Response to David Weinberger

Questions:

1. Weinberger brings to question the dangers that the internet may be contributing to controlled diversity. On the contrary, solidarity is not necessarily an undesirable concept within our nation. In that context, how might the internet positively be affecting people's opportunities to the rising of solidarity?

2. The implementation of "moderators" within internet forums is talked about in the passage as people who arbitrate certain regulations within a community of people. How can this relate to figures in our society who hold this kind of power?

3. Does narrowing down the criteria for what "diversity" means in the context of solving problems defeat the purpose of the definition of the word? How can this relate to democracy?

Response to question 1:

Regardless of my stand on the passage, I feel that Weinberger doesn't address the rise of solidarity that the internet has allowed for. Of course, the collective goal is that of "fairness." The whole point of utilizing diversity to resolve issues to accommodate the needs and feelings of as many people as possible, but this looks different on a macroscopic level. Isn't the nation as a whole an "echo chamber" in relation to the rest of the world? Had diversity allowed for the absolute democratization of conflict resolution, we would not have the extensive and intricate issues with foreign policy that we deal with today?

What I'm seeing is a perspective that clings to objectivity as much as possible. Every individual nation is essentially an echo chamber in relation to the rest of the world. This is the problem Weinberger sees, however, his view is on a smaller scale within society. If this danger that the internet is creating group polarization were to be resolved, then we would have the skills to resolve any world debate and, thus, live in harmony with a common ground between every sovereign body.

The internet is merely allowing for us to see this on a smaller scale because of its ability eliminate the problem of distance between people. If anything, the internet has done nothing to create more group polarization. Rather, the internet is just revealing to us how much it already exists; it just acts as the facilitator.

Looking at the matter from a different point of view, we can see that the internet has allowed for more solidarity. It makes sense that, the more and more diverse a group becomes, the less likely it is to find a common ground. The tendency to surround yourself with ideas that conform to your own is almost innate. The internet has provided for us to capitalize on something we are already conditioned to do. If Weinberger had seen this as a good thing, he might have said that the internet is allowing for more like minds to collaborate for a unified cause that could not otherwise have occurred. On the contrary, all things are good in moderation. Weinberger sees this as something that needs to happen, but puts to question how much. Solidarity is good to an extent. But what does that even mean? Who decides what ideas are opportune for conglomeration?

Its quite possible that the only thing diversity has done for nation is make more evident the fallacies of democracy. Maybe we have pushed far enough to the boundaries of democracy to find that human nature will be its downfall. Democracy implies fairness, but we all know that life isn't fair. That is simply because not everyone can be happy at the same time. This issue will never be resolved. Democracy and diversity has sort of revealed to us the notion that in order to attain absolute fairness, we kind of have to all want the same thing, thus, making it self-defeating.