After listening to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism podcast: The truth behind filter bubbles by Richard Fletcher (2020), I have been enlightened on a topic I never would have thought held such immense significance in our lives. Filter bubbles.
What is a filter bubble, you may ask? A filter bubble is a state of intellectual or ideological isolation that may arise from algorithms feeding us the information we agree with based on our past behaviour and search history. However, there are advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it's incredibly convenient to find specialised content targeted towards your own personal interests. For example, I could open up TikTok and instantly land on a video that piques my interest.
But on the other hand, filter bubbles can produce cognitive biases and create an informational barrier around people. Doing so prevents them from seeing opposing points of view, resulting in a very narrow-minded train of thought. Critics of the filter bubble include Bill Gates, who believes "filter bubbles are a serious problem in the news", and Wired Magazine boldly wrote they are "destroying democracy."
The podcast explains that online news mainly has a young to middle-aged audience. In such an era where technology is thriving and growing at a tremendous rate, it is no surprise that Facebook is the dominant social media for news use. Interestingly, it is also a media highly scrutinised for its filter bubbles. However, these filter bubbles are not limited to social media exclusively. A range of other services, from search engines to emails, also use algorithms to deliver news to people.
Fletcher highlights the significance of personalisation and its relevance. A key distinction in terms of personalisation is between self-selected and pre-selected personalisation. Self-selected personalisation is when people choose what to consume and what to avoid. It is selective exposure. Pre-selected personalisation, however, happens to people without their knowledge. Because algorithms could be making choices on behalf of people, they may not be aware of it.
Knowing this, you may decide that offline news content would perhaps be better. However, it, too, is not without consequences. As humans, we naturally select the content that aligns with our political or social views. Many audiences still engage in personalisation when selecting their news sources. For example, a right-wing political supporter would probably pick up a right-wing newspaper instead of a left-wing one. It's ingrained in our human nature. This is because we prefer comfort and the easier option. It's not easy to seek out the truth, particularly when we discover we were wrong.
It is explained in the podcast that social media combines both types of personalisations. The news people see on their feeds corresponds to the people they follow, be it friends or particular news organisations. However, algorithms could essentially hide news from audiences and incidentally expose people to news even when they aren't looking for it.
Search engines, on the contrary, function a little differently because when people load up them up, they are intentionally trying to find news through searching key phrases. They are then provided with an abundance of sites to choose from. Although, it is possible that search engines may use algorithmic selection when providing information. This could stem from choices we have made in the past to give us the sites it thinks would engage us the most.
Even though we may be seeing more diversity when we use social media and search engines for news, it's explained that the diversity consists of more partisan and polarising news sources. Online news environments generally seem to be more polarising. Rarely will our Twitter comfort zones expose us to opposing views, and consequently, we could become victims to our own prejudices.
Listening to the podcast did elucidate things, and now I know the truth about filter bubbles. As explained, there are advantages and disadvantages. However, I would prefer to choose whether I can see opposing and differential views on my newsfeed instead of being limited to what the algorithm thinks best for me. More awareness should be brought to people about filter bubbles and how limiting they can be. We can burst the bubbles by consuming news from a variety of sites and actively seeking out both sides to arguments. We should be expanding the mind, not limiting it. We should cultivate a learning exchange as opposed to solely promoting our own ideas. People should educate themselves on the topic to recognise the profound effects of polarisation so we can all break free of our filter bubbles and consume news content in a varied and thought-provoking manner.
Comments
Post a Comment