Personalization and it's power to limit

Personalization and information filters can impact us in many ways, simply by allowing less access to information can change perspectives. Pariser not only addresses how your identity shapes your media, he also considers how media shapes identity. In his book, The Filter Bubble, he considers this connection a flaw, suggesting that it encourages self fulfilling identities. Our identities can be manipulated unkowingly with information that is specifically targeted in a purposeful manner. Pariser adds, "the Internet's distorted picture of us becomes who we really are." If the previous is true, it is a cause and effect relationship in which the media is the determining factor.

Professionally, personalization can have certain consequences. Yochai Benkler is referenced by Pariser supporting the idea that "more-diverse information sources make us freer". A filter bubble impedes this open flow of information. Recognizing that information is filtered has allowed me to reflect and reconsider the content I am presenting to students. Is the content promoting cultural awareness? Does it provide various perspectives on the topic? Are there a variety of topics being presented? Each of these questions is important when considering whether the content is presenting a world view versus an individualized view. When information is filtered students may lose the opportunity of encountering diverse ideas and as Pariser mentions, this is a cause for not developing the skills of flexibility and openness when we encounter differences. He also includes, "But perhaps the biggest problem is that a personalized Web causes us to spend less time in discovery mode in the first place." I, as a teacher must facilitate and encourage these discoveries. These discoveries would benefit students greatly, as Pariser points out, making a connection to Benkler's idea on autonomy, "You have to be able not only to do what you want, but to know what’s possible to do."

On a personal level, professionally, a filter bubble limits what I can encounter on the Web. It can limit my connections and perspectives, which is what I transfer to students. Narrow mindedness could be a result of exposure to similar information. Personalization is based on limiting information, as a result, it can limit a person intellectually. In fact, Pariser would agree, he states, "Because personalized filters usually have no Zoom Out function, it’s easy to lose your bearings, to believe the world is a narrow island when in fact it's an immense varied, continent." Becoming aware of this filter bubble can be a motivating factor for attaining varied information. It could also be a motivation to present diverse ideas purposefully to students.

References

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. 

Algorithms: Their effects on perspectives and creativity

In both books, I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did and The Filter Bubble, the authors equally bring up their concerns and arguments fighting for our right to privacy in the virtual realm. Who decides what we share? They do. Who decides what we see? They do. Who develops algorithms that use our data to decide what is important to us? They do. When I refer to “they” it is the corporations that are benefiting from our information sharing, without asking permission to do so.

Both authors would agree that the use of algorithms can create inaccurate and biased profiles. In The Filter Bubble, Pariser describes a perspective on the use of these algorithms, “Now you get the result that Google’s algorithm suggests that is best for you…In other words there is no standard Google anymore.” It is unclear how a simple algorithm can determine preferences when in reality there is no evidence of personal interactions to determine these. Andrews, the author of I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did, also affirms, “Often the information is wrong, culled from erroneous or outdates sources and interpreted by imperfect algorithms.”

Andrews focuses on issues such as incorrect information affecting opportunities such as employment and granting credit. On the other hand, Pariser discusses the implications a filter has on the news or information we get access to through examples such as PageRank and Facebook’s News Feed. The focus is on how a filter has an affect on the human culture. Pariser closes Chapter 1 by including, “the consequences of personalization for how we consume news, make political decisions, and even how we think will be even more dramatic.”        

One key point that caught my attention as I considered how these topics affect the students I teach is Pariser’s reference to an “information diet.” This included a quote to a speech comparing media content to a diet. When we are only filtered content considered relevant to our lives we can develop “obesity”, having too much of one type of information leaving out exposure to other perspectives or topics. Pariser includes, “In the filter bubble, there’s less room for the chance encounters that bring insight and learning.” With a filter bubble will our students develop into well-rounded citizens involved in their community? The truth is that the media has an affect on how we view the world. Personally relevant information will only provide static information without developing true awareness to world issues. I also strongly agree with Pariser’s idea that creativity is developed when a connection is made between different ideas. Not only will personalized information minimize our access to an assortment of information, but it also limits the natural ability of the human mind to develop connections and determine relevance.     

References

Andrews, L. (2011). I know who you are and I saw what you did: Social networks and the death of privacy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. 

Digital Dossier (shared in LIB 686, also taught by Dr. Zobel and Dr. Bucy)

Privacy: Where do we draw the line?

In to book I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did, Lori Andrews uncovers a vast amount of information related to privacy and security on the web, more importantly OUR privacy. Andrews reveals that a poll found that 61% of Americans believe that information shared online is private and not shared unless requested. Various topics discussed in the first few chapters are eye opening and unthought-of.      

In relation to the poll mentioned above, one topic of relevance that impacts students is lack of awareness. Andrews discusses her perspective on the roots of Facebook, college students lacking awareness of future implications of sharing and exchanging information. In reference to current Facebook users, Andrews includes, “They may not yet realize the extent to which their offline self is being overshadowed by their digital doppelgänger.” As technology becomes an integral part of our lives, educators must make it a priority to promote responsible sharing. I’m not only referring to cyber-bullying, but for the purpose of unknown access to personal information and marketing, which is a main motive.        

I was more surprised to read the comment by the founders of Facebook, “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people.” Andrews argues profit and money, the main motive, is gained through a lust, as she puts it, for information about people’s lives. I found it interesting how Facebook lures their users to provide information without any barriers causing any difficulties, which in turn benefit the company. Andrews makes a specific reference to the Skinner Box, instead of physical rewards the user feels rewarded with likes and attention. It is human nature to feel liked and accepted, but all of this comes at a cost on the web. One must determine what is at stake and set appropriate boundaries. This is aside from the fact that companies unknowingly change their privacy policies from one day to the next.  

The section that included the AOL search logs is one example of how it is possible to inaccurately analyze information that is out of context. For those of us who have no bad intentions, this is scary. As I read through the searches it is clear the you cannot judge a person's habits and intentions by these seaches alone. Thought I can see some advantages such as finding substantial evidence for a murder case or stopping terrible acts. One questions remains, where do we draw the line?    

References

Andrews, L. (2011). I know who you are and I saw what you did: Social networks and the death of privacy. New York, NY: Free Press.