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.
You bring up a very good point that I think I overlooked in reading Pariser’s book and that is that Google has become biased towards the user. So in reality there is no such thing as a generic run of the mill Google. It has become some kind of hybrid super Google. It’s interesting to think that there is some kind of invisible hand guiding our every move within the virtual world. Part of me wants to think that this is malicious, but the other part of me wants to close my browser and never touch a computer again. I never thought about how students could be exposed to limited tailored information. I always make sure my students understand that there is a lot of out there and becoming overwhelmed can happened. But then that leads one to believe that even with our students being overwhelmed by information, it’s still tailored in a way to fit. I think you are correct in when saying creativity is developed when there is a connection. I had this argument the other day with my girlfriend; she is obsessed with the latest thing called “Pintrest”. I told her while it’s a great place to see other people’s ideas; it’s still tailor to the specific person and doesn’t fuel the creative process. I think this is very much becoming the norm anymore.
ReplyDelete