Both Andrews and Pariser call for a change in the control of
online privacy and security. “As a user, you should have the ability to control
what happens with your information,” argues Andrews, after referencing various
examples manifesting the implications of privacy on the web. Some deal with
employment, family life and personal freedom. Pariser would agree that there is
still the possibility of a shift. He explains the importance of “individual
action, corporate responsibility and governmental regulation.” Andrew’s Social
Network Constitution and Pariser’s shift acknowledge the user’s right to
privacy.
As mentioned in prior posts, Pariser focuses on democracy, relating
to the representation of different perspectives. The filter bubble’s effects
are both personal and cultural, according to Pariser. He includes a cultural piece.
Where there is a filter of information, there is a filter of opinions and ideas.
Without a free flow of information, each person is not equally exposed to new
and opposing ideas. Pariser includes the idea that personalization affects our
thinking by giving only few choices versus the vast diversity available. The Filter Bubble also discusses the friendly
world syndrome, opposite of the mean world syndrome. Because information is
sifted and many things are excluded, Pariser writes “biggest most important
problems fail to reach our view at all.” This causes a biased view on the
reality of true issues that may not be so friendly or perfect. This is contrary
to Andrew’s perspective, which focuses on the effects on advertising, data aggregators
and freedom of speech.
The following are some key aspects I would include in a
course for 5th graders on smart internet use and data privacy. On
main priority would be to discuss appropriate sharing. It would be encouraged to
determine thoughtfully what to share and consider possible outcomes. This is
necessary for all people in general. As Andrews explains, “They may not realize
the extent to which their offline self in being overshadowed by their digital
doppelgänger.” Discussing weblining would be a beginning, then introduce the
idea that “words are powerful” as Andrews states. If students are aware of the
magnitude of the ability to share and how information is available to large
audiences and easily duplicated, they may reconsider how they address each
other and present their virtual persona. In consideration of personalization,
it would be necessary to address how it effects users in relation to
information access. Pariser explains that we do not choose to be in the filter
bubble and “Ultimately, the filter bubble can affect your ability to choose how
you want to live.” It would be imperative to develop awareness, so that
students do not settle for limited opportunities, static perspectives and little
creativity. If students are aware of a filter, they may attempt other means and
allow less control to this filter bubble.
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 stated, “If students are aware of a filter, they may attempt other means and allow less control to this filter bubble.” I think rather than just letting them attempt on their own a way out of the filter bubble, giving them the tools to do so. Explain different ways you can “get out” of the filter bubble. Pariser gives many possibilities in chapter 8. For example, “stretching your interests in new directions” (Pariser p. 223), “regularly erasing the cookies your Internet browser” (Pariser p. 223), choosing “to use sites that give users more control and visibility over how their filters work and how they use your personal information” (Pariser p. 224), and learning the “basics of programming” (Pariser p. 228)
ReplyDeleteAnother point you made, one “main priority would be to discuss appropriate sharing.” I completely agree with this statement, and feel that this has not been prevalent enough in our schools. There are so many different mediums to get information out there now, and students should be aware of the repercussions of this action. They should be aware that there is always a significant possibility that they can be constructing a “second self” as Andrews talks about in her book in chapter 3. And you never know who is viewing this second self, or what kind of ramifications could result (i.e. not getting hired in the future, being expelled from school, not being accepted to colleges, etc.)
How would you introduce/explain "weblining" to your 5th graders? I'm curious how you'd make that happen.
ReplyDeleteWeblining is based on observations and assumptions. To get 5th graders to understand the implications, I would begin by showing students pictures of different people and have them brainstorm assumptions. Next, as a class we would compile a list of positive and negative assumptions. It would need to be done in a manner so that students understand what is appropriate, such as general comments like responsible, in school, unsafe or unhealthy. After this, we could move on to discuss how people using the web make assumptions about personal information and deny them certain opportunities without truly knowing the person. This can be done by comparing the positive and negative assumptions of one picture. To extend the lesson you could choose certain statements and have students do the same, of course it needs to be age appropriate.
DeleteWorking with 5th graders on a vocabulary lesson last week that included the word profile, we took a bird walk into the digital doppelganger concept. I did not use that term. We were defining the multiple meanings of profile and how one meaning is the generalization of a person’s character. They questioned this meaning, as they didn’t really get it, so I used the profile we build through the information we share online to explain. These students were from middle class homes and all use the computer fairly regularly. They were not aware information they shared could build a virtual persona. We had a short conversation about data collection and information shared online. They were a little outraged. Elementary school is not too early to begin the conversation.
ReplyDeleteI had a hard time staying with Pariser in his discussion about filter bubbles encasing us in a friendly world/emotional world syndrome. Ingenuity comes from juxtaposition while personalization works on assimilation; nevertheless it would take a pretty dull individual not to reach outside an even deeply entrenched personalized profile if they truly wanted broader knowledge. “The filter bubble encourages a more passive approach to acquiring information,” yet the Internet is only one of many sources of information and stifled creativity is simply passive acceptance. Classes, books, magazines, lectures, seminars and even television provide enough fodder for further investigation. Serendipity is by definition out there when and wherever you find something you were not looking for. I can’t imagine that even a long entrenched filter bubble could keep an interested person bound who didn’t want to stay.