Echo Chambers in 2012

The idea of the digital echo chamber definitely applies to our upcoming presidential election. Echo chambers suggest that when we, as voters, become myopic or merely reaffirm our own political views with the online content we digest, we experience several negative consequences. For example, we may limit our own perspectives. We may find it more difficult to relate with others. We may have more trouble discerning between facts and opinions. We may disengage with crowds. We may even lose cognitive function, at least compared to those who experience a diversity of thoughts and perspectives.

Proposal

I propose we create a class project aimed at taking steps to eliminate echo chambers in the 2012 Election. These steps would include (but are not limited to) the creation of a digital Wiki, eBook, or other publication to curate quality political websites from across the political spectrum into one simple location to inform voters on the issues. Each site we include in the publication would have a bio (with data like who made the site, for what purpose, when, how many hits it gets per month, general accuracy, party bias, etc) with a short, critical review written by a group member. Sites would be categorized by political issue (general, foreign policy, economy, gun control, etc). The publication would be aesthetic, colorful, and user-friendly. It would also be freely distributed, comprehensive, and easy to understand. 

The existence of this publication would fill a real gap in the online voting community by providing a quality, politically diverse website directory (with content reviews) from an objective, academic source. Increasing the diversity of quality information readily available to voters and encouraging diversity are two extremely effective ways of combating echo chambers.

Badges

I also had a tangential idea we might try. We create badges with each badge representing a distinct political view. This would divide the election into issues and move people away from voting strictly across party lines without examining each issue in detail. Once a participant has examined an issue in detail, he or she will take a basic information test. The last question of each test would allow participants to decide where they stand on that issue. The names of the badges would not be generic, like "Healthcare," but political statements, like "I strongly support Obamacare!" or "I mildly oppose Obamacare!", etc.

Homies, peers, enthusiasts, and experts would earn these political statement badges via Mozilla or another site and categorize them under some sort of "Election 2012" heading. We would then direct participants to seek out those with different viewpoints on key issues to ask them how they came to their conclusions. (If I could create a full-scale social media site based on this idea, I would, but I definitely don't have the resources for that.)

I know there's been a lot of proposals to work with badges this semester, but I thought it was an interesting idea, anyway. It may be too different from the original proposal to attempt, but at least we know badges are an exciting concept. Maybe it's a good thing for several different projects to experiment with them. Maybe not. The final word is Professor Burton's, of course.

Prior Art

There are lots of amateur lists of political fact/opinion sites on the internet (probably too many to count). However, most of them are myopic, incomplete, biased, ugly, disorganized, or otherwise impaired. This proposal encompasses more than a simple list or bibliography. Its goal is to present diverse, researched, quality resources in a reliable, objective manner to help assist voters this Fall and into the future.