Online Deliberation and Exposure to Opposing Views

*Bernard Manin
Dept. of politics, New York University

Azi Lev-on
Dept. of politics, New York University

     Full text: Login to access
     Last modified: May 20, 2005

Abstract
In the first part of the paper we argue that exposure to opposing views is necessary for adequate deliberation. Exposure to diversity of views alone may be insufficient; adequate deliberation, as we show, requires consideration of reasons for and against courses of action.

Online deliberative forums come in different shapes and forms, and are available, for example, in virtual communities, newsgroups or chat rooms, interactive blogs and online magazines, as well as in web spaces especially designed for deliberation. In the second and more exploratory part of the paper we ask under what circumstances online deliberation is conducive to exposing discussants to opposing views, and hence to adequate deliberation.

We argue that different deliberative settings have different potentials to expose discussants to opposing views. We suggest that the ability to expose discussants to opposing views during deliberation depends on the structural properties of the deliberative forum, the composition of discussants, and the social dynamics of deliberation. In many online settings, individuals effectively choose to deliberate only with similarly-interested or likely-positioned others; in such settings there is not only a reduced diversity of views, but also limited opportunities to encounter opposing views. In communities that apply collaborative filtering to allow members to commonly decide between popular and unpopular content and to expose members primarily to popular content, opposing views can be effectively filtered out.

But when organizers of deliberative settings are committed to the quality of deliberation and therefore to exposing discussants to opposing views, online deliberative settings have significant advantages over comparable offline settings. For example, online deliberative settings enable dynamic links to sites or forums which present opposing views, drastically reduce the opportunity costs of exposure to opposing views, and facilitate access to broader pools of arguments for and against particular courses of action.