Pros and Cons of the Bubble: Living in a World of Me

The Internet is considered to be the great equalizer. Any person, regardless of race, religion or background, can go on and gain access to a wealth of information. But this is all an illusion, especially now that companies are more interested in making a buck. Some of the top websites are now filtering content so that only information you might be interested in will show up on your screen, and on top of that, you might not even be fully aware of the extent that it is happening. You are being fed information that you are more likely to consume, and that can lead to someone having a strong, one sided view of the world. You would only surround yourself with posts and information from people who have the same outlook and interests as you do. But what if that is not a an entirely awful thing? Is it possible that it is a good thing to having similar, like minded people bombard you with information?

The Ted talk featuring Eli Pariser brought up a startling truth: the Internet you see is not the same that your neighbor encounters, and it is not the same depending on your location, age, etc. In actuality, many of the most popular websites, such as Facebook and Google, are now tailoring what you see on their websites to what they think you would like and filtering out posts that you might not be so interested in. Mr. Pariser worries that this kind of consumption of information can led to problems, and that it is almost impossible for someone to be a good citizen if they don't see contradicting views on issues, or if they only read about Justin Bieber and not about the Iraq War. He believes that our society needs to be exposed to all sorts of unwelcome and unappetizing news in order for us to make informed opinions and thoughts. He always states that in order for us to participate fully in democracy, we need to have a steady flow of information that we can trust, and that it is information that we do not always have to enjoy hearing about. Mr. Pariser seems to believe that it is toxic for someone to be become insular and surround themselves with people and information that doesn't challenge their beliefs and that may not be something enjoyable to consume.

In contrast, the article by Clive Thompson expounds on the benefits of having a likeminded group surround you. He states that having a group like that can be a boon to your social and intellectual health. What really matters is how often you interact with them, and not necessarily that they constantly challenge your views. When you speak to them at a higher rate, it is more likely that they will tell you something you didn't know, since they are more in tuned with what may or may not surprise you. They also know how to best disseminate the information to you so that you are more likely to listen. Mr. Thompson is on the other side of the fence; he does not think being surrounded by likeminded people is a problem, but what is most important is how often you talk to them. When there is a large amount of back and forth, more current and different news and information is passed, which is in conflict to what Mr. Pariser stated earlier.

When it comes to Google and Facebook, do they have an obligation to make sure we are fed both the "junk" news and the "broccoli" news? Or should they be more interested in the bottom line, and get as many active users as possible? Is it the public's duty to make sure they actively seek out news and information that they are not interested in, or may upset them? It is hard to say who is right or wrong in a situation like this, but what is clear is that the public should be informed about these website's practices in filtering posts, and they should also allow the public to have the option in deciding how much filtering should go on. The public also should also push to be more aware of what is outside of their bubble, and try to make a concerted effort to engage and challenge their opinions.

Obama Campaign- Success through Social Networking

President Obama was in the first primary and presidential race where I was allowed to vote in. That alone made it a particular memorable and special race for me. I was hyper aware of all the news and information that came in through newspapers, the television, and by word of mouth. But what surprised me the most was how active Obama's campaign was on my social networks. During the primaries, and ultimately the presidential race, he was mentioned daily on my Twitter feed and Facebook wall, two places where I wasn't expecting him to have such a strong presence. It seemed, for politicians, that pandering to the masses via social networking was too pedestrian, but Obama's campaign used it to their advantage, making huge strides with minimal effort and producing great results.

Obama's campaign used social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace to capture the attention of the 18-30 age group; voters who traditionally could not be counted on to go out to vote. He knew that these young adults, largely uninterested and usually unreliable, could give him the upper hand and the win for the primaries (and presidency). Capturing their attention was one thing, but making them active supporters was a more important goal in which Facebook and Twitter were the most effective tools. In minutes, a viral video or picture can be seen by hundreds and thousands of people, and the whole nation would of heard about it by lunch time the next day. People may not have realized they were being advertised to, but many young adults were swayed to vote for him over Hilary Clinton for the sheer fact that he seemed to make more of an effort to connect with his potential constituents, and that hopefully it would carry over into his presidency.

Another successful use of their social networking strategy was through his website, MyBO. It was a highly functional, well managed website where the majority of their campaign was focused on. It had relevant and updated information, it was easy to use, and provided a platform for the public to get to know Obama. It also made it easier for the average person to donate to his campaign; almost half of Obama's donations were $200 or under. On top of that, campaign managers could collect information on users such as their location and age, and use that to their advantage by reminding people to go out and vote, or telling them about a nearby public event. They could easily target specific  cities and states with rally information and flyers, and use their volunteers more effectively by having them the most active during key times in the campaign. They also reached people through text messaging, something that had never been successfully done before in a primary/presidential race. Now the campaign could easily reach hundreds and thousands of people in a matter of minutes, wherever they are, for pennies on the dollar. They didn't have to spend thousands of dollars for a one minute ad where their target demographic might not have a chance of seeing it. They could now target and reach many people at one time and know that the majority will receive and read it.

Although we can't say that Obama won purely through his use of social networking, it is clear that he was the first candidate to do so successfully. His campaign realized early on how effective and important it would be to have a strong social network, and ran their campaign almost like a company, targeting their "consumers" through the mediums they used the most. Since he successfully won his campaign, it is highly unlikely that future candidates for any political office would not use social networking to their advantage, especially if they are looking for the 18-30 age group to support them. 

PBS- Growing Up Online

The Internet is a relatively new piece of technology, even though many of us have adapted it quickly and willingly. We are still learning to deal with the many ramifications that we did not foresee, and we are still trying to keep up with how it has changed our personal and professional lives. More and more, we find ourselves depending on the Internet to make us more efficient, and it also enables us to consume more in the limited free time that we have. However, we are finding that there are many unintended consequences that we are still trying to remedy, especially when it comes to young adults and their relationship with the Internet. Parents use to see the enemy as television, something that will slowly rot their children's brains. But now the enemy has shifted to the Internet, and specifically to the different platforms of social networking that teenagers are using, which can be a double edged sword that exacerbates, both positively and negatively, the emotional growth of today's young adults. The PBS video, Growing Up Online, highlights some of the great things the Internet can do for teenagers, as well as the negative aspects that it has.


A lot of teenagers can find comfort on social networks. They find that there can be no judgment, and that they do not have to filter themselves. They can try out different personas and figure out what kind of person they are/want to be without worrying that they will be laughed out or picked apart. It can be a place where they expressed themselves fully and explore their thoughts and emotions with other similar minded people. Many teenagers are growing up exclusively on the social networking sites; learning from others, molding their personalities and changing their social allegiances in a matter of hours. Unfortunately, it is not always a positive experience for everyone, and there are many teenagers on the opposite side of the spectrum. We find that there is an increasing dependency on social networks to feel validated and important, and not everyone will have the same great experience.


There are issues with social networking and the Internet that has exponentially caused the angst of being a teenager to become much more intense and easily felt. They are more removed from their actual world, spending less time cultivating face to face relationships, and more time cementing relationships through social networking. They are more likely to lose focus, and have a hard time coming up with their own thoughts/answers on a particular subject because they are more use to having instant, immediate answers from the Internet. And although there are forums geared toward helping teenagers, there are also ones that share hurtful information, such as pro-anorexia sites, self harm websites, and social networking sites where they can be defamed for everyone to see. Everything they put on the Internet is for public consumption, and sometimes they do not realize the ramifications of that, especially teenagers who do not always use their best judgment. Every picture, thoughts, and words can be easily seen by thousands of people, and there is no way to ever fully take it back once it is out there. There are also problems with predators, who use the Internet and social networking sites to find potential victims. Bullying has also become much more virulent, and causing more, lasting harm that it has in the past. Nameless bullies can attack their victims without any remorse or second thought. It can be done with little physical contact, and can be done out of sight of any adults. Victims can be hounded relentless day and night, and this can amplify the pain of being ostracized. Something that might be localized to one or two bullies can now become a school-wide free for all, where it might be seen as cool to harass someone who they don't know and have no emotional ties to. It is not till much later, when the victim harms himself or others, do others realize the pain they have been going through.


Society is still trying to figure itself out in regards to private individuals behavior on the Internet. Free speech is one of America's most hallowed rights, and as long as it's not illegal, you can say and write whatever you want on the Internet. But at this moment, many countries around the world are figuring out that there needs to be some kind of consequence for behavior done on the Internet. It should not be acceptable to post anything you want without some kind of consequence, and lawmakers are slowly realizing that there needs to be some kind of recourse for victims to fight back.