Now that we have viewed Eli Pariser’s TED Talk (from March, 2011) and discussed its implications in class, please comment on one of the following questions:
1) Is it okay if you are only seeing search results (articles, ads, etc.) that mirror your political beliefs? <or>
2) Do we need a policy? Should government set guidelines for filtering algorithms on the Internet?
To satisfy the requirements for this assignment, you must either: 1) post your opinion – thoughtfully; and/or 2) respond to one of your classmates’ posts – in the spirit of deliberative dialogue.
IMPORTANT NOTES
- Consider saving your very first comment (!!) in Word or Google docs and using copy-and-paste to upload… at least until you are comfortable using our blog.
- Remember to ‘sign’ your post with first name and last initial ONLY – to earn full credit.
- Still curious? Eli Pariser updated his thinking in a 2015 essay for Wired Magazine. Check it out HERE.
21st Century Citizenship 
As a country that’s run under the ideals of a democracy where people get to choose and decide what’s better for them, ironically, not all decision takers knows the other side of the coin. According to Eli Pariser’s ted talk on “Filter Bubbles,” he believes that most of the search results, such as: articles, ads, etc, are being filtered by the search algorithm instituted by companies such as Netflix, Facebook, Youtube, Google and many more and we are not seeing everything we should be. Though the cookies, the thing that helps summarize the webpages according to our likings, may just be the thing that is creating the filter bubble by building a barrier to the other side of the coin. Internet, a place which can connect two people from across the globe, where one can find informations about the new trends, where all people with access to internet seek informations at, “filter bubble” should be the last thing they should run into. Companies like these should provide us the news no matter how unappealing or unpleasing they may sound. Therefore, I believe that internet shouldn’t be a place where information is just black or white but both.
LikeLike
I believe that the filter bubble is a neutral algorithm, it does create a bias to specific political views however the bias is minimal and it is based off of choices made by yourself. the main influences of the filter bubble are who you follow on social networks not the algorithm itself, the algorithm itself only affects what you see from the other side by about 6% according to Pariser’s 2015 article. This is overall a minimum effect on the broad scope of what you see on social media.
LikeLike
While the concept of a “filter bubble” is not exactly new to social media sites and search engines, since they are usually designed to increase usage for a site, it can be damaging for more than just one’s political views, what they know, and how much they know about other sides of an argument.
In the case of google and Youtube, not to say that the problem only extends so far as google, some have even been calling it almost censorship because of what things are being shown to what people. Articles and videos such as those from “controversial” topics (like the LGBTQ+ community) are actively being demonetized for simply talking about a subject that lets people know about what is going on in the world and conflicting viewpoints for people. Not only is the “filter bubble” that’s in place taking views away from the content because it doesn’t typically result in more view time and views in general, it’s also depriving some of the most important creators of content from being known and being able to continually produce content that’s important for people to know about.
Also, while the “filter bubble” is generally a seemingly bad idea for the public in terms of ignorance about a topic, I don’t believe that government regulation of said bubble should be allowed either. If that were the case, then the argument can be made that the government is interrupting the economies of these giant companies who rely on these clicks for their profits; The only way this problem can be solved is by the people’s power, and that power does not lie in the hands of government regulation of business.
LikeLike
I enjoyed the TED Talk about the filter bubble because something like this had never occurred to me before. Finding out how much effort search engines and social media websites go to, to alter our search results and recommendations is incredible. At the same rate though, it’s not necessarily helping us individually or as country because when we are veered to see only one side of things our insights become impaired and single-sided. Growing up I was taught there are typically two sides or multiple perspectives for situations and in order to succeed we should have knowledge of all sides, because knowledge is power and the more we know the better off we are.
LikeLike
Most people in the United States would be okay with seeing results that mirror their political views since people do not want to hear what the other side has to say. This just screams ignorance, but right now in America, people are doing anything to protect their view and not listen to the other side. I understand why people do this because it makes them comfortable. I think that companies do not need to filter certain what we see, but people find it hard to talk to people with different political ideas than them. People tend to only read things or listen to things that match with their ideas that why companies are filtering results, but I am not saying this is right. The only way we can change this is through education, but it is going to take time.
LikeLike
The filter bubble, I believe should bring up a question of ethics. The filter bubble hides information that it believes is not relevant to it’s user so that the vast amount of information on the internet is isolated to that single individual but isn’t that the opposite of the internet truly is. The internet is a way of connecting people and ideas, individuals from across the world can share their beliefs with others to learn but the bubble breaks that. Should that even be allowed? On the internet it should be the consumers choice if they want the filter bubble or not companies should not just decide just because they look at this often doesn’t mean that they need to see something different.
LikeLike
Personally, I’m completely okay with this existence of filter bubble; It’s defiantly impossible to learn all the informations. Besides all the informations you get from social media and google are those who came from others, so it’s you who choose to believe it or not. If people choose to believe everything they see, wrong informations could occur to them anytime. Moreover the Filter bubble does not only exist in internet. The type of friends you chose to made will always influence you in some ways, when you are surrounded by one atmosphere it’s hard for you to accept other opinions anymore. Basically, if there is a problem about getting wrong information, it should not be considered the fault of filter bubble but what you choose to believe.
LikeLike
The filter bubble may be convenient when used for things like online shopping, but often provides readers with misinformation that causes ignorance when used for news or current events. The use of the filter bubble limits what we can and cannot see. Seeing what we want is easier, but seeing what we don’t want to see could be far more beneficial especially when doing research on certain topics. The internet is used so commonly that it should encourage new perspectives and discussions; not just provide us with something that is easy to read. It is also crucial for students to see what they do and don’t agree with to strengthen a community that understands both perspectives.
LikeLike
Because so much of every day life is controlled by what the media shows us, the filter bubble has a very real and impactful existence. The most relevant example of this, for met least, was the last election. Despite the media I was seeing telling me Trump had a less than 1% chance of winning, he is now our president. I can only imagine how the bubble is affecting the more trivial things if something as real and palpable as the presidential election is being filtered. I think that people today ,especially now that Eli Pariser has bought this idea of the finer bubble into everyday dialogue, are realizing their control over the internet is completely lost in the personalization of it. We need to be confronted with uncomfortable yet important subjects, so when discussions arise about those subjects they are treated with respect rather than fear. Like Pariser said, “the world of one needs to return to the word of many.”
LikeLike
The way “filter bubble” works is that this unique universe of information guesses our political views and personal opinions. In this way we won’t see any world views different from us. From my perspective it can avoid some arguments in the internet but it’s not always a good method to ignore the problems that exist. Not only we need to have our own opinions but also hearing other’s point of view, otherwise you will be blocked from the world by lacking enough information. In addition, people living in the same country need to get together, which is good for democracy. Personally I want to have control of what information i get in, therefore I wouldn’t suggest filter bubble as a perfect system.
LikeLike
Not only the website creates the filter bubble for us, we also created them by ourselves. When we first type in something and then many links appear, it is our choice to click on which link that best interest us. In addition, the first few links that appear are usually the ones get clicked the most. In my opinion, if the filter bubble does not exist, it would become annoying that we need to scroll down through all the links that we are not aiming for. To call it a “smart search engine”, we expect it to automatically filter the irrelevent information and the ones that do not interest us. As long as the filter bubble does not appear as something that blocks the information, in other words, it does not shield some keywords to prevent the public from receiving the news, I personally do not think it is very big problem.
LikeLike
Filter bubbles can not easily be defined, because people may have different interests, but that does not mean that they do not want to see what they are not interest in, since a complete perspective comes from both what a person approve and what a person disagree.
LikeLike
I don’t think we need a policy that eliminate the filter bubble on the internet, because I believe that the mainly causes of creating filter bubbles are individuals in which people creat their own filter bubbles. Internet creates filter bubbles base on people’s research history and these records are biased because of personal beliefs, experience or surroundings. If people only accepts what they believe, they won’t click on the link of other opinions even the internet offers various views. In the other hand, people would see opposite views if they want to even internet creates filter bubbles.
LikeLike
In response to question #1:
I think it is detrimental to the future of America and the future of Democracy if we only see what want to see. I feel like Americans have grown accustom to the idea that democracy is easy. in order for democracy to work all Americans must be able to communicate there ideas on an even playing field. the internet should be a place of diverse ideals and a space for international communication. however if are only seeing what we agree with we are no longer challenging ourselves. instead of discussion we turn to fighting and name calling like children would. we must learn to disagree peacefully and with understanding. if people are exposed to ideals that are opposite of their own in a common space like the internet more frequently then there is nothing to fight about and instead we will have something to talk about.
LikeLike
We need to work together to solve the “filter bubble” problem which is making us ignorant to what is going on in the world. The main argument for filter bubbles is that they help us personalize our experience. The internet is becoming one big filter bubble as exemplified when two people google the same thing but get different results based on their search history. When sites like Netflix and Amazon use filter bubbles it makes browsing easier but the news is a different story. Filter bubbles in the news can cause people to make ill informed decisions. Now that people are becoming aware of the problems of filter bubbles will they try to change it? Some people might think it is not important to read news that does not directly effect them. It is important to consider the “ripple effect” when viewing the news. Could the truth be hard to hear?
LikeLike
Filter bubbles, while beneficial for industries and advertisers, block people from hearing contending political viewpoints. A restricted viewpoint forms an ignorance in regards to other people’s beliefs. A lack of understanding transforms into hatred forming an even larger rift between political parties and the people of a nation. This forces people to choose a side and fight against the other making it impossible for a government such as ours to function. A party will eventually seize control of the entire government, and that could potentially result in the forming of a totalitarian regime. Revolution and violence become a major issue for the nation when there are many more issues that need attention. A lack of respect and understanding prevents us from moving forward and incorporating new ideas. We have to be able to, at the very least, listen to other people’s ideas in order to maintain our democratic republic. Filter bubbles also give a false sense of who’s in the minority and who’s in the majority. If the only thing a person can see are posts about their side then they will see themselves as a majority. When elections come around they may be shocked to see that they were the minority the entire time. To fight against ignorance, and be truthful to the citizens of our nation, we must do away with filter bubbles.
LikeLike
As a nation, we need those contending viewpoints, which often make us uncomfortable, to progress into a more inclusive society where everyone can be heard. I find that only viewing our own political beliefs, while comfortable and safe, is not the ideal stream of information that we need to be a working, Democratic society. Often, we as people search for support and reassurance from other similar views so that we may feel validated in the way we see things. It is only in our nature to gravitate towards the center of what provides us the most comfort and ease of living. However, seeing contending viewpoints can make us uncomfortable because then we realize that we are not all on the “same side” so to speak. So in short, I do not think it is okay, as a society, for us to only view our own political beliefs. While it might be comfortable for each individual person, it is not what we need in order to advance.
LikeLike
Eli Pariser’s observation of the filter bubble in modern day media asks us to question whether or not the internet, our beacon for ideas around the world, is truly a space where we can cultivate different views. With so many websites monitoring our every move down to the browser we use, our ability to grow and learn as a society becomes more and more restricted by the google search. There is something to be said for these algorithms, aiding us in what clothes we might want to buy or restaurant we might want to try, but our lives as a whole can not be defined by one cookie cutter equation. In order to grow as a global citizen, we must look sample bits and pieces from all over the internet, no matter how uncomfortable we may be with that. This being said, at the end of the day, we as a society must take a stand and ask for change. If we simply ask the government to intervene, we might start to make the problem worse. Government regulation of how we see the internet in could would only shift the blame for the filter bubble from the companies. Take a stand people! get the conversation started!
LikeLike
The battle against ignorance is only won with education. By companies, such as Facebook, editing our “feeds” to mirror back only what we put into the world, we lose this battle. Unfortunately, this “filter bubble” may be of our own creation, and not necessarily imposed by some outside force. In Eli Pariser’s 2015 follow-up study, he claims, “… Facebook has emphasized that “individual choice” matters more than algorithms do — that people’s friend groups and actions to shield themselves from content they don’t agree with are the main culprits in any bubbling that’s going on. I think that’s an overstatement.” Perhaps this filter bubble isn’t a question of algorithms at all- but choice. But this suggestion leads us to another query: Do we need an enforcer to show us our, as Pariser calls it, “information veggies”? And is this a responsibility of big business, or should we take ownership of this responsibility? In our efforts to win the battle against ignorance, companies like Facebook can certainly help this fight by designing algorithms that lend themselves to introducing new “information veggies”, but we must also take responsibility for our own actions, surround ourselves with contrasting opinions, and break free of our own, individual echo chambers.
LikeLike
Placing the such a vast amount of responsibility for this in-balance of information on the individual, is a viewpoint that dangerously lifts the blame of the multi-billion dollar corporations who Pariser refers to as the “gatekeepers” of information. Confirmation Bias did not begin with the inception of the internet and is something that plays on a human’s inherent tendency to feel as if what they believe is the most correct. Certainly those who frequent the internet will actively seek-out and choose which topics they wish to view from time to time, however, it is often the case that if one randomly browses the internet with no particular inclination towards what they would like to read, the topics and articles that will pop-up first are those who that have already been filtered through the various algorithms that dictate what one is primarily exposed too. If an average American citizen is seeking out, oh lets say, Taylor Swift’s twitter account, they will do so through an active search, hence the information “junk food.” All those commercials viewed at the bottom of the page, all those sponsored stories, that is the websites algorithm advertising content that they believe one would enjoy. Even if a user is only seeking out said vapid content, they can end up reading a piece on op-ed on immigration from Brietbart directly afterwards. In short, if the option to confirm ones opinions or views is their, a person will most likely take it. It is not a human tendency to actively seek out opinions that differ from there own. People form opinions through information they are provided be it parents, teachers, or the internet. However, unlike parents and other humans, it is the prerogative of such a massive information hubs such as google and Facebook to allow a relatively bi-partisan and unfiltered flow of content. One cannot realistically expect the average user of the internet to comprehend the complex principles of a healthy information diet, the average human does not have the time to muse on such things. Democracy lives and dies by it’s most powerful influencers and right now, who has more power that tech companies? It is THEIR responsibility to help assist the masses into becoming better, more informed citizens. The only way this can happen is if information is truly free for all.
LikeLike
It is unacceptable for the internet to filter search results in order to appeal to the user. The internet must be held responsible for introducing citizens to new perspectives. If not, the user only sees results that appeal to their political beliefs, making beneficial change in our society unlikely. While seeing appealing and agreeable search results is certainly easier on the user’s conscience, the internet’s filter bubble limits our civic responsibility to expand our perspective.
LikeLike
I don’t actually care about any of this. Misinformation is common everywhere so it doesn’t really matter what happens on social media. If people want real information then they better go and see something for themselves. The filter bubble is all around the world and the only way to prove anything is real is to see it yourself. Almost everything else can be faked so why bother trying to change one thing when everything else is still around.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Chase. I wonder: is seeing something for yourself really the ONLY way to seek truth? These sorts of questions are so close to the heart of what it means to be an effective consumer of information. What sorts of evidence can thoughtful, engaged citizens trust? How might we filter information sources more effectively?
LikeLike
I really love this! I hadn’t thought of it before I read what you had to say, but I think it’s really true, that the “filter bubble” exists not only online, but in our daily lives as well.
LikeLike