I'm not getting this "filter bubble" meme that's floating about of late. My site is dedicated to helping people filter information (www.filterjoe.com), though not in the narrow sense discussed by the "filter bubble" proponents. Many regular people I know are totally overloaded and overwhelmed by the web, and most especially the social web (email, facebook, twitter, etc.).
Which is the best browser to use? How do I manage 200 passwords? What's the best kind of AA battery to buy? How do I read web pages without getting distracted?
It can be pretty hard for a normal person to get good answers to questions like these. Googling won't necessarily get you good answers and many people won't even know to ask (many people don't know that their password practices are extremely risky, or that the little "e" they click on to access the internet is a browser).
What's needed are better filters. This backlash against filtering takes one very small subset of possible reasons to filter - avoiding contradictory information to controversial topics - and makes a grand leap to the conclusion that all filtering is bad.
By this argument, if I do a keyword search on "passwords," it would be best if I were served the random top 10 results that happen to have the word "password" somewhere in the title or one of the subheadings. That way I won't be subjected to harmful biases . . .
I think the argument is much more nuanced. The danger isn't inherently in the filters themselves, it is in the way they shape people's beliefs unknowingly. Understanding that these filters exist give you the ability to start to think about how your beliefs may be being modified. The next step is empowering users to change these filters, modify them, so that if they /want/ to, they can use these filters, or they could switch them, to experience the opposite side of the story.
Again though, the first step is to acknowledge and raise awareness.
I get the idea about biases creeping in that you don't even know about. But it's pretty easy to do a search for the opposite of something. For example:
google Palestinian view
google Israeli view
I would be surprised if personalized search results got so extreme as to make that not work.
The problem of filtering out low quality or irrelevance is much harder. I believe I'm substantially better than the average person at finding things on the web yet I waste many hours per week trying to sift out high quality information on various subjects I'm researching. So I, for one, would welcome filtering that is far better and far more personalized than what exists today. And I don't want to have to spend hours per week fiddling with Yahoo Pipes or something along those lines in order to get there.
Whether any of the new attempts at automated personalized filtering will greatly improve quality/relevance is a separate question. The answer to that probably won't be known for years.
Well, in the TED talk there was example of two queries about Egypt made at the same time from different locations, and the first results page from one was completely missing information about unrests that were going on at that time. It's a little bit scary to me.
I think that the premise here, that by giving relevant results search engines will filter the diverse range of opinions which exist in the world, is intriguing. In the short term, I think it's unlikely that online personalization will be accurate enough to create the type of bubble Tim Berners-Lee is suggesting. In the long term, however, I do see this as significant and dangerous. Unlike the way current tribes work, in which a person needs to actively seek and follow their 'tribe', this is a passive action - over time web services get to know you and seemingly shield you from diversity. The passive vs active nature required to keep up with one's tribe is the part of his prediction which worries me.
In the short term, I think it's unlikely that online personalization will be accurate enough to create the type of bubble Tim Berners-Lee is suggesting.
The type of bubble TBL is suggesting is actually just the reddit hivemind. It already exists. People like it.
It seems to me that he's talking about computers personalizing based on their interactions with you passively.
However, I completely agree that reddit and almost all website that brings together like minded people will have this "bubble" effect. That, however, is nothing new. It's the same as similar groups of people going to the same church, or joining book clubs, or gathering in groups for any reason. The scary thing here is sites that everyone uses will begin to passively function in the same way, making it even less likely than ever for someone who isn't seeking out a diverse range of opinions to find them.
Also worth noting is that there is a moral assumption here that being exposed to a diverse range of opinions is a good thing. If you don't believe that, then this is a moot point.
Think about a world where anybody who could say anything that would possibly upset you (whether they're trolling or just calling you on your bullshit) are invisible.
Sometimes, the truth hurts. A filter bubble is a carefully engineered blinder, a space free of novel data.
If you're trying to understand your opponents' position in any kind of debate, yet your search engine carefully chauffeurs you away from any info that might upset you, you're trapped in a filter bubble.
("Bubble" has irrelevant economic connotations; "hall of mirrors"/"echo chamber" fits better, IMHO.)
Maybe it's about filters that create a bubble of Internet space for you, that contain only the things you like and nothing else? I think the image they use as a logo and used on TED talk is a pretty good visual analogy.
During the 2008 election I saw several filters available - Firefox plugins, special news searches, etc - that would hide links and stories from sites on the other side of the political spectrum. That's as clear cut example of a filter bubble that I can think of.
As I write this, I realize that I live in my own online filter bubble. I visit the same sites on a regular basis and don't venture out much except when following links from sites like HN. It is a filter, but it's self imposed. Instead of wasting a lot of time online, I gravitate toward communities that do the filtering for me. It may be a bubble, but the alternative would lead to wasting even more time online.
I completely agree. I'm having trouble imagining it as anything other than some kind of personalized online borders. I think coming up with a more easy to grok name for the issue is worthwhile. Any suggestions?
Indeed. Having been pretty heavily involved in 2 "filters" (digg as an insider, yc as a well-ranked participant) - the fundamental problem is that the filters trend towards complete control of the charismatic individual behind the site, while presenting a facade of "user democracy." Creeping moderation in the service of reducing spam is the essential mechanism. Eventually the only effective spam left is "suck up to the person in charge."
I was confused, too. I think the problem is that bubble in this sense (as something that envelopes you) is crossing cognitive wires with Dotcom Bubble 2.0 (market bubble), esp. here on HN.
Perhaps a curtain metaphor, a la The Iron Curtain: Velvet Curtain, Mirrored Curtain, Circular Curtain, Silk Curtain?
We certainly do create our own filters by what we subscribe to, how we moderate posts, or how we otherwise personalize our accounts.
There's an argument that people should self-police their own filtering to allow diversity to flourish, but these self-created filters aren't the issue, in my view.
The worry is when self-policing isn't an option, either because people aren't aware filtering is going on in the first place, or that they don't have any control over the filters.
There are two ways ahead here I think, but first we have to admit filters are everywhere. When googling something, I'm happy that Google filters out link farms and other content-free websites. When choosing to follow some people on Twitter, I filter out all other people I could follow. The other assumption is that automatic filtering is sometime successful and anyway increasingly necessary. Last assumption is that everyone needs both familiarity and a pinch of unfamiliar.
One way ahead is the way fashion works: present always the same thing and make believe that it is new. It requires a good amount of brainwashing, but it works very well. I hate it. This would enclose each part of the web in a set of provinces and people will eat information from their provinces only, with, sometime, a sticker "exotic" or "unseen" added, but it will be like Chinese food in the West: cheap Western dishes with a foreign name.
The other way is to have informal communities doing the filtering, like on HN. There must be a common denominator, but it can and should be traversal. I mean, here, I see posts about physics, drugs, laws, internet. The common denominator is something related to geekiness, but it is ok. It is still a place where I can discover things about the world.
That why I fight (and get downvotes) against some provincialisms I find on HN, like when someone unknowingly writes something that do not apply to non-Americans or non-Western people, or non-English natives.
I did notice something like the filter bubble effect in music recommendation engines. I fed my Last.fm profile with music I liked and upvotes, then started listening to my "favourites station" (sadly something I gave up a while back because they wouldn't play a thing anymore without asking for cash first). The noticeable result was that I was listening to the same set of songs while reinforcing the filter by never skipping and indicating I loved every single one.
I think filters are only making formal what most people do anyway. The Internet enables people like myself (and probably many here at HN) to find other viewpoints with little effort.
What counts is who is using viewpoint filters and how often they go outside for a look at the world. That's policy makers (who tend to stick to one of three cable networks), CEOs (CNBC is probably a main news source), and advocacy groups (think tanks and political niche sites).
Wouldn't people notice a difference between their actual understanding of the world and what gets past a particular filter?
For example, people will still drive down the street and see fast food restaurants. Why would they not believe they exist just because they never show up when they search for a restaurant online?
Just because you only see alternatives you like doesn't mean you forget there are alternatives you don't.
I wonder if technology could be made to offer the opposite effect. Once Google leans my habits well enough, it could show me the most popular hits for a certain query, that I'd never be usually shown. I could find out for example that Java is an island and a kind of coffee.
I think people are overlooking the fact that everyone has always lived in a filter bubble. There's an undeniable influence of your surroundings on your beliefs and knowledge about the world. To follow up on the example Berners-Lee gives: rich people are already unaware of the existence of cheap alternatives. On a fundamental level, they know they exist (if not because of direct contact, then because of fundamental knowledge of the way society works), but on a practical level, these alternatives aren't considered and they aren't advertised by their friends or by the media the rich consume.
People are only more broadly aware if they are open for, and looking for, alternative information. This has always been the case.
One of us is confused, and I'm not sure which. You realise Google shows different people different results, even if they put the same thing in the search query box?
I think they mean in the context of your search. This is what has annoyed me most about the "filter bubble" idea. If google doesn't return _relevant_ results, you'll go somewhere else. If I search for a steak restaurant and get results for KFC because, hey, Chicken deserves a chance, that result isn't relevant. If google shows different results for the _same_ query, but both are just a relevant to the searcher, than google is doing its job.
Which is the best browser to use? How do I manage 200 passwords? What's the best kind of AA battery to buy? How do I read web pages without getting distracted?
It can be pretty hard for a normal person to get good answers to questions like these. Googling won't necessarily get you good answers and many people won't even know to ask (many people don't know that their password practices are extremely risky, or that the little "e" they click on to access the internet is a browser).
What's needed are better filters. This backlash against filtering takes one very small subset of possible reasons to filter - avoiding contradictory information to controversial topics - and makes a grand leap to the conclusion that all filtering is bad.
By this argument, if I do a keyword search on "passwords," it would be best if I were served the random top 10 results that happen to have the word "password" somewhere in the title or one of the subheadings. That way I won't be subjected to harmful biases . . .
EDIT: typo