It seems like he wants to force people to be exposed to diverse/opposing views... isn't that kind of the opposite of authoritarian?
Force = authoritarian.
Are you opposed to all forms of coercion?
Anyway, I'll concede that force is probably the wrong way to go about it... the government could provide incentives for exposing people to diverse viewpoints, but forcing people to do so is a bit extreme.
Anyway, that's a different discussion altogether. While I think force may be necessary in some aspects of society, I concede that applying force to the realm of discourse is probably a bad idea.
When someone, such as a rapist or a politician, has proven that they're incapable of peaceful behavior in society, we have the right to defend ourselves from them.
IOW, self-defense isn't coercion. The coercion has already been committed by the criminal. If you're walking down the street and I mug you, I'm applying the force. You, in self-defense, aren't being "violent" in your intent to protect yourself. You're trying to stop the violence I'm committing against you.
I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would worry less about labels and more about principles.
To get back on topic a little, the government using the tactics as laid out by Sunstein is a fraud being perpetrated by the force of government so it rings all kinds of bells.
So you have a website espousing a political view. You'd have to put a section listing other views... but what views do you put in that section? How would you go about deciding what views are opposite to yours? What about less known views?
Soon you'd get something like an AdSense For Opinions; an ad area with three views, each with a short description. "DRUGS FOR A BETTER LIFE. We believe every human should use more drugs and medicines daily. betterlifethroughdrugs.org", "US DOLLAR: ROOT OF ALL EVIL. US Dollar proven root of all evil, Bible proof inside. See our proposed alternative currencies. dollar-evil-get-saved.com", "EVERYTHING IS NICE. Life is pretty much swell, man. Chill out. whatareyouevenworriedabout.net"
Every possible political position and opinion would have to be considered if you want to show diverse views.
You're right that such a policy isn't really feasible in terms of real-world implementation. But I do worry that the Internet has problems with polarization and filter-bubbling, and I appreciate suggestions for trying to mitigate those issues.
Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say" things that they don't want to say, even if only by referencing the words of others.
Also, if a person found the opposing viewpoint morally repugnant to the point where referencing it would be objectionable then he may opt to stifle his own speech in order to avoid such a reference.
Free speech, of course, provides no requirement for noble motives of engaging opposing ideas, etc. as this guy proposes.
Purely authoritarian would be "everyone needs to just talk about our point of view." That wouldn't fly too well on the Internet, so this seems like the next best thing. "No one is saying anything good about what we're doing and we need to change that. Not by changing what we do, but by coercing them to be exposed to things that support us."