In Lanier's third chapter, he delves into how the idea of a person in a web 2.0 environment can impact decisions. Specifically, he launches into the idea that when all opinions are voiced on a topic and then averaged out, the best decision is reached. Though Lanier calls this an example of democracy, he does not mean it in an electoral sense. The idea is that the internet can be a massive peer-review network for anything and everything to ensure that humanity is putting forward ideas that are as close to the truth as possible.

One major issue with this concept developing is censorship. Even in nations that are nominally democratic, there is often a great deal of state censorship. With such governments well in place, it may be awhile before the true goal of the idea can be reached. The question now is if endless feedback and changes will allow us to actually reach the truth. For example, Wikipedia could function somewhat like this idea, yet it is not accepted as an academic source. Is this just an example of growing pains, or will a hive-mind knowledge bank never be the definitive source that we want it to be?