Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘the cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate.’ Some part of being an informed citizen incorporates presenting yourself to thoughts you can’t help contradicting, since they allow you to alter your opinion, or if nothing else, comprehend the opposite side. Yet, as we know it, most people get their news and data from the internet, which is becoming increasingly customized, and there is a fear that we’re seeing fewer things that we disagree with. That advanced chamber has been named ‘the filter bubble,’ by Eli Pariser. But how strong is the filter bubble, really? Are man-made algorithms really to blame for partisan polarity?
In this paper, I am going to critically discuss the objectivity of search engines. The purpose of my essay is to critically analyse the effect of the ‘filter bubble’. A filter bubble is the restriction of a user’s perspective that can be created by personalised search technologies. Hereby, I am going to discuss some phenomena such as ‘net neutrality,’ and whether it is a plausible option for the future as well as the overarching theme of the personalisation of the worldwide web. A common issue with the personalization of the internet is that categorization is driven by the profit-making impetus of the advertising model. Accessing of the internet by individuals for news and information is monetised at the expense of creating a biased usage experience which is rather deceptive. Moreover, the concept of the ‘filter bubble’ may in fact strip the internet of the democratic principles it was built upon, creating ‘islands of isolation’ (El-Bermawy et al, 2017). These ‘islands’ promote segregation of internet communities with different viewpoints and interests. Despite this, there exist counter arguments which claim the notion of filtration is not as overstated and distinct as critics suggest and in fact, enhances the usage experience via creation of consistency. Nevertheless, the mere fact that filtration exists is a cause for concern, and strategies to ‘pop’ the filter bubble, should be explored to help us become more critical web users.
What is a filter bubble and why may it have possible grave consequences? A filter bubble restricts a user’s perception that can be created by personalised web searches. Modified searches can be appropriate, for example, local services, finding products and finding information on matters you have sought to find before. For many tasks though, personalised searches can yield less pertinent results than would be the case for an unfiltered search. Filter bubbles skew or limit views of the web based on information search engine providers apply to customize searches for individual users, in combination with the provider’s business interests. Google and Microsoft Bing search engines both default to personalized search. Cognitive biases ensue in people who are each given different sets of information each thinking that their judgement is rational where by inferences about other individuals may be drawn in an illogical fashion creating an illusion.
The filter bubble’s motive is to create a personalised environment online through the search engine, by getting to know the source of sites it thinks it’s consumer are interested in. The filter then only provides their subject with specific ‘relevant’ information. The continuous flow of information being shown on Google and Facebook revolve around the commonly visited sites, rather than things that benefit the users worldwide view and get them thinking (Pariser, 2011). The recurring problem with the filter bubble, is that you don’t get to decide what goes into your own personal filter bubble. For example, users are placed into groups based on their similar interests. On the level of recommended movies, music and books it enjoys a great success (Nanas et al, 2010).
In 2010, the official Google blog released that Google search is personalized to a user’s language, location, history of search terms and additionally for those with G+, their social connections (Hannak et al, 2013). However, nobody really knows how Google’s personalization algorithm works. This means when surfing the web, we must be constantly aware and vigilant of this bubble we have been placed in, and if need be, combat it through the development of our internet literacy skills. A Google spokesman informed Jacob Weisberg, a writer for Slate Magazine, that Google has algorithms which equilibrate relevance and diversity, ‘limiting personalisation and promoting variety in the results page’ (Weisberg, 2017). Moreover, Weisberg claims there are methods to easily shut off customisation features. Google has an option to view search results without the ‘improvements’ of result personalisation (Ludwig-Vilhauer, 2017). Merely switching the Facebook news feed from the personalised ‘top stories’ to ‘most recent’ rids the personalisation aspect of the social media giant.
Whilst this shows that the ‘filter bubble’ can be undid with the snap of a button, the rather worrying feature that internet filtration is an unconsented obligation that most internet users are seemingly unaware of, is a grave concern. And that in its self counter measure must be engaged, efforts to foster internet literacy, avoid cognitive biases and raise consciousness of personalisation, no matter the degree to which it exists, should be implemented by the internet public.
Regulation of the internet is defined as applying a control, which would prevent an ISP from raising prices to content providers and applications that require priority delivery. Net neutrality adds no new regulations; it only preserves internet neutrality (opposing views). This is simply stating that no new regulations are being promoted; it is the restoration of tried consumer protections and network operating principles. It is an implementation of the internet’s freedom. Moreover, net neutrality regulates service providers, not the internet. The regulation of network neutrality would propose a positive induction in the aspect of internet freedom (Weitzner, 2006). The main concept of regulation is the underlying basis of the net neutrality debate. It would provide a positive impact to all parties, if implemented.
I agree with the notion of the filter bubble as introduced by Pariser. I believe that moving towards personalized web results might create problems we are not yet aware of. Pariser believes that the personalization will have cultural and social consequences on people. There are certainly some problems which must be fixed. If the results presented to me will be according to an algorithm, I may end up living in utopia, a perfect world, with perfect news. But is it really a mirror of the world we are living in? Am I not missing something? And what about the ‘information diet’ Pariser mentions? We may be being presented with poor information. I believe that these questions will bring about scrutiny and more attention in the future with the strong implementation of personalized web results. In my opinion, there should be more awareness about results of web search engines. The issue is we are not aware where the algorithm has placed us, and which groups we are a part of. As for privacy issues, which are currently being discussed at the level of representative organizations, the transparency of results of search engines need to be implemented additionally.
However, although some of us are still not aware of it, we do have a choice. There are search engines available which do not provide personalized results, such as ‘Duckduckgo’ (Hannak et al, 2013). In this period of technological advancement, critical thinking is essential in expanding movement in thoughts, open talk on critical issues and the earning of new data. Therefore, care of internet filtration and the filter bubble ought to be across the board to keep unknowing users from conceivably becoming casualties of subjective inclinations, and maintaining a general one-sided understanding. Internet proficiency is vital to keep the basis of the democratic principles it was founded on. Regardless of counterarguments, the mere existence of filter bubbles should be frowned upon due to the limitation it places, based on a personality given to you, created by network giants.