The Rise of Filter Bubbles 408
eldavojohn writes "Eli Pariser gave a talk at TED which posits that tailoring algorithms are creating 'filter bubbles' around each user, restricting the information that reaches you to be — unsurprisingly — only what you want to see. While you might be happy that your preferred liberal or conservative news hits you, you'll never get to see the converse. This is because Google, Facebook, newspaper sites and even Netflix filter what hits you before you get to see it. And since they give you what you want, you never see the opposing viewpoints or step outside your comfort zone. It amounts to a claim of censorship through personalization, and now that every site does it, it's becoming a problem. Pariser calls for all sites implementing these algorithms to embed in the algorithms 'some sense of public life' and also have transparency so you can understand why your Google search might look different than someone with opposing tastes."
Hit the link below to watch a video of Pariser's talk.
Definitely a serious problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially considering the natural tendency to discard information that is in contradiction to ones personal views on the world. If the actual inputs are then skewed to support that view, then it just gets even more extreme as a person tends to discard the more moderate views in favor of more extreme ones.
Re:I'm bombarded.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But what branch of "conservatives" are you seeking the opinion of? Rational ones, or the nutty Fox News/Free Republic/Breitbart kind whose existence is defined not by conservatism but preying on people by spreading lies, half truths, and blind worship of a specific political party?
There are valid "Conservative" opinions out there, but they are by far drowned out by the loud and very politically active nutter branch that calls themselves "conservative."
commingle a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitely a serious problem (Score:5, Insightful)
2002 called, it wants its fears back (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be a pretty avant-garde line of thinking if there hadn't been an entire book written about it nine years ago [princeton.edu] ...
Re:I'm bombarded.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the thing that is most hurting political discourse in the USA is that the nutter branches on *both* the left and the right are controlling the conversation... er... shouting match. I'm tired of the nutter left's frothing, angry, invective that is targeted at anyone who disagree with them. And I'm tired of the right's white-washing of the subtle complexities in the problems that we face. Political discussions have become a discourteous shouting match between pseudo-intellectuals on the left and anti-intellectuals on the right. Where has thought gone?
Fortunately, I have discovered a reliable filter to identify nutters. Present raw data and see how people react. If the person gets angry, it says volumes about the person and their agenda. Raw data has no agenda. A person who has a non-linear, non-thoughtful response to raw data should be avoided like toxic waste.
Re:I'm bombarded.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that media orgainizations that describe themselves as "conservaive" love to paint everyone else as "liberal" or "left", but that is just not the case, and it seems you have fallen into their trap of viewig life as polar ("liberal" vs. "conservative"). That polarized view is nearly antithtical to the ideal of democracy, especially democracy as espoused by the framers of our Constitution. To quote Tommas Jefferson:
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right."
The "main stream" media has been deliberately neutral for a very long time (despite having overwhelming "conservative" ownership). We have not had truely polarized mainstream media since William Randolph Hurst was alive and in control of a lot of the media. Note that this stands in stark contrast to the media in Europe, where party affiliation is usually blatantly obvious to all concerned (see Silvio Berlusconi's massive ownership in the Italian new media).
Both durring Hurst's lifetime, as well as in Europe today you see poitics played as a "old boys club" (see the current German Wutbürger movements) with people falling into parties with wide political moats between them. The US system in contrast has historically had two main partites that mostly share the same political ideology, and work very hard to demonstrate their differences on a limited number of areas, with many of their party members holding some views (and voting for those views) in direct contradition to their partie's political planks. To me the latter is a healthy democracy that has had time to come to a gerneral concensus about things.
Fox News and "talk radio" (both sides, but talk radio is dominated by "conservatives") seem to want to take us back to the "bad old days" where facts don't matter. As an example Fox News viewers have been repeatedly found to think that weapons of mass destruction were found durring the Iraq invation thus justifying the invation. 33% of regular Fox viewers reported this as fact. And then we have the underhanded "we don't know" reporting about Predident Obama's place of birth. We were long past the point where there was legitmate cause for discussion on that issue long before the election took place. Yet the Fox "News" channel kept that flame burning. This blatent focus on patizenship at the expense of truely informing their viewership is underhanded, shamefull, and toally destructive to a working democracy.
Don't ask news organizations to present "news and information that represents my views", because that is propoganda. Ask them to diligently and ernestly report news as factually and hosnestly as they can. Those two requests are diametriaclly opposed. It is sad to see a political movement who couches their idology so much on the ideas of the founders of this country (the Tea Party), so massivly get the basic ideas of those same men so wrong.
Re:I'm bombarded.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That poses the problem of what raw data properly represents the problem at hand. Ideology tries to boils down the complexity of real systems to a single ideological approach to solving them. It's not that real data is bad, only that real data requires years of research and multiple PhD's to grasp to any degree, and even then the best you have is an understanding of what the data says, not what good policy is about the data.
As a simple example, one can fairly easily find statistics on how much the US spends per capita on healthcare (vs other countries), as a percent of GDP, etc... and then health outcomes. Ok.. so the system is bad, raw data proves a point but provides no solution, since the questions is 'what should the healthcare system be' not 'what should it not be'. Good job proving the system is bad. Politics and ideology is 'what system should we implement, how do we massage that into a system we can implement, and how many votes will it get/cost me?'
The economy is another great example. You have GDP, GDP/c, median incomes, gini indices, etc. You can look at real data about what other countries do to. But there are a plethora of experts with PhD's in economics who can't agree on what a good gini index is, or how to get to whatever a good number is. So what does look at the raw data get you exactly? An opportunity for 4 years of poorly paid research to earn a doctorate which shows you know more about the problem than the average bloke, but not how to fix it.
And that assumes real data exists for your problem. Which, in many cases, it doesn't (the US wealth gap for example doesn't really map to other historical situations if you are trying to ask the question 'why', as it ties in deeply to foreign ownership and investment, education etc.). Data can guide an ideological approach, but by itself raw data rarely maps to implementable policies in anything other than an ideologically biased fashion.
Re:I'm bombarded.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a funny thing. I agree with you that the mainstream media portrays a mostly consistent message. I also agree with you that the two main parties "mostly share the same political ideology, and work very hard to demonstrate their differences on a limited number of areas". But I kind of get lost after that.
I'm not an American, so my perspective may be skewed, but I see American media as not being neutral per se. I see them as following the same political ideology that both of the main parties do. From the perspective of portraying party agenda, I suppose that is neutral. But I tend to notice a definite American ideological bias in the reporting. No reporting can be truly neutral, but especially for foreign affairs issues, the media portrays issues without an attempt to explain opposing points of view. This isn't neutral from my perspective.
What is even more interesting is when discussing the few issues in which the two parties diverge, the media tends to present a polarised view without actually taking sides. Well, in fairness to the OP, I often feel that the Democrat side of the issue is often portrayed in a somewhat softer light. But like you say, it's not anything like reporting in some other countries. Both sides are portrayed to some extent. However, they are portrayed in such a way as if they are polar opposites. It's like there are only two solutions to everything: the Democrat way and the Republican way. It not only makes it appear that the two sides are much farther apart than I think they are, but that there can't possibly be any other solution than those two.
When I discuss politics with my American friends I always have to preface the discussion with a definition of right and left. Their view of left is still way over into the right for me. If I say that I don't agree with one point of view, I get a huge amount of grief about how the other party has ruined whatever it is we're talking about. But if I say that I don't agree with something both parties agree on people often stare at me like I must be completely insane.
Coming back to the point, I often find that Americans are already getting this filtered media where they are only presented with issues that the two parties disagree on. They enjoy this view because it is simple, fits their preconceived notions of the world, but still gives them something to argue about. If I am very cynical I might even say that it gives them the illusion of choice at election time.
Of course, I am also biased and I am presented with news conforming to my views and confirming my biases. What made me interested about your post was that we both viewed the starting conditions similarly and yet came to dramatically different conclusions, probably based on those biases. Very interesting, indeed.
Re:Derhythmed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I'm a socialist, but this is a good way of showing that no one is immune, whatever platitudes they throw out to show that they're above it.
Re:Derhythmed (Score:5, Insightful)
Just make it a third button next to "I'm Feeling Lucky":
"Google Search | I'm Feeling Lucky | Confirm My Opinions"
Re:Derhythmed (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, you have both the freedom and the liberty to tell me to go fuck myself (you are able to do it and you are allowed to do it). You have the freedom, but not the liberty to hire some guys to come make me fuck myself (you are able to do it, but you are not allowed to do it). You have neither the freedom nor the liberty to make me do it yourself (your lack of freedom being your innate inability).
To put it another way, you have the freedom to sneak into your neighbor's house when they're not there and take their valuables. As long as you find a way to do it, you have the freedom to do so. If you did it, the ability to maximize the benefits to you that result in your own actions would also imply freedom. However, liberty says you're a dickhead and the cops will do their best to find you and get you. Your neighbor has the freedom to find you and get you, too, however you would be fortunate in the fact that he does not quite have the liberty.
You're welcome.
Re:Self-filter Bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
[T]he more important thing, I think, is that over the years I have often (but not always) discovered that opposing ideas I find on Slashdot have some merit behind them. Hence when someone says something I think it wrong I will often trust it enough to check into it a little and see whether I need to re-evaluate my position. This is why I like Slashdot.
The reason I like slashdot is because there is a larger than normal proportion of usesr (such as yourself) who at least attempt to practice the most important yet most difficult part of being a genuine skeptic, ie: self-skepticisim.
Re:Definitely a serious problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Definitely a serious problem (Score:4, Insightful)
"Have you somehow managed to miss every article slashdot has ever posted about the RIAA?"
Copyright is protectionism by another name, and hence NOT capitalist.
Re:Derhythmed (Score:4, Insightful)
Their job to return the results a user is most likely to be interested in,
No! Their job is to return the results most relevant to the query. If two people making the same query get different results, they are failing badly!