good article

It explains some of the incomprehension of others' positions that we sometimes see and experience here on OLO, and the discourtesy it produces.

The incident about 18 months ago when the website came under attack for printing an anti-gay article was a case in point.

That was one reason I was attracted to it Rhian. Another was that OLO was set-up as an antidote to such group think. We consciously took on board some of the ideas of Professor Cass Sunstein who did some research into group polarisation. It's a very unfashionable view, as you can see from the moves of the present government to subject all media to censorship, but I think it is the only right one.

The trouble is, it's just so tiring sitting on the fence, looking this way and that for the Facts, the Evidence, the Truth, and possibly for Consensus. The amount of information available is enormous, and at least some of it (if not a large part of it) will be slanted, biased, misguided or outright erroneous and/or outdated. Even History is uncertain, and subject to interpretation.

Far easier to be opinionated, fixed-minded or bigoted - but not nearly so much fun.

Life used to be simpler, before we all became bombarded with 'live' broadcasts (even from war zones), and 'connected'. 'Free-thinkers' used to be the exception, but now they are everywhere, and increasingly strident in their views.

But, I think 'group-think' is very much on the way out, because we are so connected, because even our most steadfast views are so regularly challenged, and because almost nothing is 'static', but rather is forever evolving, even as we sleep.

'Group-think', as distinct from genuine consensus, must surely be a cop-out - but can we even rely upon consensus?

Saltpetre

I agree that we can’t and shouldn’t rely on consensus, and that we have access to many more different opinions and biases nowadays. The trouble is we tend to filter them by paying attention mainly to those which support our own preconceptions and biases.

Many people no longer just dispute opinions they disagree with; they actively want to deny alternatives a voice.

The efforts to shut down OLO because it published a controversial article was a case in point. I happen to disagree vehemently with the article that sparked the dispute; but I fully support OLO’s decision to publish it, and similar pieces.

I agree with Graham’s point about the tendency towards support for censorship. Finkelstein’s recommendations are evidence if that.

Or, Look at the article by Dilan Thampapillai, and the comments on it: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13986&page=0. The opposite of “unbridled” free speech is of course “bridled” speech, advocated by the author and many of the posters