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.
No comments:
Post a Comment