Interesting speech, but wrong title. This is not about "the net", this is about the manipulation of popular will by the media. It really doesn't matter if right-wing or left-wing media.

American in Berlin: "We just elected the worst president because of the internet. That would never have happened in the 20th century." Berliners: "Oh really?" *cries in 1933*

The TEd talks model, great for sharing ideas. But I have also come to understand that this is also a platform for throwings things at the wall, and seeing what sticks.

I fear not the outcome of an election if I am allowed to pick the nominees

Should it not better say '... destroyed the illusion of democracy' ?

Long story short: when polititans in 19C didn't know what "the people" want, they proposed their more or less honest view of what people should want - and it was fine. But when the technology made it possible to know what people want it all went south.

When 99% of news you see on TV are telling you the same thing, that you suspect is a complete bs, then you start searching you information elsewhere. It's ironic and sad how this guy, complaning about the polarized society, doesn't realize how much he and people like him contribute into this polarization.

Recommended for grad students studying “how to undermine your own talk and lose half your audience through political bias”.

Once “ money” was legislated as free speech and corporations as people we were doomed.

"When we are informed and deliberated"... perhaps we should have to pass a quiz before we're allowed to vote. Probably a good idea - but who gets to design the quiz? Those people will hold great power, and that's contrary to the goals of democracy.

Do not confuse Democracy or Mob Rule with Republicanism or a Republic that protects minority rights. Grace and Peace, Chuck

In my 20's we had a common story which was a lie: the Vietnam war. The number of people who spoke against and stood up against this war in Canada's capital Ottawa was five people at most. This common story, common will, common lie crushed all but the most determined.

some people vote with their hearts (emotions), so even if they want the same thing, it does not mean its best for the rest of us.

'Informed' is the key. Censorship is not the way which the establishment is trying at the moment with its social platforms.

Rarely can we find a speech this insightful on such a universally problematic, yet tragically underrated topic. Thank you!

In 2005, the French people voted against the European constitution that would have given unlimited power to unelected people in Brussels. In 2007, the French parliament did ratify the text with very minimal change. To many people, it has been felt as a treachery. This didn't only happen in France; a very similar behaviour has been seen in Ireland and in the Netherland. The pattern has since then been repeated many times - like more recently in the UK. I did not know that "the net" was a synonym for "the government". PS : It certainly only is a matter of time before governments captured by private interest take away _every_ single one of our freedoms and _every_ single one of our rights as humans. But it is not "the net" that destroyed democracy - it is the treachery of politicians that stir and use the envy in the people that vote for them in exchange for stealing from their neighbours...

Knew it all. Learned so much. That was another great Ted Talk. This is what I dedicate the rest of my life on as well, from the oldest quote I remember from high school "All virtues can be summed up in being Just" - Aristotle

He clearly only knows what his "tribe" allows. He explained it and then demonstrated it.

Hi Larry - I've struggled to understand voter apathy (ultimately that's what we're talking about here - a form of voter apathy) for 20 years. It even happened to me in 2015 - so I built an online ballot where I could organize all the candidates on my ballot side by side and pick my favorites. I then built ballots for all 50 states and facilitated the 2016 online National Assoc of Student Council and National Student Parent Mock Election (5 million participants). Guess what happened? All the students were able to see and hear all the candidates in all the races on their ballot - compare them side by side and pick their favorites. All without TV ads, or radio ads, or CNN or even lawn signs. Win My Vote is the answer to your unanswered question at the end of your talk - and I'd be happy to share with you why and how...

Quite relevant to today in April 2020! A lot covered in a short time.

Wow! The comment section is very polorized. Amazing how ppl correct him on whether we have a republic or a democracy, we've always had both, democracy is an important part of a republic. We need to learn how our country was engineered to work first. Since the beginning we have voted for people to represent our will through all levels of our govt. Hence the democracy part of our republic. What we didn't start with was the us against them mentality of Democrats and Republicans. For as John Adams said his biggest fear is that we would divide ourselves into two parties and rip our beloved republic apart. I think Mr Adams was a bit of a prophet.

In addition of information being fragmented it also is circulating super fast. Faster and faster everyday! And we have to "run after" this information like mad men. We're not waiting after messengers on horses but after instantaneous texts which prompt us to act feverishly and without clear judgment. The faster information will travel the crazier humans will become.

The systematic analysis is correct. We need to come together without the veil of the net more often)

he would be easier to listen to if he brought it down a notch and learned how to more effectively dole out his emphasis and passion. Every phrase is this over the top dramatic, elocution. Also, i'm looking for solutions. We tend to regurgitate the problem to one another year after year.

"Deliberated (adj.): [of a subject (usually of contention)] discussed and debated by a well informed electorate" count it.

UNBELIEVABLE. If those of his ilk are teaching our young people, no wonder they are all over this place. I'm exiting in less than 3 minutes.

Operation Mockingbird - The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media.

Well, this is fun watching this in the summer of 2020. 😅

Let this be a lesson that with any new sweeping technologies there are always unintended consequences. The next BIG TECHnologies coming on stream--data mining and AI will make the downsides of the internet look downright rosy by comparison.

Some good observation and understanding there!

I'm agreeing with everything that Lessig is saying, except for his thesis . . The exposition he gives tells another story: Democracy has never functioned according to the ideal. He begins by reviewing a history of democracy in which the common people could not be consulted. Then during the era of broadcast media, the news makes sense in a way that dominates the public mind without allowing space for dialog. Those are not examples of what we can hope for a democracy to come. Perhaps we have never really had a functioning democracy before. Perhaps that would be a better thesis: There never was a democracy, but now maybe we have a chance, if we can learn to use this thing called the Net to our advantage, however it needs work, and here's why: . . .

A recent survey that asked kids what they wanted to be was very illuminating when it reported that kids highest desire is to be popular. This comes at a time when more kids are the products of single parents.

*"You won because you got more votes than your opp.... nevermind, forget that point"*

Lawrence here said the word Democracy 22 times throughout this video........He never once mentioned the word Republic......and his "Title" is Professor of Law & Leadership at Harvard Law School........Chew on that for a while.

Representative Democracy- Intact, Accessible, and Available Documentation Of The Vote- Part One In Representative Democracy that preserves a Constitutional Republic, verifiable and traceable elections are a must. Of course, public balloting is necessary as choosing public officeholders is a public responsibility that can only be entrusted to those who care to publicly disclose their choice of candidates. Paper ballots are totally essential and this is the only form of ballot that can be both verifiable,immutable, and traceable. These records, in this form, have to be accessible by any who chooses to see how the electorate voted, either collectively or individually. Voting is too important for mistakes or fraud to occur in the tabulation of ballots. Any system that does not provide 100% error free counting of the votes must be forsaken. 100% accurate vote counting can only happen if the ballots are publicly cast via immutable paper ballots.

Oh my, the First Amendment is so important, even to this fellow.

Well, Mr. Harvard Law Professor, you represented your tribe to perfection.

A lot of thought provoking content. Some ideas I agree with, and some I think are not correct due to other factors that are not discussed, but greatly influence the analysis. One thing I would say, is that the Donald Trump bashing doesn't add to the discussion, but is polarizing for some, who will stop listening and thinking about the other valid content -- exactly what he rails about when talking about "the media" polarizing issues.

Functional democracy in our complex local, national and international world needs to move beyond popularity competitions, adversarial, polarized decision making to a system of Deliberative Democracy incorporating citizens advice juries connected to parliament along with facilitated deliberative processes by elected officials to support more effective decision making. The core of our constitution needs to be reformulated into a set of values we agree upon (developed in a facilitated deliberative method using citizens advice juries) along with structures to provide high quality, evidence-based information as well as promising innovative practices... Implementation models such as "Public Value" (making explicit the public value, engagement of stakeholders and resource requirements) reflects an improvement in governance extending democratic values...

The comments of this topic deserve to be profound and eloquent, and worthy of patient deliberative thought, however I'm 70 and no longer have the time or ability to deliver such a comment. If I had such ability, I would suggest, and go down to my local governing body, and try to instill such understanding of this TED Speech, and try to MAKE it part of the local governing body, with our public to be involved. Like try to plant in those audiences, the ability to be Mongolian Citizens in our own country. If you've got to start somewhere, start at the bottom and work your way upward! "Somebody Bless America"

I don't see any way for the internet to become less polarizing. No matter which "tribe" you're in, you can find information biased to your views.

The thing is, people have greater access to information than they ever have in history. In the past, they were entirely dependent on their local newspaper or the oligarchy of news networks that the FCC allowed bandwidth to. Whether or not people choose to take the extra effort to vet their sources is entirely up to them. The point is, now they have access. In the past, they lived in information darkness. This guy seems to have an ax to grind in regards to the Trump presidency, which is clearly directing his lecture rather than the other way around where he might lead with facts. But if we are simply throwing out political opinions, then I have to say I can't stand Trump either. However pointing to opinion polls doesn't help prove your point. After all, Obama had similar disapproval ratings. And I was just as shocked that Trump won as I was that Obama won---twice. It seemed to me at that time that democracy might have failed because people were uninformed about the dangers of socialism. But here we are today and nothing that bad happened. Luckily we had a Republican congress to stop him from his worst impulses. I'm sure the end result of the Trump presidency will be similar. The dire predictions that the end is near and global warming will kill all warm blooded mammals on the planet will never come to fruition,. We will simply move on to the next media-driven manufactured crisis and keep drudging along.

The 19th century had small town politics and there literally was a public square. Social media is also about small group politics. Social media also discusses corporate media coverage of government similar to 19th century getting big city newspapers in small towns.

The sound level is too low. I use amplifies little speakers, all levels set at 100% and still can barely hear him. Good thing I can read the subtitles.

I am far more at ease with the election of Donald Trump after this lecture. Lessig is describing the Manufacture of Consent as if it were a good thing. For those of you not familiar, it began with the control of popular publications to bend public opinion toward entry into the first World War and the original Red Scare in the wake of the Communist Revolution.

Sousa was right! ( 6:05 )

24:50 •The voice of the common people. •The voice of a random sample of the common people.

I totally agree, only direct democracy can be called democracy! Like in Switzerland! Perfect democracy !!

The professor was apparently very satisfied with the artificial and forced hegemony of 3 TV networks represented by Peter, Danny, and Tom who decided what we should know and what was not worthy of knowing along with 40 years of continuous one-party rule of the House of Representatives from 1954 to 1994. Those years saw rise of the New Left along with many years of cultural decline.

Social media does edit, more than you know.

I've watched probably 50 Ted Talks so far, and you are the first host I've seen that was absolutely, in-your-face partisan. You are perpetuating the very problem you identify in the media. One would think your experience of participating in the 2 day poll, where you were impressed with the ability of the local non-scholarly people to positively participate would have instilled a little humility, but no. A little self reflection goes a long way.

Seems like he’s more disappointed with the results of the 2016 election and created a presentation around it.

The title should be "How the Net has made Us Aware of the Manipulating Main Stream Media."

We should be cheering this! The common knowledge is no longer controlled by three companies.

Absolutely, social media is hyper-fragmented. But social media is not the epitome of network technology. Now is the time to look beyond these capabilities to really consider what is pertinent to a network media that does generate common stories. We need a new kind of deliberative media that is engaging and pedagogically challenging, that is intertextual, that generates contexts. In order to achieve this, we first must archive all of our sources in a common space. I recommend a distributed system that is owned and operated by the people: IPFS. What is lacking is a way of revealing the meaningful interconnections between sources--we need a people-powered semantic web as a foundation for collaborative sensemaking.

16:33 “But though it’s great for culture, it’s terrible for democracy! Because what this fragmentation means is that there’s no common story, no common fact-radical polarization in what we know, and radical polarization in what we should do! And there is no better proof of it then “this man…”

This is the first "Ted" where I've learned nothing. I listened, I really did. Brought up problems but no solutions. Then in between, alot of preamble.

The constitutional assembly of citizens in Mongolia can be done much easier via teleconferencing in the USA, or in person. This Harvard lawyer concludes that the Mongolia citizen assembly cannot be done in the USA - so let the elitist self-serving lawyers continue to do it. Really? First, we need a government where the citizens can actually talk with their elected official or get a real email answer to questions, and not only when they are campaigning for re-election.

What the people wanted since the industrial revolution was what the factories thought they needed and produced it for them. The priests knew as much as the people did and that process continued till the advent of newspapers, radio, and TV and advertising.

The internet is our only hope to save democracy.

This speech should be called "What broke society?" I feel like the title is a bit misleading, and distracts from the power of the information presented.

You should have avoided being partisan in your talk- otherwise some interesting points!

We are here to help and guide you towards a proper democracy.

Harvard Law... 'nuff said.

Take away the Donald Trump bashing and this piece of talk has the potential for a really good piece of democracy on democracy. Sad that the speaker succumbed to include some bias of his own into the talk.

The Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School should know that we do not now nor have ever had a democracy in America.

26:08 What does he mean, he doesn't know who to scale the Deliberative Process? He just gave the example from Mongolia.

You showed literally everything what lies today in every countries dramatic democracy

He is not understanding how the Nation-state has "always" been controlled by one form of an oligarchy or another. Democracy has never really existed to any degree and went it has, it was still monopolized by the ruling oligarchy. It has never provided for what is in the best interest of the majority, obviously catering to wealthy special interests. And they generally don't last very long without being oppressive to the majority. I like to say that an institution (the nation-state) which is predicated on the use of force to fund its operations (taxation, regulatory fee, and fines) is obviously going to make them a prominent activity for its success. With over 110 different taxes, fees and finds Americans pay either directly or indirectly, it pretty obvious this is true. The middle class, just as in about every nation-state before us, is being crushed by the plethora of these taxes if you examine disposable incomes. Examining the Roman Republic, as a new society, it operated on a very low overall tax rate of less than 5% in the beginning and flourished, but as the time when on, the leadership eventually placed higher taxes on the majority eventually bankrupting the entire republic. No society, other than the Celtics which lasted from about 650 AD to 1650 AD and had no nation-state, has been able to curtail the size and scope of government despite having been Constitutionally attempted. The U.S. being a great example; the Federal Government alone today costs $4 trillion annually. So the question I ask you is why have the international central bankers worked so hard at sustaining the powers, the nation states have over their people?

His analysis is mostly improperly framed. He thinks polarization is due to how the media works. On one level, that is indeed an influence. But the more profound clash is between the deep-seated American ideal of individualism vs. the emerging global power structure.

And how exactly the centralization of power to decide what is shown to people and what is not in the hands of a few news corporate conglomerates is "democratic"?

The public wants to be left alone to live their lives.

You scale it with a REPUBLIC, which is what we are. You deploy as much power as possible to the states, and let them run the process you just described. Also, each state selects, from its own randomly selected 800 or so people, a handful of people to go participate in the national level process. But you see, if most of the power is at the state level, then less damage can be done by a national level process that revolves around a smaller percentage of people. This was a BEDROCK of the way America was designed, and we've systematically let it slip away as we've sent more and more power to Washington. This is something we need to reverse.

Much anger I sense.

16:27 *"Game of Thrones is something imaginable only in our time not in the time of the 60s or 70s, when it would have to appeal to a much more mainstream audience. The technology that enables this kind of diversity, though it's great for culture, it's terrible for democracy. This fragmentation means there no common story, no common facts. Only radical polarization."* -- He sounds like a conservative reactionary, scared of them newfangled talking boxes. He's forgetting that the whole *POINT* of Deliberative Polling is to bring together a DIVERSITY of stories. Yes, the web can be abused, just like radios, TV's, and every other media. It's just a tool, like the telephone. Yes, there's a problem with trust and facts, and who controls the sources of information, and what their motivations are. We need to address that. The web is a new muscle, a new tool, a new voice for humanity. It may take us time to learn how to use it. "There's no better proof the web is bad for Democracy than the election of He Who Shall Not Be Named." -- So Trump is living proof that the internet is killing Democracy? :D What baloney. He sounds like Sousa.

I know this is not at all the point even a little but, I and people I’ve met of my tribe agree that GMOs (genetically modified organics for those who are unfamiliar) are safe to consume. The concern is, however, that all of the products we mass produce and consume are modified in the same way, and often do not change. These means that if a disease were to find an opening within one of those products, that could have the potential to kill off all of that product in a given area, destroying economies and potentially leaving people starving and/or without an essential ingredient or material. If a disease evolved and killed all of the corn growing in 1 state in the US because there was no variation in the genetic makeup of those corn plants, and therefore no corn plants with an immunity or defence from the disease, that would cause huge problems for the farmers, the consumers, and the people of that state in general as they rely on it’s economy and its stability. GMOs are essential to feeding the world’s population, and by god they should not go away, however the production and monitoring of them should be handled by ecologists, botanists, and evolutionary scientists, not companies trying to make a quick buck selling seeds and plants that don’t come back the next season.

Wow. Mr. Lessig agrees with Donald Trump that the News Media is divisive and polarizing!!!! Therefore, the Net is not destroying democracy, the Main Stream Media is!! Thank you Mr. Lessig for your insight.....

Thanks, Lawrence.

W8, he recognized Singapore as functional? And he didn't recognize Switzerland as a democracy(perhaps the most well functioning democracy on earth).

6:40 Vocal cords, not "chords."

27 minutes I’ll never get back. The problem with liberalism is that it never makes a true point.

I feel like spitting at the TV.

Seems like a visible look at Moore's Law in action. Collage-art journalism shared through a private Lot 49-like mail system needs to start up asap.

When I buy trail mix, I'm always tempted to pick out and eat the chocolate and sweet pieces, I'm not being bad, I think a lot of people do that. But the question has to be asked what kind of trail mix etiquette is that, will I be smited by the trail mix gods? But all hilarity aside, is that the best way to indulge trail mix or to let the point emerge practice a democracy? Should we just hear what we like in our community and let our less liked community suffer in a darkness. Because right now we have been empowered to do that. What of the larger community, what of the sacrifice that living in society demands, and the truth of democracy that everyone has a voice and is entitled to voice it, win or lose. To make it relevant to the age of Trump, he speaks in flowery rhetoric, he campaigned the gays will love me, the environment will love me, business will love me. Everyone will love him because he does not speak a word of critique, when what we need is inconvenient truths global warming is real this and those threats are real, all because we have hesitated to lift a finger. And what's more the greater of this is real the solutions can be in us, if we first vanquish our monsters.

i had to turn it off when he said most people hate trump...75 million love trump

This talk felt a bit fragmented.

The question is whether the politics (politicians) shall act upon what people "believe" they want VS being prepared to advance what people need. It seems clear, and not demeaning, that we - as individuals in a complex interconnected society - cannot evaluate trade-offs of specific policies. The elected "leaders" (let's say the "government") shall have the capacity and responsibility to do so. Predictably, they will make occasional mistakes, which would likely be less damaging than those currently made almost daily. Such errors the "leaders" shall be not reluctant to admit and correct. But they have to free from the tyranny of ill-informed public "opinion", which is a far cry from knowledge. They should be elected by reference to their abilities, not their catering to "popular" demands.

I thought he was going to talk about how the internet bans, blocks and demonetize alternative opinions on Facebook, Twitter or on UKposts. I guess internet will be controlled eventually.

Wow... An "Everyone knows" kinda guy. I've never seen one before.

16:31 lol we must control like we do with the media

What it all boils down to, Mr. Lessig, is that people must THINK in order for democracy to function well. That is the core problem - we don't think. We just react emotionally to the stimuli delivered to us by the media. We also have to set aside the notion that the goal is for "us to win" (I'm talking here about any particular subset of us). This country is supposed to work as well as possible for EVERYONE. Given how diverse we are, that likely means that NO ONE is going to get everything their way. THAT IS OK. The end goal is a compromise that we can all live with. This "sports arena" mentality that has gotten associated with politics, where the goal is to "crush the opposition," is just as wrong as it could possibly be. Every single one of us brings something worthwhile to the table. Everyone should have a voice - no one should be ignored. Unless we can learn that simple lesson and take it to heart, our nation is effectively doomed.

You should go and live in Cuba or Venezuela, you will never talk bad about this country or about our elected president. I left Cuba in a raft with 21 years old in 1987, left my entire Family over there, I love this country and our president.

I think we could all do without the snarky anti-orange-man jabs. I'm always amazed at how a supposedly "smart" person tries to give a speech that they self-profess to be "non-partisan" while in reality they find it utterly impossible to do without sprinkling in their own anti-right bias. Fail.

Polls were correct til 1936? Wow.

Pat of our political process is to campaign for those that we like. I can talk to my neighbor and I can shout on a street corner and I can hold a sign . If I'm a gazillionaire I can do this on television and billboards. I can also let the people in power know what I am doing and now they are once again beholden to me. The one thing that defeats inequality is an informed and engaged citizenry. Create that and all of the other problems disappear.

A filtered truth would definately solidify the democracy, but who gets to tell "you" what is relevant. Who is the purveyor of truth? Interesting watching this in Dec 2020.

What a great talk! Thank you!

When a Republican is President, add 30% for sampling discrepancies. Under President Obama I was asked constantly about my opinion. Many pollsters were hide their surprise at my answers because I could hear the creaking strain of their preconceived notions.

Great speech. The average American agrees on 90% of issues. But talking about what we disagree on and finding information on the internet that confirms it feels too good. Feeling good and right is like a drug.

IDK, it seems that the world is changing too fast for some people and I don't know if that can be fixed. Their conservatism and traditionalism may just be hardwired and the two choices are to allow them to drag us back into some pre-industrial age or to ignore them and leave them behind. I think maybe for democracy to continue to exist and a fair egalitarian society to continue to exist we may have to do it without the modern US Republican Parity, without Likud, without the National Front.