Social Media Thinkers

             Of these internet/social media thinkers, there seem to be two types; those that seem to focus on what could go wrong and those that seem to focus more on the incredible things we have done with the internet and how we can continue and expand those good aspects. When you strip these issues they focus on down to their base structure, however, it seems less about the internet and more about human behavior. For example, Evgeny Morozov talks about how the internet is used by people, how this new cyberspace of social media affects us, how smart objects will influence our behavior, and I’m starting to see a pattern with others as well. There seems to be so much talk about what social media and the internet are doing to us – especially from Pariser who, in Filter Bubble, seems to paint social media as an ominous doom device – that few stop to think about why we choose to do what we do with our online lives. In the proposed scenario, social media seems to be the scapegoat for ignorant behavior and early internet plays the part of the savior, which Morozov seems to assert is a “communal space” that doesn’t exist anymore. We need to own up to this and realize that these are our actions and no computer is forcing us to do anything. There needs to be more focus on why some people choose their filter bubbles, which is an issue that well predates the internet. Social media is simply one of many tools that makes homophily easier, but it doesn’t force us to do anything. Humanity is responsible for its own actions, no matter how evil social media is painted to be. 

Reading The Filter Bubble- Part 3

“Advertars” are one of the most fascinating forms of advertising in that they seem to say more about the company exhibiting the display than they do the target audience. More importantly, these artificial social media profiles give us a glimpse into what the people personalizing our lives think about us. Advertars are basically the same ads we see everywhere wrapped up together wearing a human mask. In order for someone to admit one of these into their virtual lives the mask needs to be convincing, so Advertars become what they think we will like, essentially giving us a convenient list of what personalization algorithms believe we are.

It is advantages like this that lead me to believe less in the gloom and doom aspect of the filter bubble. Yes, it can be a very dangerous thing that has the ability to shrink someone’s world to an alarming degree; I fully admit the potential threat. There is also a deceptively easy way to get out of it; search for something other than your usual, go a few pages into the results and choose the information you are looking for instead of the information that is first handed to you. If these personalization algorithms operate on click signals, it seems very unlikely they would simply stop processing those signals and forever send you the same media experience personalized for the person you were. If these algorithms are indeed currently processing everyday online actions, then changing the signals that are processed would then change the resultant experience. Personalization is not static; the average person’s wants, whims, and desires are constantly shifting. This means that, in order to be personalized, your online environment needs to shift along with you.

I’m not saying that there aren’t people stuck in filter bubbles, of course there are. Confirmation bias is something that can make one feel comfortable and validated in their ideals, which makes a filter bubble look all the more alluring. This is not, however, a new concept; it is simply an aspect of human behavior that is now seen in context to the internet. Humanity has always found a way to practice confirmation bias, regardless of the existence of the internet or social media. In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis said; “Most of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party.” If you remove the word ‘Christianity’ and substitute ‘News’ or ‘Social Media’, the point still stands. There are, and probably always will be, people who just want to be right.

This does not, however, mean that everyone behaves this way. Human curiosity is endless, and for every person content to stay in their filter bubble, there is another yearning to expand their world. 

Reading The Filter Bubble- Part 2

          The more I read, the more society’s filter bubble problems seem to be a sort of curse of convenience. In a world where an online identity is completely made up of wants, the trend seems to be towards instant gratification and away from awareness, curiosity, and discovery. I start to think of the movie Wall-E and the people in their floating chairs that don’t bother to move because they have perfected the fulfillment of want to the point where should is no longer desirable and therefore no longer relevant. This personalization epidemic seems like such a selfish affliction created simply because people are smothering themselves with their own desires for convenience and immediacy.

            Pariser’s attitude towards those trapped in filter bubbles seems to be that of a shepherd towards a wandering flock. He is genuinely concerned about and interested in the status of modern society online; his work is a gentle wake-up call and warning to many people (including myself). In talking about problems and solutions of the filter bubble, however, he seems to illustrate every person in possession of an online account the same way. Pariser speaks of filter bubble occupants as a mass or flock that have been lead down a dicey path and need to be escorted in a different direction. He is not incorrect or mean at all in this view, but it does reveal a certain lack of faith in the individual to break free of these bubbles. I’d like to have more hope in humanity’s general competence level than that. 

Reading The Filter Bubble- Part 1

           Eli Pariser has perfectly captured an aspect of internet culture that has widened my understanding of life online and how that behavior affects everything. The easiest way to give a consumer what they want is, after all, simply to ask. Acquiring tons of personal data by watching everything someone does online does seem a bit excessive, although from what I’ve gathered so far it seems to have become an effective method (however creepy it may be).

            It seems that each individual’s world has become smaller as a direct result of these ‘filter bubbles’. We have come full circle from the pre-technology era – where each person’s world consisted of town they lived in – through the expansion of that world view through higher literacy rates and easier information access, all the way back to a similarly narrow place; the modern era of personalization where, instead of not having access to information, people have the ability to block it out completely. The world of information has become an ever-changing one, completely dependent upon the fleeting whimsy of shares, likes, and ‘click signals’.

            At one point, Pariser talks about YouTube’s “Lean Back” strategy plans. It is something that would take the viewer to another video as soon as the one they chose has finished. ‘Lean Back’ is essentially taking that list of recommended videos and playing them one after the other. In 2011, when this book was written, this endless feed of videos was still simply a project; today this is an established feature of the site. Instead of just a list of suggestions, your viewing choice will now culminate in a countdown to the next video YouTube has chosen for you. With the addition of ads before videos, this is quickly becoming television with a comments section. Unlike television, however, you have the options of creating your own content and a handy personalization algorithm to help you along the way.

            These personalization algorithms are, essentially, looking at your online life and then handing you a reflection of yourself and your choices in order to guide you to what they think you will either enjoy or purchase or both. It is a system entirely reliant on the fickle wants of consumers that are developing shorter and shorter attention spans. But if an overwhelming majority of the internet is giving a consumer what they want, who is providing them with what they need? We all know that, in order to be a functioning human being, it is occasionally necessary to do things you don’t want to do. Say you find an article on your news feed boasting ‘facts’ that prove a political view you agree with. You have found something that endorses your chosen world view; this makes you feel good and smart, you want to go on believing this thing that makes you feel validated. But have you bothered to check if it’s true? I know I don’t do that as much as I would like to admit. But fact-checking is something that needs to be done in order to form a well-rounded understanding, no matter how wonderful it would be for that one article to be true. It’s not something that everyone necessarily wants to do, but what are we if we are simply content to accept the information that is pre-sorted and handed to us? To me, blind faith is something carefully trusted to loved ones, not Facebook. 

American Fake News Sites

            There seems to be quite a lot of interest in fake and satirical news. Some provide a disclaimer, warning its audience that this is all in jest – the rest I think must be kidding, but also cause me to seriously question the editor’s sanity.

            I have compared three fake news sites to determine their portrayal of and impression upon the world; The Onion, The National Report, and The Daily Currant. Of the three, only the Onion and Currant seem to have disclaimers revealing their satirical origins. Although the National Report doesn’t seem to have a disclaimer, it does share something interesting with the Currant; a comments section. These comment sections can be more entertaining than the articles themselves, although sometimes it does cause me to question humanity. The Currant’s comments seem to be evenly balanced (half satirical, half rants from gullible subjects), but while skimming through the comments for National Report pieces, I found something troublesome. All of the comments seem to be completely serious. Some are actually impressively in-depth analyses of the issues presented by the article; the only problem is a simple fact-check (and some common sense) reveals the article to be completely false and there is no disclaimer to prove otherwise. If this is the information some unassuming people unfortunately buy into then no wonder the tone of American political conversation seems to be so loud, stubborn and confusing. No one would ever want to admit their intellectual conversation is stimulated by information that doesn’t actually exist, but this makes me wonder how many people are proudly defending facts they have picked up from satirical and fake news. How many people don’t actually know what they’re talking about because they have unfortunately believed what they read on the internet? What if I have been one of those people?

Needless to say, I will be much more diligent about my fact-checking from now on.

The First Jihad with a Social Media Consultant

           Every great mechanism has pros and cons. Take photographic manipulation for example; namely, photoshop. When used properly, it is a fun way to be creative and make something wonderful- however, if employed improperly it can send misleading signals such as the promotion of an unattainable body image. Social media is very similar to photoshop in that way. It is a great way to connect with people and express oneself, but there are those that use it to promote propaganda and recruit followers.

            At first impression it seems ridiculous to think of a jihad organization trying to take over the world one twitter follower at a time, but further understanding of the situation reveals this to be quite a smart move. Social media makes it easier to spread the word, receive donations, send their message to people who then join their cause. It’s actually quite frightening how easy it seems for them to become social media celebrities.

Hack Attack, and the politics of fear

“Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.” – John Steinbeck

            At first I thought media moguls like Rupert Murdoch had influence on government officials purely because of money. Although I have no doubt that money is a factor, I now see it as more of the icing on the cake; It’s nice to have and convenient to be able to throw around but, in the end, power and the fear it inspires are what allow News Corp to be as influential as it unfortunately seems to be.

            If, for example, a prime minister looking for re-election refuses to cooperate with a media mogul, that rebellion could cost them funding and public support (no matter how true the newspaper’s allegations may be). Instead of losing power, it seems that the media mogul in question would rather unfairly cheapen the prime minister’s name through a smear campaign and tilt public opinion towards a candidate that would be easier to control. The loss of control seems to be more influential than its gain.

            Fear is a powerful motivator, and quite an unpleasant feeling. If you present someone, anyone, a task laced with fear or intimidation, often they will want to get it done regardless of method or consequence, simply to make the fear go away as completely and quickly as possible. This does not, however, in any way make it acceptable for anyone to use that against others – no matter their net worth.