Ideas & Trends; Politics of the Web: Meet, Greet, Segregate, Meet Again

Correction Appended

THAT the Internet is newly teeming with grass-roots political activists of all stripes is one of the truisms of this campaign season. But to Melissa Kramer, a Wesley Clark supporter who spends hours online every day, it doesn't feel that way.

On Ms. Kramer's Internet, the politics are all General Clark, all the time. As soon as she drops her children off at school, Ms. Kramer logs on to Clark04.com, the official campaign Web log, to check the campaign press releases. Then it's on to the Clark ''community'' blogs, to post information about local Clark news in Dayton, Ohio, and read the views of other Clark supporters around the country. Later, she might visit the Web log of the film director Michael Moore, who recently endorsed General Clark.

The only time Ms. Kramer comes across, say, a Dean supporter is when one ventures onto the Clark Web site's discussion area. These partisan visitors, known among political bloggers as ''trolls,'' are typically seen as trying to disrupt productive discussion, and regulars know to shun them.

''There's no point in going over to try to persuade people who aren't going to listen to you anyway,'' said Ms. Kramer in a telephone interview. ''If I'm going to try to persuade someone, I'd save it for in-person. The Internet isn't good for that.''

Many of the thousands of newly minted Internet activists outside the Clark camp seem to agree with her, if only on that subject. Online political discussion has become so fragmented so quickly that some public policy scolds warn that the Internet is in danger of narrowing the spectrum of debate even as it attracts more participants to it. The same medium that allows people to peruse a near- infinite number of news sources also lets them pinpoint the ones they want and filter out the rest.

''The experience of the echo chamber is easier to create with a computer than with many of the forms of political interaction that preceded it,'' said Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago and author of ''Republic.com.'' ''The discussion will be about strategy, or horse race issues or how bad the other candidates are, and it will seem like debate. It's not like this should be censored, but it can increase acrimony, increase extremism and make mutual understanding more difficult.''

Analysts say there is no question that the Internet is mobilizing citizens who might not otherwise be politically active. Howard Dean raised millions of dollars in small donations from Internet supporters. The conservative Heritage Foundation has used Meetup.com, the organizing tool that worked so well for Dr. Dean, to sponsor hundreds of small group meetings around the country. And more than 5,000 people are using the Clark campaign's software to create their own local Web logs.

That's encouraging to some social scientists.

''If people are getting together to talk about politics, that's better than people sitting watching a 30-second sound bite,'' said Robert Putnam, a public policy professor at Harvard.

But Professor Putnam, whose book ''Bowling Alone'' lamented the demise of nonpartisan community groups like bowling leagues and Kiwanis clubs, said more interaction among people with diverse views would be preferable.

''The terribly polarized politics that we have now is the culmination of a trend that's been going on for 25 years,'' he said. ''Whether the Internet is going to make the problem better or make it worse is a big, important question.''

On the Web right now, there are Howards for Howard, Independents for Kerry and Kids4Kucinich. There is little evidence that they are preaching to anyone but the converted.

One reason is that outsiders who raise questions about the candidate are often greeted with deep suspicion by insiders who know that the Internet's anonymous form of communication allows people to act as provocateurs with relative impunity.

On the Dean blog, Mitchell Gore, 39, a graphic designer in Portland, Ore., advised in a post last week: ''Beware the stealth-troll post; the one that starts with something like 'I was supporting Dr. Dean, but ever since. ' These trolls want to start a Dean-bashing session. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them completely.''

Still, even some Dean supporters, the pioneers of politics on the Internet, have begun to worry that their insularity contributed to their candidate's poor showing in the Iowa caucuses. ''It's all well and good to cheer each other on,'' wrote one supporter last week. ''But clearly that's not enough.''

The Internet became the ultimate tool for finding like minds and blocking out others long before supporters of candidates began seeking one another out on Meetup.com. With online dating sites where searches can be tailored by age and income, e-mail forums for the most narrow band of subjects, bookmarked sites and even spam filters, the Web allows users to tailor the information they consume more than any other medium. Social scientists even have a term for it: cyberbalkanization.

''Democracy has been defined as a process of discussion,'' said Bruce Bimber, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. ''The Internet's tendency to fragment people into like-minded groups is something those of us who study these things are worried about.''

Professor Bimber's research from the 2000 campaign showed that partisan sites had much bigger audiences than nonpartisan, general information sites. Taking note of such data, Youth04, a nonpartisan group using the Internet to provoke political debate among young people, is trying to get them to meet in person.

''I concluded it was almost impossible to try to use the Internet as the place where these great discussions would take place,'' David Anderson, the group's executive director, said.

Many political activists see this blending of high-tech with high-touch, as it has come to be called, as a sign that the Web can be used for more debate. Scott Heiferman, the founder of Meetup.com, where people interested in any subject or cause can sign up to attend a local meeting with others similarly inclined, says Dean supporters once crashed a Kerry meet-up in New York. There have even been cases of priests showing up at atheist meet-ups. But the meetings are, by their very nature, self-segregating.

John O'Brien, a business consultant who attended a recent meet-up sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, said he enjoyed mingling with other conservatives. The only reason he would attend a Dean meet-up, he said, would be to heckle.

Blogs -- or Web journals -- are also more about monologue than discussion. President Bush's re-election campaign blog, for instance, does not include a largely standard feature that most online journals have: the ability for readers to reply to the posts.

But if Internet users tend to seek out people and information that reinforce the views they already hold, they are following a law of human nature that social scientists have observed for decades.

''Everything we know about psychology and political communication says people look for stuff that confirms their views,'' said Michael Cornfield, research director at the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University. ''It would be a surprise if the Internet doesn't accelerate the trend.''

Some Internet activists don't see any problem with that. For MoveOn.org, the goal is to mobilize like-minded people to action against the Republican agenda, not to persuade them that it's wrong, said Eli Pariser, the group's campaign director.

''Changing people's minds is overrated,'' Mr. Pariser said. ''Most of the people in this country are with us, and it's a matter of getting them active and getting them informed.''

Correction: February 1, 2004, Sunday An article last Sunday about the effect of the Internet on the scope of political debate misstated the position of John O'Brien, a politically conservative business consultant. Although he does not agree with Howard Dean's positions, he said he would be unlikely to attend a meeting of Dean supporters unless it was to learn about grass-roots organizing from their example. He added that he would never consider disrupting the meeting or heckling the speakers.