, Sunstein stacks the deck: you either emphasize this sovereignty or you "stress the democratic roots of the free speech principle." No prizes for guessing which side he favors. This assumption clearly reveals-to me-the author's cynicism. Media regulation-at its grubby little heart-can't help but see the populace (consumers or citizenry, take your pick) as sheep: drones willing to watch or read anything the evil media barons put in front of them. In this view, government takes on a crusader's role, ensuring hours of children's programming or airtime for opposing viewpoints. Under the spell of the duplicious media, of course, the great unwashed would never demand such things. My most frustrating experience reading republic.com resulted from the lack of cause-and-effect arguments about media choice fragmentation. All the author's arguments explain little about our *reasons* for filtering and fragmenting the torrents of media thrown our way. His attempts in this area are strangely circular: fragmentation is bad for democracy because people are acting as consumers-and when they act like consumers, they tend to fragment their choices. The few evil examples offered-the "cybercascades" of Matt Drudge and his ilk-merely highlight fringe cases; if *this* is all we have to fear from this phenomenon, Sunstein needn't have spent 202 pages on it. Another assumption involves "regulation," defined as just about anything good government accomplishes. Besides playing the old government-invented-the-Internet card (and surely would have beefed up ARPANET to include Netscape, Microsoft, AOL, and eBay, given sufficient funding), Sunstein clearly thinks those profiting from the net do so due to the graces of big, ugly government. He strangely seems to place government protection of property rights on the same plane as, say, regulating broadcasting; government certainly has a rightful place in the former sphere, but many good arguments have been advanced about its place in the latter. In either event, his assumption that "the Internet is already regulated, get over it" rings hallow since he can't seem to justify any regulatory ideas beyond those currently applied to TV and radio. But that's the best he can do, and ultimately, this book really runs aground when the author puts forth solutions. Links to opposing websites? (What is "opposing?" What if I'm neither a 'conservative' or a 'liberal?') Economic subsidies for balanced discussions? (Determined by whom?) "Must carry" rules for the Internet? (Since websites literally take seconds to create, the 'scarcity' argument that advanced must-carry rule for TV 30 years ago hardly holds water now.) The only proposal I found somewhat intriguing involved having media sources "disclose what they're doing"-under some government auspices. Not bad, but even the author doesn't 'disclose' what he's up to in this book-you have to *read* it. How a website would differ is left as an exercise. After all these assumptions and proposals in this book, I started to see any paranoia about excessively filtering as overblown. While not the unarguable good put forth by Bill Gates and Nicholas Negroponte, filtering nevertheless has its place. Trying to balance excessive filtering by brute force is not only untenable, but wrong-headed: most educated people tend to change their minds by heeding good arguments and debate that influence their opinions - not by reading viewpoints diametrically opposed to their own. I found an amusing irony as I completed this book-namely, that I was personally an exception to the cures proposed by Mr. Sunstein. First, I recognized that reading his book was, perhaps, a form of filtering itself: I was reading material that "preached to my own choir." But alas! I found myself disagreeing with much of what he said, and more: that I didn't need a government solution (or even "voluntarily-imposed regulation") to read this opposing viewpoint! I had-somehow-found it on my own! Even the author seems dimly aware that the very act of writing and publishing his book might be construed as preaching to a like-minded audience. He softens just about every point he makes by some very balanced back-tracking ("Insofar as new technologies make it easier ... for communication among people with common experiences, ... they are a boon") to the point of being hypersensitive to creating his own fragment. He shouldn't, of course, be so concerned. His educated audience can easily draw their own conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Not a thinking person's book
Review: I realize, of course, that my subject line is harsh for someone of the author's credentials. But let us be serious here. If you think about anything much at all, it's very difficult to find a source of information with which you agree on any two disparate subjects, much less on everything. The supposed dangers of the "daily me" really only apply to people for whom the "daily me" is the same as hundreds of thousands of other people's "me's", because they aren't thinking for themselves and generating the highly individuated, almost fractal set of relationships that compose an evolving, examined perspective. But information, packaged as news or "info-tainment" that confirms and reinforces the prejudices of large ideological demographic segments already has been with us for quite some time. Sunstein attributes to the internet a capability for more tightly encapsulating and restricting an audience ideologically, in a way that requires government-manadated content control to solve. This when the decades of three television channels, all alike are only just behind us, without the appearance of even a trend towards a national uniformity of view. But there is no room here for the consideration of data that contradicts the author's didacticism. I'd write more, but much has been covered here. His own views are associated with common sense and escorted in the door, while opposition appears only in cariciatured, straw-man forms. If he had had the courage and honesty to really attack and dissect his own arguments, it would have been more palatable for him suggest these types of radical alterations in our culture of free speech. As it stands, one senses that he embraces a radical solution because he hasn't understood, or even really tried to understand, the problems that we may actually encounter with an increasing disintermediation of news managers and a corresponding dilution of a common trusted authority on what, factually, is occuring. A terrific example of this in action is the John Birch-like theorizing that occurs in the some of the more obscure corners of the political web, attached to all major points of view. This is not a new trend, just one that is amplified by the internet's ability connect widely separated people with a narrow interest in common. But this same capability is thought a virtue when a patient's group springs up to support people with a rare disease. Someone should have locked Sunstein in a room with Bruce Sterling for a couple of days before letting him start writing. (Sorry Bruce, someone has to do it.) One could do better with time and money than to dispose of them here.
Rating: 
Summary: A student in the process of reading
Review: I recently began to read sunsteins' book, and I have to say that it raises thought provoking ideas on the direction our society is headed if we continue down our current path. I would have to agree with Howe, in that the Daily Me does not open us up to new ideas or other prospectives and therefore does not allow our democracy room to breath. We are sealing ourselves off from the rest of the world by having everything that we like at our disposal while refusing other information. Even though some of his ideas may seem far-fetched, it is this type of thinking that allows our minds to see different perspectives and escape the fate that awaits us. Of course, his book is not the only thought-provoker but in this growing field of technology ideas such as sunsteins are interesting and a bit refreshing in the world of information
Rating:
Summary: A student in the process of reading
Review: I recently began to read sunsteins' book, and I have to say that it raises thought provoking ideas on the direction our society is headed if we continue down our current path. I would have to agree with Howe, in that the Daily Me does not open us up to new ideas or other prospectives and therefore does not allow our democracy room to breath. We are sealing ourselves off from the rest of the world by having everything that we like at our disposal while refusing other information. Even though some of his ideas may seem far-fetched, it is this type of thinking that allows our minds to see different perspectives and escape the fate that awaits us. Of course, his book is not the only thought-provoker but in this growing field of technology ideas such as sunsteins are interesting and a bit refreshing in the world of information
Rating: 
Summary: This book is important
Review: I'm a huge Net advocate and a believer in the possibilities of the Net promoting democracy. But Sunstein has written an important book, even if it is one many people online will consider heretic. He's challenging the tech world -- a sometimes narcissistic and elitist culture which often talks a lot about the masses and democracy, even though most people aren't online or tech savvy -- to consider that the explosion in collaborative filtering and other software (like that used here on this site) is causing us to only deal with ideas we know we're going to like. He reminds us that we are also citizens as well as free and empowered netizens, and that citizens need a public place to get together and be exposed to unanticipated and other ideas they might not agree with. The explosion on moderation and filtering is making it easier than every for people to screen out products, books, opinions they think they don't want to hear. In a civic sense, that leads to a sort of cultural Serbia. Sunstein is quite careful in this book not to be knee-jerk. He isn't anti-technology. He is challenging people to consider the implications of this powerful software. In the tech world, stuff is often judged by how cool it is, rather than by its consequences. My one strong disagreement is Sunstein's call for mandatory links to sites that offer opposing points of view. People shouldn't be forced to consider idea they don't like, they should be encouraged to get to places where they are exposed to them. But I think this is a very significant work, and I highly recommend it to people who love the Net and are interested in its impact on democracy.
Rating:
Summary: A Liberal Freakout
Review: I'm willing to bet that Mr. Sunstein wouldn't have a problem living in a theoretical world where the content of all the world's websites were vetted by the editorial board of the New York Times. Unfortunately for crypto-tyrant Sunstein, this is not the case. "You are an irresponsible idiot." This is the first part of the modern leftist argument. "You cannot take care of yourself, or think for yourself." This is the middle part. "Only we are enlightened enough to take care of your needs." This is the last. This view has been crammed down the throats of Americans by television, the print media and the major newsweeklies for the last seventy years. Now that stranglehold, as the previous poster noted, is breaking. The internet is dominated by conservatives and libertarians. This is because, Mr. Sunstein, there are a lot of conservatives and libertarians. The reason we 'appeared' so suddenly is that we were able to find out that there were a lot of normal, average people that share the same assumptions, convictions and ideas. And we became aware of how much the lefist media had been lying to us all those years. So, of course now people should be *forced* to listen to the leftist argument. Hey, that's a real 'enlightened' idea. What if we don't? Maybe Mr. Sunstein could write another book called Tyranny.com and lay out his plan for enforcing his ideas. I still occasionally read lefty websites. For laughs. I read lefty books for the same reason.
Rating:
Summary: Sunstein is worrying about the wrong things
Review: In a nutshell, Sunstein fears the power of personalized content. He has the notion that when people filter the Internet content they want to see, their Weltanschauung becomes far too myopic. This combined with his near deification of the media make those sections of republic.com pure rubbish. Sunstein fears that by having such filters, this limits the amount of shared experiences that people are afforded Sunstein does raise some good points when he questions the nature of how the Internet can exacerbate the `consumption treadmill' in which people buy more and better goods not because they make us happier or better off, but because they help us keep up with others. Sunstein has an irrational fear that when people limit what information they want to view, the social bonds of society are weakened. While that point is debatable, it has utterly nothing to do with the Internet. How an individual filters their content has been occurring for a long time, the only difference with the Internet is that the medium has changed. After reading the book, the reader sees that Sunstein is obviously a brilliant legal scholar. But his myriad assumptions and hypothesis's in the book show how he needs to get out of the often-theoretical world of academia and have a few shared experiences with the common man.
Rating: 
Summary: Will It Be a Brave New CyberWorld?
Review: It is rare when an author is able to sustain an argument that successfully challenges the work to which I have devoted my recent energies. Yet that is exactly what Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago Law Professor, does in Republic.com. With an improving ability to filter everything we wish to see, read and hear Sunstein asks if this is healthy for a democratic based society. The successful practice of Democracy, he argues, requires an informed citizenry. In the pre-cyberworld, newspapers, magazines and other media outlets performed this function by exposing readers to a varied diet of opinions and ideas. They created an environment where citizens should share their common values and experiences. As the traditional media's role as purveyor diminishes and the reader's power to filter unwanted messages improves, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving. Shrill and extreme versions of our own thoughts and opinions will be sucked into this vacuum, Sunstein argues. While I buy author's argument, I reject his conclusions. He argues for increased regulation of The Internet. I respond that more regulation is self-defeating, if the end is a democratic free-society. Filtering is the inevitable response to the growth of information. Readers do not have enough time to assimilate all they are asked. Responsible editors, human in the past, mechanical in the future, will be asked to do what they have always done: prepare and present a balanced view of the reader's world. The Internet will prove to be effective means for preserving and promoting our cherished Democratic Principles. Citizens, I believe, once aware of filtering potential hazards will take deliberate steps to assure that it does not undermine the institutions and ideas they cherish.
| 
