Hindman talks about the dilemma that the internet creates for the free political expression: On one hand, anyone can put up a political website or a blog; on the other hand, the internet designed in a way that many political websites don't come up on the popular searches like Yahoo or Google. In order to come up on top of Google search results, a website should have been linked on other websites. At the same time, new political websites are more likely to link already existing and popular websites to explain their cause. By doing so, I give the website that I use the links from more popularity, and my website stays in the shadow. That's why despite such a big variety of political blogs or even nonpolitical content on the internet we end up going back to the same source for information.

Alexa, a web information company, presents a data for 500 most popular websites in the United States today. Not surprisingly, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, CNN, Fox News, and MNBC were the only news and political sites that made into top 50. Hindman argues these are the websites that often come up in a Google search, when internet users type in hot political topic. But do we really need Google to find CNN? Why with all the diversity the internet has to offer, Google leads us towards the same sites. Only uses generated content websites like Reddit offer links to not so popular pages like Cagle Post, for example.