The Problem Of The Filter Bubble

According to Cass R Sunstein, in "How Facebook Makes Us Dumber," misinformation is spread by social media outlets and even worse to the modern world. Sunstein also argues that it is group polarization that is responsible for this increase of misinformation spreading. Once people begin to see and know this, this could greatly hinder any sort of personal perspective and lead it to all be centered on what the group thinks. Sunstein also states that once individuals see other posts that agree with their ideology then they become more extreme and thus leads to "a vicious spiral" in their thoughts and actions. However, Sunstein also states that there is something in which we can do to prevent such a thing from happening. He states to "promote a culture

In the study, each source was ranked based on the political leanings of its audience. As a result, it ranked sources such as Buzzfeed more liberal than average while it ranked sources such as the Rush Limbaugh Show more conservative than average. However, none of the sources earned a perfectly neutral ranking (Wormald). The correlation between news sources and their audience’s political leanings becomes interesting when compared to the type of content each news source produces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is infamous for his conservative rhetoric, whereas Buzzfeed is known for its lighthearted quizzes and comical representation of liberal politics. This reveals something about our perception of truth: biased sources allow individuals to ‘select’ the truth. When conflicting information is pushed to the side, it becomes nonexistent. Subsequently, the sum of partial truths interpreted by an individual becomes a whole truth in their mind, especially when partial truths are reinforced by mainstream media sources such as Buzzfeed or the Rush Limbaugh Show. This is harmful because, as Lewis implied, the entire truth is lost in this process and mutual understanding becomes harder to

Austin, PhD and Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University, believes that social media is the largest purveyor of disconcerting trends seen in readers. He claims in his Psychology Today feature entitled "Want a Better Life? Read a Book" that the punchy / quick lived nature of online media can be droning and inescapable, causing its users to accept preconceived opinions rather than critically analyzing a text using their personal rationale. For those like Austin, the increasing prevalence of social networking has not only altered the way in which we read, but the way in which we

Check” by Alyssa Rosenberg describes possible strategies that can be used when an individual is trying to figure out if the information found online is true. Rosenberg and her colleague David Ignatius asked individuals what outlets and writers did they had confidence in and to explain. Most of the people interviewed said that they trusted writers and individuals who passed along stories. Nick Baumann a senior editor at Huffington Post provided questions that people can ask themselves to ensure that the information on social media is credible. The author’s thesis is to help individuals who have trouble on judging what information online is true and to not get tricked

After watching the Eli Pariser: Beware online “filter bubble” he explains how we get trapped in a “filter bubble” but not getting exposed to the information that could widen our worldview. He also goes on to talk about how we are not in unity like we think because we live in our own personal bubbles through or on the internet, but we do not get to pick what all goes into our bubble. I agree with that but the people to blame is the ones who withholds the information we need to challenge us and the things that get edited out. Even though our bubbles consist of who we are and what we do, it’s not fair because we have no control over what gets put into our bubbles or what get left out. The ESPN article also ties in with the filter bubble as well.

It is hard to communicate with people in alternate filter bubbles without losing friends. In order to avoid this problem, we must first understand the problem. Being in a filter bubble means that you surround yourself with people or things that agree with your personal likes and dislikes. When friends arrive to a disagreement, it can be very hard not to take things personal. It is important to be very mindful of what we say to our friends because they hold significant roles in our daily life. It is important to create a list of steps to follow when you are communicating with those friends who are in alternate filter bubbles. I decided to use these steps because a friendship is far more important than one person being right or wrong. Today,

Sunstein argues that an echo-chamber effect results when people receive news from various media outlets. Sunstein asserts that, when a person gets their news from a medium which embraces similar ideological viewpoints, this person’s beliefs not only harden, but become situated on more extreme ends of the political spectrum. Three-stage academic studies conducted over the past three decades have found that balanced presentations of news, which carefully examine both sides to an argument, are more likely to increase polarization, rather than to reduce it. This is due to “biased assimilation”, where a person credits the information which supports their original view and dismisses information which opposes it. This also explains why it is difficult to force out false rumors and factual errors, since corrections can be self-defeating, leading people to having a firmer commitment to their erroneous beliefs. However, Sunstein argues, surprising validators can be used to allow people to reconsider information from a source they find credible. Sunstein concludes with arguing that what matters most is not what is being said, but who is saying

In the classroom during the playtime when Leo; aged 16 months and Mateo; aged 18 months started argument about a truck. Leo had the truck first; Mrs. Gail started to move near them. She told Mateo, Leo Had it first. Let’s take turns, it’s nice to share. Let Leo finish with the truck and come with me, I can help you find something else. Mateo went with Gail to see what does she has. Gail said to Mateo, I have something special for you, let us see, do you want to play Bubble or water table. Mateo picked Bubbles. Gail started to play with Mateo, Ella; aged 16 months,, and Sofia; aged 17 months, when Leo saw Gail playing bubbles with the other kids; He left the truck and came to play with them. While they are playing all together, Leo tried to

A filter bubble is a personally tailored search that chooses which content will best interest the user, all other information that may not be of interest to the user may not be visible. This is happening on Yahoo News, Google, and even Facebook. In the future it will be very hard to find a website or search engine that does not hide or modify the page for its user. This modification we refer to as filter bubbles can have a very negative effect when it come to the censorship of its audience. Like mentioned in the Eli Pariser Ted talk, two searches on google on Egypt show two very different results. On showed tragedy of an Egypt attack and one suggested great luxury places to vacation to in Egypt. It is easy to see how this news coverage or lack

While Filthy Filter may not be a real product, there are many companies that offer similar services like Clearplay and

In light of this topic, Buzzfeed’s reliability has come into question on whether or not it’s a trustworthy source for information. The new generation website known as Buzzfeed provides stories and entertainment that are important to day-to-day life and aim to have an impact on their reader’s

To find information on the controversial topic, a survey was mailed in April 2000 to a randomly selected sample of participants from schools and public libraries that had used web filters in the past. The purpose of the survey was to find out how effective web filters are at doing their job(Curry). The results of the survey provided staggering evidence against the use web filters. Almost 50% (43%) of the respondents voted that they felt somewhat dissatisfied or not at all satisfied with the ability of the web filters to block potentially harmful sites. This shows that large holes inhabitat the web filters and their ability to remove all the possible negativity from the internet happens to remain very

In order to illustrate the methodology to extract a stable representation of a topic in a search engine, conspiracy theories were selected as a case study providing highly controversial and polarized media content. Because of their ubiquity and enduring popularity, conspiracy theories attract psychologists and political scientists, interested in the variety of social and psychological conditions that might favor “conspiratorial thinking,” such as dispossession, powerlessness, political alienation, social exclusion, and low levels of education (Knight, 2000; Clarke, 2002). While conspiratorial thinking has been strongly present in the public sphere since the nineteenth century (Hofstadter, 1964), conspiracy theories have found in the Web their

Media is a huge part of people’s lives in today’s society. Through different forms of media people can now obtain vast amounts of information at the slightest touch of a finger. While it is convenient and comforting to have access to so much data, the question arises. How much of this information we receive shapes our lives? Mass media as an agent of socialization can prime and/or skew people’s belief system through mere exposure without the slightest clue of it affects. Mass media as an agent of socialization can structure people’s perception on society as a whole by simply using influence, control, and trust.

The recent surge in popularity of social media comes with a price: fake news. Fake news is defined as news or media that has been altered or modified. Journalists have begun to analyze why that fake news exists and why it continues exist. Two authors, Eoin O’Carroll and Kevin D. Williamson, both have written articles about fake news. Eoin O’Carroll’s article “How Information Overload Helps Spread Fake News,” discusses how the media has bombarded us with news stories, blurring the distinct lines between real and fake news. Kevin D. Williamson, a journalist for the National Review, writes in his article “‘Fake News, Media and Voters: Shared Reality Must Be Acknowledged” that the news is not fake; it just does not align with one’s personal beliefs. Both authors successfully appeal to their audiences’ emotions and feelings, but O’Carroll is more likely to succeed than Williamson in persuading his audience to try and combat fake news because the writer presents himself as someone the intended readers will more readily identify with and offers evidence that his readers will find more compelling.